...which does beg the question as to why we didn't do that.
It's in our nature to play by the rules. We are a nation that prides itself on the rule of law. Other European nations see laws and court rulings as obstacles.
Ken Clarke on the radio this morning said that as a nation we pay our bills, implying that the £39bn would be stumped up regardless. Meanwhile others (e.g. David Davis) claim a £39bn bonus from no-deal brexit.
Lol, the EU phile wanting to give money to the EU for nothing. If it's no deal we take on the pension liabilities and nothing else and we force a divestment of our share in the EU investment bank.
Are not pension liabilities a big part of the £39 billion and are there any other bills which we should pay if we want to have any international credibility? Genuine questions.
Yeah, a good fraction are legal liabilities. I think there's £15-20bn that's not a legal liability.
Personally thinking about military, economic, diplomatic, and cultural clout, I’d say the U.K. still performs quite high. I’d have us 3rd overall, after the US and China.
You don't think the diplomatic clout has taken a severe...er...clouting from its abject failure during Br****?
Oh yes. Brexit lessens our economic and diplomatic power considerably. In my (admittedly non-scientific measure), I think it pushes us down two or three rings.
Economically you might be right but only in the short term. Diplomatically; I think that depends entirely on whether you believe our diplomatic aims are always aligned with those of the EU. Something I think is very dubious as a claim.
Pre-Brexit we carried considerable clout *within* the EU. Post-Brexit, not so much.
We have had practically no 'clout' as you call it within the EU for the last couple of decades at least. What we did have was based upon us bargaining away things like rebates - not a sustainable position to be in. And being in the EU massively reduced our diplomatic clout in those le.
I just don’t recognise this blinkered view of Britain’s role in the EU. Our influence extended well beyond the rebate. From the single market, to Eastern enlargement, to work on the forthcoming digital services market etc.
Britain opposed measures proposed to the Council of Ministers on 72 occasions and was never successful. Going with the flow is not influence.
This has been debunked, along with bendy bananas, unaudited accounts, and thousands of other lies made up to make Tory neuralgics feel justified in their hatred of the EU because it isn’t coloured pink on the map.
If saying that only made it so, eh ?
Wake up, Andy. You’re being fooled, or fooling yourself.
Last time Yes only got 45% when they were insisting that free trade with the rest of the UK would continue uninterrupted.
If the Scottish Government proposes leaving a no-deal UK in order to join the EU and put up no-deal barriers with the UK then that's more challenging.
Everything is challenging, continuing to have debt piled on us by London parliament that seems mentally deranged looks far more challenging than going our own way and being part of EU.
What a shame the Holyrood Parliament isn't running a surplus. Would make it much easier to cut and run if you were.
That makes no sense. It is given a block grant. It cannot spend more than that grant. Most years it spends less.
attempt to conceal it. Not as cuddly as you might think the Danes would be.
My choice would have been “car disc”. Hungarians use “vignette”, which seems charming to English ears.
Vignette seems to be a standard term for these things in Europe. They have them in Switzerland as well.
That's a thought! It has to work for lorries and buses and van too (in fact it doesn't apply to private cars yet). I think a vignette is usually something to do with motorway access. Oh well, I've gone with permit, let's see if the Commission objects!
Quite a big part of my freelance business/second job is translating regulations from Danish and German to meet the requirement that all regulations affecting trade and transport must be available in all European languages - fortunately for me, they've decided that Brexit won't get rid of English. It's often quite interesting, but I can't say that diesel emission regulations really grab me. The best job I've ever had was from a German TV company, which wanted a synopsis of a 26-part crime series translated into English - it was so gripping that I translated way into the night to find out who killed whom...
No thanks. Why are you posting it? In more positive news, the Telegraph has employed William Sitwell (sacked by Waitrose because he outraged vegans with a joke) as restaurant critic, and my old buddy Peter Lilley has found 30 reasons to be cheerful about no deal.
Sitwell's 'joke' was pretty crass though - I think he had to go.
Luckily he's fallen on his feet. Veganism has taken over the BBC as I write.
Yes. It took over The Grauniad some time ago of course. I suspect we will reach peak-Vegan sometime this year.
(I expect it's more reasonable cousin Vegetarianism to continue to grow in popularity however.)
I'm a pescatarian, but I expect vegetarianism to continue to be squeezed by veganism as a long term trend. There's really no fundamental difference between the harm caused by eggs and dairy Vs the harm caused by meat. It's become so much easier to get a healthy diet as a vegan recently, and that seems like a trend that will self-reinforce rather than run out.
Except no animals are killed when you eat eggs and dairy as opposed to meat and you reduce the amount of protein you have even further and need to find alternatives to help protect your bones.
The real issue is improving conditions in abattoirs and farms, organic farming in particular is becoming more attractive.
My sister is a vegetarian but I myself have always taken the view that we as long as tigers, lions, wolves, crocodiles etc eat meat then so will I
snip
Which animals are killed in milk production?
Yours reads like an anti-abortion rant.
What do you think happens to all the male calves who can't be used for milk production? Why do you think we have veal?
Its tasty.
Indeed it is , snowflakes would rather they were cosseted for life as long as someone else is paying for it , meanwhile they are munching on their sawdust burgers
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
No thanks. Why are you posting it? In more positive news, the Telegraph has employed William Sitwell (sacked by Waitrose because he outraged vegans with a joke) as restaurant critic, and my old buddy Peter Lilley has found 30 reasons to be cheerful about no deal.
Sitwell's 'joke' was pretty crass though - I think he had to go.
Luckily he's fallen on his feet. Veganism has taken over the BBC as I write.
Yes. It took over The Grauniad some time ago of course. I suspect we will reach peak-Vegan sometime this year.
(I expect it's more reasonable cousin Vegetarianism to continue to grow in popularity however.)
I'm a pescatarian, but I expect vegetarianism to continue to be squeezed by veganism as a long term trend. There's really no fundamental difference between the harm caused by eggs and dairy Vs the harm caused by meat. It's become so much easier to get a healthy diet as a vegan recently, and that seems like a trend that will self-reinforce rather than run out.
Except no animals are killed when you eat eggs and dairy as opposed to meat and you reduce the amount of protein you have even further and need to find alternatives to help protect your bones.
The real issue is improving conditions in abattoirs and farms, organic farming in particular is becoming more attractive.
My sister is a vegetarian but I myself have always taken the view that we as long as tigers, lions, wolves, crocodiles etc eat meat then so will I
Animals absolutely are killed in the production of eggs and milk. The fact that you're more removed from it as a result of not eating their flesh is really pretty irrelevant.
