I'd love to see it but I think it's unlikely. The trouble is there is so much phoniness and dishonesty in Hollywood that his comments will seem inexplicable. He deserves our praise or as John Barnes said, a medal.
The situation is actually even worse than that. As everyone knows, the UK and Switzerland announced an agreement to maintain a free trade agreement in a No Deal scenario. Unfortunately, the legal text of the proposed agreement still doesn't exist. The DfIT got the principle agreed, but hasn't actually done the hard work of getting an actual binding agreement drafted and signed.
It now looks next to impossible that this will be done by Brexit day.
Dr Liam Fox has been a disastrous cabinet minister. The history books will not be kind.
That suggests DfIT is totally unfit for purpose.
Which seems to be the default state of every government department.
The situation is actually even worse than that. As everyone knows, the UK and Switzerland announced an agreement to maintain a free trade agreement in a No Deal scenario. Unfortunately, the legal text of the proposed agreement still doesn't exist. The DfIT got the principle agreed, but hasn't actually done the hard work of getting an actual binding agreement drafted and signed.
It now looks next to impossible that this will be done by Brexit day.
Dr Liam Fox has been a disastrous cabinet minister. The history books will not be kind.
You realise why legal text to maintain the status quo with Switzerland is so problematic?
So how will she appeal to the rust belt and other parts of the US. Another West Coast liberal. Needs to pick her running mate carefully if she gets the nomination.
Personally view, incumbents lose reelection bids, rather than challengers win them.
Bush W lost because the US economy had just gone through a painful recession, and he'd raised taxes.
Carter lost because the US economy had just gone through a painful recession, and there had been a series of embarassing military setbacks.
Ford lost because the Republican Party was still reeling from the departure of both the previous Presient and Vice-President
etc.
If Trump is sufficiently unpopular with independents, or if the US economy weakens (especially in the rust belt), then it may not matter who his opponent is. (See Carter.)
Have you seen Liam Fox's latest flag flying, Robert? Writing to each industry sector asking if an abolition of tariffs would harm them or not.
Ceramics on R4 this morning saying it would.
Minford Victorius are we really going there?
I know Professor Minford and was lucky enough to be on a course taught party by him. He is very, very bright.
But I think he's naive about the effects of an immediate abolition of all tariffs. The consequences for the UK economy would be three fold:
1. In sectors like agriculture, there would be a severe impact, especially as a lot of traditional export markets would have tariff barriers.
2. The savings rate would drop. Tariffs are effectively a tax on spending over saving*. If you make spending suddenly cheaper, then people will spend more. It would make the UK economy even more unbalanced. Which is not what
3. We would lose all leverage in persuading other countries to lower their tariff and non-tariff barriers.
So how will she appeal to the rust belt and other parts of the US. Another West Coast liberal. Needs to pick her running mate carefully if she gets the nomination.
The rust belt is not an impregnable fortress. Trump won the rust belt states only by tiny margins despite Hillary not deigning to show up.
So how will she appeal to the rust belt and other parts of the US. Another West Coast liberal. Needs to pick her running mate carefully if she gets the nomination.
Personally view, incumbents lose reelection bids, rather than challengers win them.
Bush W lost because the US economy had just gone through a painful recession, and he'd raised taxes.
Carter lost because the US economy had just gone through a painful recession, and there had been a series of embarassing military setbacks.
Ford lost because the Republican Party was still reeling from the departure of both the previous Presient and Vice-President
etc.
If Trump is sufficiently unpopular with independents, or if the US economy weakens (especially in the rust belt), then it may not matter who his opponent is. (See Carter.)
Have you seen Liam Fox's latest flag flying, Robert? Writing to each industry sector asking if an abolition of tariffs would harm them or not.
So how will she appeal to the rust belt and other parts of the US. Another West Coast liberal. Needs to pick her running mate carefully if she gets the nomination.
Personally view, incumbents lose reelection bids, rather than challengers win them.
Bush W lost because the US economy had just gone through a painful recession, and he'd raised taxes.
Carter lost because the US economy had just gone through a painful recession, and there had been a series of embarassing military setbacks.
Ford lost because the Republican Party was still reeling from the departure of both the previous Presient and Vice-President
etc.
If Trump is sufficiently unpopular with independents, or if the US economy weakens (especially in the rust belt), then it may not matter who his opponent is. (See Carter.)
Have you seen Liam Fox's latest flag flying, Robert? Writing to each industry sector asking if an abolition of tariffs would harm them or not.
Ceramics on R4 this morning saying it would.
Minford Victorius are we really going there?
Of course we are.
Mad Max Fac for imports at UK borders is a nailed on certainty in the event of No Deal, at very least temporarily.
So how will she appeal to the rust belt and other parts of the US. Another West Coast liberal. Needs to pick her running mate carefully if she gets the nomination.
The rust belt is not an impregnable fortress. Trump won the rust belt states only by tiny margins despite Hillary not deigning to show up.
Trump would have won those states by more if Hillary had deigned to show up.
The effect other Democrats have might be different.
Macron has had a bounce since the new year. The issue he faces is that he is promising lots of things to lots of people from his debat nationale. He is raising expectations looking at what is on his plate he can only disappoint.
The situation is actually even worse than that. As everyone knows, the UK and Switzerland announced an agreement to maintain a free trade agreement in a No Deal scenario. Unfortunately, the legal text of the proposed agreement still doesn't exist. The DfIT got the principle agreed, but hasn't actually done the hard work of getting an actual binding agreement drafted and signed.
It now looks next to impossible that this will be done by Brexit day.
Dr Liam Fox has been a disastrous cabinet minister. The history books will not be kind.
That suggests DfIT is totally unfit for purpose.
Which