And, er, okay? I'm happy with you making whatever dietry choice you want, but I'm not sure justifying it by saying you hold yourself to the moral standards of other species is a winner
Not directly animals are not killed by getting eggs or meat from them, no.
We have eaten meat for thousands of years, it is part of our evolutionary makeup
Unlike other animals, we can actually think about what we eat!
To lay my cards on the table, I have been a vegetarian since my 16th birthday in 1991.
Last time Yes only got 45% when they were insisting that free trade with the rest of the UK would continue uninterrupted.
If the Scottish Government proposes leaving a no-deal UK in order to join the EU and put up no-deal barriers with the UK then that's more challenging.
Everything is challenging, continuing to have debt piled on us by London parliament that seems mentally deranged looks far more challenging than going our own way and being part of EU.
What a shame the Holyrood Parliament isn't running a surplus. Would make it much easier to cut and run if you were.
unlike westminster they balance their budget every year, even had 400m spare last year, if only UK were as good. That with us paying share of UK debts as well, must make you pig sick.
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Resolving to leave the EU took a fair amount of self-confidence and national resolve. Nations with less resolve would have fallen for the 'Project Fear'.
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
No, No Deal makes Scottish independence far more likely as all the polling shows, the only polls showing Yes getting over 50% in any indyref2 come in the event of No Deal.
No Deal not only makes Scottish independence more likely it also increases the chance we either return to the EU or to Single Market and Customs Union BINO
Polls are utterly meaningless and irrelevant, that just shows people signalling that they don't want no deal. Doesn't mean they want to add fuel to the no deal fire.
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Resolving to leave the EU took a fair amount of self-confidence and national resolve. Nations with less resolve would have fallen for the 'Project Fear'.
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
No, No Deal makes Scottish independence far more likely as all the polling shows, the only polls showing Yes getting over 50% in any indyref2 come in the event of No Deal.
No Deal not only makes Scottish independence more likely it also increases the chance we either return to the EU or to Single Market and Customs Union BINO
Unlikely. Scotland already has the biggest fiscal deficit of any part of the U.K. and plenty of businesses based in Scotland like Weir Group would relocate south as they planned to do if Yes had won.
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Resolving to leave the EU took a fair amount of self-confidence and national resolve. Nations with less resolve would have fallen for the 'Project Fear'.
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
No, No Deal makes Scottish independence far more likely as all the polling shows, the only polls showing Yes getting over 50% in any indyref2 come in the event of No Deal.
No Deal not only makes Scottish independence more likely it also increases the chance we either return to the EU or to Single Market and Customs Union BINO
Unlikely. Scotland already has the biggest fiscal deficit of any part of the U.K. and plenty of businesses based in Scotland like Weir Group would relocate south as they planned to do if Yes had won.
Given plenty of businesses will be relocating from a No Deal UK to the EU anyway Scots may still take the risk
Personally thinking about military, economic, diplomatic, and cultural clout, I’d say the U.K. still performs quite high. I’d have us 3rd overall, after the US and China.
You don't think the diplomatic clout has taken a severe...er...clouting from its abject failure during Br****?
Oh yes. Brexit lessens our economic and diplomatic power considerably. In my (admittedly non-scientific measure), I think it pushes us down two or three rings.
Pre-Brexit we carried considerable clout *within* the EU. Post-Brexit, not so much.
We have had practically no 'clout' as you call it within the EU for the last couple of decades at least. What we did have was based upon us bargaining away things like rebates - not a sustainable position to be in. And being in the EU massively reduced our diplomatic clout in those le.
I just don’t recognise this blinkered view of Britain’s role in the EU. Our influence extended well beyond the rebate. From the single market, to Eastern enlargement, to work on the forthcoming digital services market etc.
Britain opposed measures proposed to the Council of Ministers on 72 occasions and was never successful. Going with the flow is not influence.
This has been debunked, along with bendy bananas, unaudited accounts, and thousands of other lies made up to make Tory neuralgics feel justified in their hatred of the EU because it isn’t coloured pink on the map.
If saying that only made it so, eh ?
Wake up, Andy. You’re being fooled, or fooling yourself.
Having read that, one of us is certainly fooling themselves and it’s not me. Nothing specific in there to provide comfort to your argument at all whereas it does confirm the factual accuracy of what I said. You’re clutching at straws if that is all you have.
No thanks. Why are you posting it? In more positive news, the Telegraph has employed William Sitwell (sacked by Waitrose because he outraged vegans with a joke) as restaurant critic, and my old buddy Peter Lilley has found 30 reasons to be cheerful about no deal.
Sitwell's 'joke' was pretty crass though - I think he had to go.
Luckily he's fallen on his feet. Veganism has taken over the BBC as I write.
Yes. It took over The Grauniad some time ago of course. I suspect we will reach peak-Vegan sometime this year.
(I expect it's more reasonable cousin Vegetarianism to continue to grow in popularity however.)
I'm ut.
Except no animals are killed when you eat eggs and dairy as opposed to meat and you reduce the amount of protein you have even further and need to find alternatives to help protect your bones.
The real issue is improving conditions in abattoirs and farms, organic farming in particular is becoming more attractive.
My sister is a vegetarian but I myself have always taken the view that we as long as tigers, lions, wolves, crocodiles etc eat meat then so will I
Animals absolutely are killed in the production of eggs and milk. The fact that you're more removed from it as a result of not eating their flesh is really pretty irrelevant.
And, er, okay? I'm happy with you making whatever dietry choice you want, but I'm not sure justifying it by saying you hold yourself to the moral standards of other species is a winner
Not directly animals are not killed by getting eggs or meat from them, no.
We have eaten meat for thousands of years, it is part of our evolutionary makeup
Unlike other animals, we can actually think about what we eat!
To lay my cards on the table, I have been a vegetarian since my 16th birthday in 1991.
Who says animals never think about what they eat? Unless you are an animal how do you know?
...which does beg the question as to why we didn't do that.
It's in our nature to play by the rules. We are a nation that prides itself on the rule of law. Other European nations see laws and court rulings as obstacles.
Ken Clarke on the radio this morning said that as a nation we pay our bills, implying that the £39bn would be stumped up regardless. Meanwhile others (e.g. David Davis) claim a £39bn bonus from no-deal brexit.
The question is what proportion of the £39bn are our bills. Certainly two years continued membership of the EU during transition would not be due, saving £20bn odd. The Lords Committee determined most other payments were not legally binding but we could pay them in exchange for concessions by the EU eg by continued membership of the GPS competitor.
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Resolving to leave the EU took a fair amount of self-confidence and national resolve. Nations with less resolve would have fallen for the 'Project Fear'.
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Resolving to leave the EU took a fair amount of self-confidence and national resolve. Nations with less resolve would have fallen for the 'Project Fear'.
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
No, No Deal makes Scottish independence far more likely as all the polling shows, the only polls showing Yes getting over 50% in any indyref2 come in the event of No Deal.
No Deal not only makes Scottish independence more likely it also increases the chance we either return to the EU or to Single Market and Customs Union BINO
Unlikely. Scotland already has the biggest fiscal deficit of any part of the U.K. and plenty of businesses based in Scotland like Weir Group would relocate south as they planned to do if Yes had won.
No thanks. Why are you posting it? In more positive news, the Telegraph has employed William Sitwell (sacked by Waitrose because he outraged vegans with a joke) as restaurant critic, and my old buddy Peter Lilley has found 30 reasons to be cheerful about no deal.
Sitwell's 'joke' was pretty crass though - I think he had to go.
Luckily he's fallen on his feet. Veganism has taken over the BBC as I write.
Yes. It took over The Grauniad some time ago of course. I suspect we will reach peak-Vegan sometime this year.
(I expect it's more reasonable cousin Vegetarianism to continue to grow in popularity however.)
I'm a pescatarian, but I expect vegetarianism to continue to be squeezed by veganism as a long term trend. There's really no fundamental difference between the harm caused by eggs and dairy Vs the harm caused by meat. It's become so much easier to get a healthy diet as a vegan recently, and that seems like a trend that will self-reinforce rather than run out.
Except no animals are killed when you eat eggs and dairy as opposed to meat and you reduce the amount of protein you have even further and need to find alternatives to help protect your bones.
The real issue is improving conditions in abattoirs and farms, organic farming in particular is becoming more attractive.
My sister is a vegetarian but I myself have always taken the view that we as long as tigers, lions, wolves, crocodiles etc eat meat then so will I
Animals absolutely are killed in the production of eggs and milk. The fact that you're more removed from it as a result of not eating their flesh is really pretty irrelevant.
And, er, okay? I'm happy with you making whatever dietry choice you want, but I'm not sure justifying it by saying you hold yourself to the moral standards of other species is a winner
Don't forget the thousands of silk worms boiled alive to make silk!
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
No, No Deal makes Scottish independence far more likely as all the polling shows, the only polls showing Yes getting over 50% in any indyref2 come in the event of No Deal.
No Deal not only makes Scottish independence more likely it also increases the chance we either return to the EU or to Single Market and Customs Union BINO
Unlikely. Scotland already has the biggest fiscal deficit of any part of the U.K. and plenty of businesses based in Scotland like Weir Group would relocate south as they planned to do if Yes had won.
Given plenty of businesses will be relocating from a No Deal UK to the EU anyway Scots may still take the risk
May is not will. Have seen businesses relocating parts of their business to the EU but not wholesale relocation.
No thanks. Why are you posting it? In more positive news, the Telegraph has employed William Sitwell (sacked by Waitrose because he outraged vegans with a joke) as restaurant critic, and my old buddy Peter Lilley has found 30 reasons to be cheerful about no deal.
Sitwell's 'joke' was pretty crass though - I think he had to go.
Luckily he's fallen on his feet. Veganism has taken over the BBC as I write.
Yes. It took over The Grauniad some time ago of course. I suspect we will reach peak-Vegan sometime this year.
(I expect it's more reasonable cousin Vegetarianism to continue to grow in popularity however.)
I'm ut.
Except no animals are killed when you eat eggs and dairy as opposed to meat and you reduce the amount of protein you have even further and need to find alternatives to help protect your bones.
The real issue is improving conditions in abattoirs and farms, organic farming in particular is becoming more attractive.
My sister is a vegetarian but I myself have always taken the view that we as long as tigers, lions, wolves, crocodiles etc eat meat then so will I
Animals absolutely are killed in the production of eggs and milk. The fact that you're more removed from it as a result of not eating their flesh is really pretty irrelevant.
And, er, okay? I'm happy with you making whatever dietry choice you want, but I'm not sure justifying it by saying you hold yourself to the moral standards of other species is a winner
Not directly animals are not killed by getting eggs or meat from them, no.
We have eaten meat for thousands of years, it is part of our evolutionary makeup
Unlike other animals, we can actually think about what we eat!
To lay my cards on the table, I have been a vegetarian since my 16th birthday in 1991.
Who says animals never think about what they eat? Unless you are an animal how do you know?
If you are so concerned about how animals think, why are you so eager to eat them?!
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
They must sense your Veganism......
I am many things, but I am not a vegan. I therefore don't have vegan special powers. I'm also not vegetarian, and have never even tried to be. Going without meat just doesn't appeal to me.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
Richmond Park?
Epping Forest? Although the deer are much wilder up there normally (albeit magnificent)
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
They must sense your Veganism......
I am many things, but I am not a vegan. I therefore don't have vegan special powers. I'm also not vegetarian, and have never even tried to be. Going without meat just doesn't appeal to me.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
I have gone pescatarian for January just to be different. Fine so far and seems to be doing my insides much good.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
They must sense your Veganism......
I am many things, but I am not a vegan. I therefore don't have vegan special powers. I'm also not vegetarian, and have never even tried to be. Going without meat just doesn't appeal to me.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Resolving to leave the EU took a fair amount of self-confidence and national resolve. Nations with less resolve would have fallen for the 'Project Fear'.
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
No, No Deal makes Scottish independence far more likely as all the polling shows, the only polls showing Yes getting over 50% in any indyref2 come in the event of No Deal.
No Deal not only makes Scottish independence more likely it also increases the chance we either return to the EU or to Single Market and Customs Union BINO
Unlikely. Scotland already has the biggest fiscal deficit of any part of the U.K. and plenty of businesses based in Scotland like Weir Group would relocate south as they planned to do if Yes had won.
Given plenty of businesses will be relocating from a No Deal UK to the EU anyway Scots may still take the risk
On the same basis England will thrive with import substitution for goods from the rest of the EU.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
Richmond Park?
Epping Forest? Although the deer are much wilder up there normally (albeit magnificent)
No, but nearer.
I was doing the London Loop (24 miles from Loughton to Rainham). The deer were near Carter's Brook in Harold Hill (northeastern London for those unfamiliar). On an area of well-used grass just downslope from some houses.
Now I've got to wait for Mrs J to stop playing games so I can take the piccies off my camera to see if I got any decent ones ...
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
They must sense your Veganism......
I am many things, but I am not a vegan. I therefore don't have vegan special powers. I'm also not vegetarian, and have never even tried to be. Going without meat just doesn't appeal to me.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
I think you mean venison!
Indeed. In my defence, I've just done a 24-mile walk and driven for an hour home, and have yet to have dinner (mind you, I have zero appetite, as is often the case after a walk).
But yes, a nice venison steak would go down nicely.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
They must sense your Veganism......
I am many things, but I am not a vegan. I therefore don't have vegan special powers. I'm also not vegetarian, and have never even tried to be. Going without meat just doesn't appeal to me.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
I have gone pescatarian for January just to be different. Fine so far and seems to be doing my insides much good.
Hope it goes well for you. Mrs J is pescetarian (she was vegetarian for years, but it wasn't doing her any good). Wating fish occasionally has helped her out a lot.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
They must sense your Veganism......
I am many things, but I am not a vegan. I therefore don't have vegan special powers. I'm also not vegetarian, and have never even tried to be. Going without meat just doesn't appeal to me.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
I have gone pescatarian for January just to be different. Fine so far and seems to be doing my insides much good.
Waitrose have 20% of the fishmongers every friday. Lovely Scottish Mussels and Oysters (63p) ans scallops. If you want recipes greatbritishchefs.com is good.
The start of your walk was probably less than a mile from Epping Forest, so I’ll claim a conciliation cheque book and pen!
Unfortunately Harrold Hill is quite a way from Epping Forest, with at least one other forest in between. But as I'm generous I'll still give you a conciliatory chequebook and pen.
(I still use my chequebook regularly, though I use it much less than I used to.)
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
Richmond Park?
Epping Forest? Although the deer are much wilder up there normally (albeit magnificent)
No, but nearer.
I was doing the London Loop (24 miles from Loughton to Rainham). The deer were near Carter's Brook in Harold Hill (northeastern London for those unfamiliar). On an area of well-used grass just downslope from some houses.
Now I've got to wait for Mrs J to stop playing games so I can take the piccies off my camera to see if I got any decent ones ...
Epping Forest is huge, stretching all the way from Epping, through Loughton, Woodford, and Wanstead.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
Richmond Park?
Epping Forest? Although the deer are much wilder up there normally (albeit magnificent)
No, but nearer.
I was doing the London Loop (24 miles from Loughton to Rainham). The deer were near Carter's Brook in Harold Hill (northeastern London for those unfamiliar). On an area of well-used grass just downslope from some houses.
Now I've got to wait for Mrs J to stop playing games so I can take the piccies off my camera to see if I got any decent ones ...
Epping Forest is huge, stretching all the way from Epping, through Loughton, Woodford, and Wanstead.
Yes, but it's nowhere near Harrold Hill.
(Well, it's within walking distance if you're that mad, or if you don't realise London has a rather excellent public transport system.)
The start of your walk was probably less than a mile from Epping Forest, so I’ll claim a conciliation cheque book and pen!
Unfortunately Harrold Hill is quite a way from Epping Forest, with at least one other forest in between. But as I'm generous I'll still give you a conciliatory chequebook and pen.
(I still use my chequebook regularly, though I use it much less than I used to.)
I know - I said the START of your walk (Loughton is next to the forest)
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
They must sense your Veganism......
I am many things, but I am not a vegan. I therefore don't have vegan special powers. I'm also not vegetarian, and have never even tried to be. Going without meat just doesn't appeal to me.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
I have gone pescatarian for January just to be different. Fine so far and seems to be doing my insides much good.
Hope it goes well for you. Mrs J is pescetarian (she was vegetarian for years, but it wasn't doing her any good). Wating fish occasionally has helped her out a lot.
I love fish and if forced to give up meat or fish I’d concede the meat. Four days in and not missed meat at all.
The start of your walk was probably less than a mile from Epping Forest, so I’ll claim a conciliation cheque book and pen!
Unfortunately Harrold Hill is quite a way from Epping Forest, with at least one other forest in between. But as I'm generous I'll still give you a conciliatory chequebook and pen.
(I still use my chequebook regularly, though I use it much less than I used to.)
I know - I said the START of your walk (Loughton is next to the forest)
Many places within the M25 are within 24 mile walk of Loughton. It's therefore of limited relevance ...
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
They must sense your Veganism......
I am many things, but I am not a vegan. I therefore don't have vegan special powers. I'm also not vegetarian, and have never even tried to be. Going without meat just doesn't appeal to me.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
I have gone pescatarian for January just to be different. Fine so far and seems to be doing my insides much good.
Waitrose have 20% of the fishmongers every friday. Lovely Scottish Mussels and Oysters (63p) ans scallops. If you want recipes greatbritishchefs.com is good.
That I didn’t know but will check it out. Thanks for the tip!
Last time Yes only got 45% when they were insisting that free trade with the rest of the UK would continue uninterrupted.
If the Scottish Government proposes leaving a no-deal UK in order to join the EU and put up no-deal barriers with the UK then that's more challenging.
Everything is challenging, continuing to have debt piled on us by London parliament that seems mentally deranged looks far more challenging than going our own way and being part of EU.
What a shame the Holyrood Parliament isn't running a surplus. Would make it much easier to cut and run if you were.
That makes no sense. It is given a block grant. It cannot spend more than that grant. Most years it spends less.
But if it the SNP were doing things properly, they would be sending £1b back to the UK exchequer. That there not is definitive proof of their fiscal incompetence.
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Resolving to leave the EU took a fair amount of self-confidence and national resolve. Nations with less resolve would have fallen for the 'Project Fear'.
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
No, No Deal makes Scottish independence far more likely as all the polling shows, the only polls showing Yes getting over 50% in any indyref2 come in the event of No Deal.
No Deal not only makes Scottish independence more likely it also increases the chance we either return to the EU or to Single Market and Customs Union BINO
Unlikely. Scotland already has the biggest fiscal deficit of any part of the U.K. and plenty of businesses based in Scotland like Weir Group would relocate south as they planned to do if Yes had won.
Must be a refreshing change to do some of yer actual scaremongering rather than whining about it.
I just don’t recognise this blinkered view of Britain’s role in the EU. Our influence extended well beyond the rebate. From the single market, to Eastern enlargement, to work on the forthcoming digital services market etc.
But I sense this is where core Remainers and Brexiters part ways, because - it seems to me - Brexiters simply feel in their hearts that Britain was diminished by negotiation rather than enhanced. They don’t want to be part of any club they can’t dominate, and they are forever furious about made-up slights they read about in the Telegraph or Mail.
The point being that there was no negotiation to be had once the core of EU countries - of which we were never going to be a part because we did not share their particular vision for the Union - were in a position to dominate.
And my reading material for more years than I care to remember has been the Guardian. Even with its clear bias it still contains by far the best journalism of the last 20 years or more.
This has been debunked, along with bendy bananas, unaudited accounts, and thousands of other lies made up to make Tory neuralgics feel justified in their hatred of the EU because it isn’t coloured pink on the map.
No it hasn't. You just don't like it so you put your own spin on it which, like the rest of your views pf the EU, are far removed from reality.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
Richmond Park?
Epping Forest? Although the deer are much wilder up there normally (albeit magnificent)
No, but nearer.
I was doing the London Loop (24 miles from Loughton to Rainham). The deer were near Carter's Brook in Harold Hill (northeastern London for those unfamiliar). On an area of well-used grass just downslope from some houses.
Now I've got to wait for Mrs J to stop playing games so I can take the piccies off my camera to see if I got any decent ones ...
Epping Forest is huge, stretching all the way from Epping, through Loughton, Woodford, and Wanstead.
Yes, but it's nowhere near Harrold Hill.
(Well, it's within walking distance if you're that mad, or if you don't realise London has a rather excellent public transport system.)
The start of your walk was probably less than a mile from Epping Forest, so I’ll claim a conciliation cheque book and pen!
Unfortunately Harrold Hill is quite a way from Epping Forest, with at least one other forest in between. But as I'm generous I'll still give you a conciliatory chequebook and pen.
(I still use my chequebook regularly, though I use it much less than I used to.)
I know - I said the START of your walk (Loughton is next to the forest)
Many places within the M25 are within 24 mile walk of Loughton. It's therefore of limited relevance ...
I just don’t recognise this blinkered view of Britain’s role in the EU. Our influence extended well beyond the rebate. From the single market, to Eastern enlargement, to work on the forthcoming digital services market etc.
But I sense this is where core Remainers and Brexiters part ways, because - it seems to me - Brexiters simply feel in their hearts that Britain was diminished by negotiation rather than enhanced. They don’t want to be part of any club they can’t dominate, and they are forever furious about made-up slights they read about in the Telegraph or Mail.
The point being that there was no negotiation to be had once the core of EU countries - of which we were never going to be a part because we did not share their particular vision for the Union - were in a position to dominate.
Does Macron have the same ideas as Merkel?
The 'vision' is a space for perpetual negotiation underpinned by common political institutions and the rule of law. It's one we absolutely shared with the core founding members.
The Democratic de facto leader until their presidential nominee is chosen is now Nancy Pelosi, having been voted Speaker of the House of Representatives last week she is now the most powerful US politician after Trump. As a very tough operator and effective legislator Pelosi will not back down an inch as neither will Trump and I expect it will pave the way for a very partisan 2020 campaign, with the Democrats choosing a populist like Sanders or Warren to take the fight to Trump
I really can't see Warren being picked at all - unless the Dems want a repeat of 2016. She would be Trump's choice - Pocohontas or Liarwatha as she would constantly be labelled by him.
Just to speculate, if Warren wanted to play that game she might call Trump something like "Custer" or "Littlehorn". There must be many possibilities. The trouble with that is that she would be being drawn into Trump's game, so it'd be better for a colleague or, better, a journalist, to push it.
...which does beg the question as to why we didn't do that.
It's in our nature to play by the rules. We are a nation that prides itself on the rule of law. Other European nations see laws and court rulings as obstacles.
Ken Clarke on the radio this morning said that as a nation we pay our bills, implying that the £39bn would be stumped up regardless. Meanwhile others (e.g. David Davis) claim a £39bn bonus from no-deal brexit.
Lol, the EU phile wanting to give money to the EU for nothing. If it's no deal we take on the pension liabilities and nothing else and we force a divestment of our share in the EU investment bank.
Are not pension liabilities a big part of the £39 billion and are there any other bills which we should pay if we want to have any international credibility? Genuine questions.
I think Robert (apologies if it was not) did an assessment of this a few months back that came up with a number of around a third of that £39 billion being money we would feel honour bound to pay as part of our commitments. Then includes pension liabilities and commitments we have already made to programmes that run over the end of our membership. This seems reasonable to me.
Much of the rest of the £39 billion was made up of the two years extra contributions we would make after March 2019 in the transition period. Again it seems reasonable to say that if there is no transition period because there is no deal then we could not, reasonably, be held liable for those payments.
So I would suggest our honour bound commitments are probably around £13 billion in total.
How delusional can one be? I don’t think even JRM would claim such a thing.
Some of the detail in the HJS report is truly bizarre:
I think we still score quite highly in likeability and cultural influence, but I'm no idea what they mean by our splendid "national resolve". To have national resolve you have to agree that you want to do something. At present, Parliament gives the impression or not being able to resolve its way out of a paper bag. And why Canada rules the globe in respect is pretty baffling too - nice place and all that, but...
Resolving to leave the EU took a fair amount of self-confidence and national resolve. Nations with less resolve would have fallen for the 'Project Fear'.
Hence the big fearties in Scotland were too afraid to vote Yes, while Albion with the resolve of lions chose to leap into the unknown despite the warnings.
Yet only by 52% and with barely any polls showing a majority want No Deal.
No Deal on the other hand may be the final push Scots need to vote for independence having been promised in 2014 the best of both worlds and staying in the UK and the EU, not being dragged out of the EU with no agreement to replace it at all
No deal makes Scottish independence less likely as it presents as a warning to how difficult an exit actually is and would force the Scots to choose between Britain and the EU.
No, No Deal makes Scottish independence far more likely as all the polling shows, the only polls showing Yes getting over 50% in any indyref2 come in the event of No Deal.
No Deal not only makes Scottish independence more likely it also increases the chance we either return to the EU or to Single Market and Customs Union BINO
Unlikely. Scotland already has the biggest fiscal deficit of any part of the U.K. and plenty of businesses based in Scotland like Weir Group would relocate south as they planned to do if Yes had won.
Must be a refreshing change to do some of yer actual scaremongering rather than whining about it.
Except I didn’t. Still, enjoyable for you to pretend otherwise on a Saturday night.
I just don’t recognise this blinkered view of Britain’s role in the EU. Our influence extended well beyond the rebate. From the single market, to Eastern enlargement, to work on the forthcoming digital services market etc.
But I sense this is where core Remainers and Brexiters part ways, because - it seems to me - Brexiters simply feel in their hearts that Britain was diminished by negotiation rather than enhanced. They don’t want to be part of any club they can’t dominate, and they are forever furious about made-up slights they read about in the Telegraph or Mail.
The point being that there was no negotiation to be had once the core of EU countries - of which we were never going to be a part because we did not share their particular vision for the Union - were in a position to dominate.
Does Macron have the same ideas as Merkel?
The 'vision' is a space for perpetual negotiation underpinned by common political institutions and the rule of law. It's one we absolutely shared with the core founding members.
The vision is the one you share but which places you in a tiny minority of British voters which is of a single state of Europe. No matter how much you might pine for it, it is not a view that has ever had power in Britain.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
Richmond Park?
Epping Forest? Although the deer are much wilder up there normally (albeit magnificent)
No, but nearer.
I was doing the London Loop (24 miles from Loughton to Rainham). The deer were near Carter's Brook in Harold Hill (northeastern London for those unfamiliar). On an area of well-used grass just downslope from some houses.
Now I've got to wait for Mrs J to stop playing games so I can take the piccies off my camera to see if I got any decent ones ...
Evening Josias, I had a pleasent run that went from one end of Wales to the other today
...which does beg the question as to why we didn't do that.
It's in our nature to play by the rules. We are a nation that prides itself on the rule of law. Other European nations see laws and court rulings as obstacles.
Ken Clarke on the radio this morning said that as a nation we pay our bills, implying that the £39bn would be stumped up regardless. Meanwhile others (e.g. David Davis) claim a £39bn bonus from no-deal brexit.
Lol, the EU phile wanting to give money to the EU for nothing. If it's no deal we take on the pension liabilities and nothing else and we force a divestment of our share in the EU investment bank.
Are not pension liabilities a big part of the £39 billion and are there any other bills which we should pay if we want to have any international credibility? Genuine questions.
I think Robert (apologies if it was not) did an assessment of this a few months back that came up with a number of around a third of that £39 billion being money we would feel honour bound to pay as part of our commitments. Then includes pension liabilities and commitments we have already made to programmes that run over the end of our membership. This seems reasonable to me.
Much of the rest of the £39 billion was made up of the two years extra contributions we would make after March 2019 in the transition period. Again it seems reasonable to say that if there is no transition period because there is no deal then we could not, reasonably, be held liable for those payments.
So I would suggest our honour bound commitments are probably around £13 billion in total.
That is correct, although the recent weakness of Sterling has probably pushed the pound value up slightly. We would certainly not be on the hook for the c. £22bn of payments during the transition period, and there are a number of other areas where I think we would be able to walk away justifiably.
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
Richmond Park?
Epping Forest? Although the deer are much wilder up there normally (albeit magnificent)
No, but nearer.
I was doing the London Loop (24 miles from Loughton to Rainham). The deer were near Carter's Brook in Harold Hill (northeastern London for those unfamiliar). On an area of well-used grass just downslope from some houses.
Now I've got to wait for Mrs J to stop playing games so I can take the piccies off my camera to see if I got any decent ones ...
Evening Josias, I had a pleasent run that went from one end of Wales to the other today
I've got to ask: what?
(there is a walk across Wales every year. But that's 45 miles, and much further than I'd like to walk in a day. I think the record is for someone to do that 45 miles two and a half times in 24 hours. Crazy ...)
I just don’t recognise this blinkered view of Britain’s role in the EU. Our influence extended well beyond the rebate. From the single market, to Eastern enlargement, to work on the forthcoming digital services market etc.
But I sense this is where core Remainers and Brexiters part ways, because - it seems to me - Brexiters simply feel in their hearts that Britain was diminished by negotiation rather than enhanced. They don’t want to be part of any club they can’t dominate, and they are forever furious about made-up slights they read about in the Telegraph or Mail.
The point being that there was no negotiation to be had once the core of EU countries - of which we were never going to be a part because we did not share their particular vision for the Union - were in a position to dominate.
Does Macron have the same ideas as Merkel?
The 'vision' is a space for perpetual negotiation underpinned by common political institutions and the rule of law. It's one we absolutely shared with the core founding members.
The vision is the one you share but which places you in a tiny minority of British voters which is of a single state of Europe. No matter how much you might pine for it, it is not a view that has ever had power in Britain.
Talking about a ‘single’ state is completely misleading and projects a UK-centric ethos of untrammelled parliamentary sovereignty onto something that is quite different.
Right now, the YouGov polls show that President Trump has taken the bulk of the blame for the shutdown. The Democrat line of "We'll get government funded, including the the DHS, and then we can talk about the wall" has - so far - come across as the reasonable one.
The Senate Republicans have mostly held firm, although there have been a couple that have wavered, such as Olympia Snow and the Senator for Colorado.
The question becomes:
1. What could the Democrats extract from the President from agreeing the Wall? Canada gave Trump an agreement on the new trade deal, but only in return for the US agreeing to provisions for protecting LBGT workers. (Which has infuriated the religious right.) Trump is so desperate to boast of getting his wall, maybe he'll agree something else that infuriates his party. (Are the Dems smart enough to get him to agree something that peels off some support from the religious right? I suspect not...)
or
2. Are there another eight or so Republicans Senators that would agree something that would mean the President could not veto the spending bill? My money is on "no", but if the Democrats offered $2bn for a bit of the Wall, and another $2bn for other border security measures, then they might...
or
3. Will public opinion shift enough that the Democrats feel they *have* to open government again. Historically, in these Congress vs The President fights, it's Congress who gets the blame and backs down. So far that hasn't happened...
It is worth remembering that something like 0.8% of all employees in the US are currently not getting paid. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it might mean that more than 1% of households have lost at least one income. That might flow through into worse economic numbers in early 2019. Given how negative some of the forward looking indicators have already turned, the US economy does not need this...
A second referendum can't be held in time without an act overriding the time clauses in the PPERA. Such an act would not be passed by this Parliament, because this Parliament is a sack of [REDACTED].
The UK could apply to the EU for an extension but that is within the gift of Theresa May only and she might not do so and cannot be forced.
Labour cannot make a second referendum happen and its leader does not want one.
These are the people who rule us or aspire to rule us. They do not seem to be suited for such high office...
"What do you think happens to all the male calves who can't be used for milk production? Why do you think we have veal?"
Well, most of them get raised for beef as milking cows are usually mated with a beef breed bull. While not as meaty as a 100% beef breed these crosses are still fairly meaty. The same goes for there cross bred sisters.
On the occasions when the farmer wants replacement milking cows he has the option of artificial insemination using sexed sperm so the calves would be guaranteed female. (The way the sperm is sexed is with a centrifuge as female sperm are heavier.)
If for some reason the farmer wanted to try to breed a replacement milking cow from a particular Dam but AI was not suitable for some reason or they chose not to used sexed sperm, then yes an unwanted male calf might be produced. These calves are normally shipped off at just over a week old to be humanely killed, then go into dog food.
Interesting question for the psephologists here. I've been thinking about the possibility of a second referendum and decided to look up the result of the Winchester by election from 1997. Mark Oaten achieved a pretty remarkable 37,006 votes. Does anyone know what the record is for votes in a by election and whether this is any kind of record?
Interesting question for the psephologists here. I've been thinking about the possibility of a second referendum and decided to look up the result of the Winchester by election from 1997. Mark Oaten achieved a pretty remarkable 37,006 votes. Does anyone know what the record is for votes in a by election and whether this is any kind of record?
Does Mark Oaten have a place in history.
I recall the LDs got about 37,500 at the Newbury by-election in 1993.
I did this one. There were loads of Brexit questions.
Are you the one responsible for the UKIP boost?
Yes, I love Tommy Robinson, a hero for our times and unfairly disparaged because of his serial prison sentences for violence, mortgage fraud and attempted passport fraud.
I get the impression that Corbyn's economic policies, like higher taxes on the wealthy and nationalisation, are quite popular with most people, and if they were just voting on economic issues he would win the election. The problem is that a lot of voters don't like his social policies (outside the big cities and university towns).
Interesting question for the psephologists here. I've been thinking about the possibility of a second referendum and decided to look up the result of the Winchester by election from 1997. Mark Oaten achieved a pretty remarkable 37,006 votes. Does anyone know what the record is for votes in a by election and whether this is any kind of record?
Interesting question for the psephologists here. I've been thinking about the possibility of a second referendum and decided to look up the result of the Winchester by election from 1997. Mark Oaten achieved a pretty remarkable 37,006 votes. Does anyone know what the record is for votes in a by election and whether this is any kind of record?
It's often cheaper to kill male calves and chicks than to raise them for meat, so they're dying for your milk and eggs. Even if they are sold on, they're still then going to be raised and slaughtered for meat, which vegans are unlikely to want to support even indirectly (I'm not completely sure, but it seems likely that the increase in supply of animals would lower the price, and so it'd subsidise meat-eating).
In theory you could have farms which keep all the animals produced as a side-effect of egg and dairy production and let them live out their natural lifespan. Possibly this exists somewhere, targeted at animal welfare-conscious consumers, but it's certainly not the norm, and would be extremely expensive.
Honestly this is all pretty obvious and widely known, so I'm not sure which part you were having trouble with.
When the government shutdown ends, are the furloughed employees back-paid for that period, or are they genuinely effectively working for free during the shutdown?
They are furloughed - so they are not working.
Americans tend not to get paid holiday.
So that's what meant by the Land of the Free, eh. Wonderful country. No holiday pay, no sickness insurance unless you pay for it, gerrymandered elections, racial inequality.
The US is a country which is fine if you are rich, investment bankers, corporate lawyers and surgeons and CEOs etc earn even more there than here and can easily afford private schools and private health insurance, nannies and be able to take expensive holidays.
However if you are a middle earner or poor or out of work the US provides no holiday pay, no maternity or paternity leave, no unemployment benefits without having made enough insurance payments and then time limited and no state healthcare unless for the very poor or retired. If you are in those groups Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Western Europe provide more support and more of a safety net than the US
The American political right/south has convinced the poor white southern voter to consistently vote against their own economic self interest with an aggressive brand of identity politics where it is far more important to deny good things to African Americans than to have good things themselves.
I've seen it stated somewhere there is a negative correlation between welfare spending in a state and *Black people in a state.
*Think that is how I heard it but unsure if BAME or including mixed race people with some Black heritage.
I don’t know the analysis you are referring but I think it’s well established that support for welfare goes up for more homogenous communities
(Which implies what you are saying but suggests it’s not “simplistic” racism that is driving it)
Wildly O/T as it's a quiet day: what would you call a certificate that you need to put on your windscreen to show your vehicle is eligible to enter somewhere? A carnet? I'm doing a 26,000-word translation of Danish environmental rules, and have been scratching my head all day for a word that implies being affixed to the windscreen, like our old DVLA disks used to be (they require them for diesel vehicles entering congested areas, as evidence that you have an efficient particulate filter).
I get the impression that Corbyn's economic policies, like higher taxes on the wealthy and nationalisation, are quite popular with most people, and if they were just voting on economic issues he would win the election. The problem is that a lot of voters don't like his social policies (outside the big cities and university towns).
I think it's more the man himself than his position on social issues - which he rarely articulates particularly strongly. He's just polarising and much as he enthuses some he alienates a significant section of his potential voter pool for various reasons - voters looking for competence and steady leadership may find the Tories laughable but look at him as equally reckless, remainers deeply mistrust him, the Matthew Parris tendency in the Tories who might jump ship fear one thing more than Brexit, Corbyn. To working class waverers he's just a bit of an Islington know-nothing.
When it comes down to it, policies don't generally win elections except by them telling people who you are. More people don't like who Corbyn is than like who he is, and perhaps, as importantly, among them are the key blocks to building a liberal-left coalition that could beat the Conservative-nationalist one coalescing around Brexit.
No thanks. Why are you posting it? In more positive news, the Telegraph has employed William Sitwell (sacked by Waitrose because he outraged vegans with a joke) as restaurant critic, and my old buddy Peter Lilley has found 30 reasons to be cheerful about no deal.
Sitwell's 'joke' was pretty crass though - I think he had to go.
Luckily he's fallen on his feet. Veganism has taken over the BBC as I write.
Yes. It took over The Grauniad some time ago of course. I suspect we will reach peak-Vegan sometime this year.
(I expect it's more reasonable cousin Vegetarianism to continue to grow in popularity however.)
I'm a pescatarian, but I expect vegetarianism to continue to be squeezed by veganism as a long term trend. There's really no fundamental difference between the harm caused by eggs and dairy Vs the harm caused by meat. It's become so much easier to get a healthy diet as a vegan recently, and that seems like a trend that will self-reinforce rather than run out.
Except no animals are killed when you eat eggs and dairy as opposed to meat and you reduce the amount of protein you have even further and need to find alternatives to help protect your bones.
The real issue is improving conditions in abattoirs and farms, organic farming in particular is becoming more attractive.
My sister is a vegetarian but I myself have always taken the view that we as long as tigers, lions, wolves, crocodiles etc eat meat then so will I
Animals absolutely are killed in the production of eggs and milk. The fact that you're more removed from it as a result of not eating their flesh is really pretty irrelevant.
And, er, okay? I'm happy with you making whatever dietry choice you want, but I'm not sure justifying it by saying you hold yourself to the moral standards of other species is a winner
Which animals are killed in milk production?
Yours reads like an anti-abortion rant.
Dairy cows need to be perpetually pregnant (virtually). The calves don’t last long.
Comments
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/
That's a thought! It has to work for lorries and buses and van too (in fact it doesn't apply to private cars yet). I think a vignette is usually something to do with motorway access. Oh well, I've gone with permit, let's see if the Commission objects!
Quite a big part of my freelance business/second job is translating regulations from Danish and German to meet the requirement that all regulations affecting trade and transport must be available in all European languages - fortunately for me, they've decided that Brexit won't get rid of English. It's often quite interesting, but I can't say that diesel emission regulations really grab me. The best job I've ever had was from a German TV company, which wanted a synopsis of a 26-part crime series translated into English - it was so gripping that I translated way into the night to find out who killed whom...
I did a walk today. During it, I saw two foxes (one seemed as large as a large dog), a herd of wild deer (one with massive fuck-off antlers), and loads of squirrels, ducks, geese etc. All were fairly unbothered about my presence - the deer allowed me to get within about thirty metres of them before they ambled into the trees.
I wouldn't mention this, except the entire walk was well within the borders of the M25. London can be surprisingly rural.
To lay my cards on the table, I have been a vegetarian since my 16th birthday in 1991.
Not so simple.
In fact, I saw the deer and thought of a nice veal steak. But I still had a good few miles to walk, and it'd have been a bit big to carry back on my rucksack...
I was doing the London Loop (24 miles from Loughton to Rainham). The deer were near Carter's Brook in Harold Hill (northeastern London for those unfamiliar). On an area of well-used grass just downslope from some houses.
Now I've got to wait for Mrs J to stop playing games so I can take the piccies off my camera to see if I got any decent ones ...
But yes, a nice venison steak would go down nicely.
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/An-audit-of-geopolitical-capabilities-part-1.pdf
The start of your walk was probably less than a mile from Epping Forest, so I’ll claim a conciliation cheque book and pen!
(I still use my chequebook regularly, though I use it much less than I used to.)
(Well, it's within walking distance if you're that mad, or if you don't realise London has a rather excellent public transport system.)
That I didn’t know but will check it out. Thanks for the tip!
And my reading material for more years than I care to remember has been the Guardian. Even with its clear bias it still contains by far the best journalism of the last 20 years or more.
The 'vision' is a space for perpetual negotiation underpinned by common political institutions and the rule of law. It's one we absolutely shared with the core founding members.
if Warren wanted to play that game she might call Trump something like "Custer" or "Littlehorn". There must be many possibilities.
The trouble with that is that she would be being drawn into Trump's game, so it'd be better for a colleague or, better, a journalist, to push it.
Much of the rest of the £39 billion was made up of the two years extra contributions we would make after March 2019 in the transition period. Again it seems reasonable to say that if there is no transition period because there is no deal then we could not, reasonably, be held liable for those payments.
So I would suggest our honour bound commitments are probably around £13 billion in total.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/
(there is a walk across Wales every year. But that's 45 miles, and much further than I'd like to walk in a day. I think the record is for someone to do that 45 miles two and a half times in 24 hours. Crazy ...)
Right now, the YouGov polls show that President Trump has taken the bulk of the blame for the shutdown. The Democrat line of "We'll get government funded, including the the DHS, and then we can talk about the wall" has - so far - come across as the reasonable one.
The Senate Republicans have mostly held firm, although there have been a couple that have wavered, such as Olympia Snow and the Senator for Colorado.
The question becomes:
1. What could the Democrats extract from the President from agreeing the Wall? Canada gave Trump an agreement on the new trade deal, but only in return for the US agreeing to provisions for protecting LBGT workers. (Which has infuriated the religious right.) Trump is so desperate to boast of getting his wall, maybe he'll agree something else that infuriates his party. (Are the Dems smart enough to get him to agree something that peels off some support from the religious right? I suspect not...)
or
2. Are there another eight or so Republicans Senators that would agree something that would mean the President could not veto the spending bill? My money is on "no", but if the Democrats offered $2bn for a bit of the Wall, and another $2bn for other border security measures, then they might...
or
3. Will public opinion shift enough that the Democrats feel they *have* to open government again. Historically, in these Congress vs The President fights, it's Congress who gets the blame and backs down. So far that hasn't happened...
It is worth remembering that something like 0.8% of all employees in the US are currently not getting paid. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it might mean that more than 1% of households have lost at least one income. That might flow through into worse economic numbers in early 2019. Given how negative some of the forward looking indicators have already turned, the US economy does not need this...
CON: 40% (-1)
LAB: 34% (-5)
LDEM: 10% (+3)
GRN: 4% (-)
UKIP: 4% (+1)
via @YouGov, 21 Dec - 04 Jan
Chgs. w/ 17 Dec
The government has such bad publicity on so many fronts... yet it is ahead, and healthily so (in the poll).
The UK could apply to the EU for an extension but that is within the gift of Theresa May only and she might not do so and cannot be forced.
Labour cannot make a second referendum happen and its leader does not want one.
These are the people who rule us or aspire to rule us. They do not seem to be suited for such high office...
#BackToTheDrawingBoard
On the occasions when the farmer wants replacement milking cows he has the option of artificial insemination using sexed sperm so the calves would be guaranteed female. (The way the sperm is sexed is with a centrifuge as female sperm are heavier.)
If for some reason the farmer wanted to try to breed a replacement milking cow from a particular Dam but AI was not suitable for some reason or they chose not to used sexed sperm, then yes an unwanted male calf might be produced. These calves are normally shipped off at just over a week old to be humanely killed, then go into dog food.
Does Mark Oaten have a place in history.
https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1081682325556076551?s=21
In theory you could have farms which keep all the animals produced as a side-effect of egg and dairy production and let them live out their natural lifespan. Possibly this exists somewhere, targeted at animal welfare-conscious consumers, but it's certainly not the norm, and would be extremely expensive.
Honestly this is all pretty obvious and widely known, so I'm not sure which part you were having trouble with.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/britain-lied-about-ending-poverty-with-foreign-aid-9fhr665l7
Massive Outlier compared to other pollsters.
Let's hope TM goes for a GE
(Which implies what you are saying but suggests it’s not “simplistic” racism that is driving it)
When it comes down to it, policies don't generally win elections except by them telling people who you are. More people don't like who Corbyn is than like who he is, and perhaps, as importantly, among them are the key blocks to building a liberal-left coalition that could beat the Conservative-nationalist one coalescing around Brexit.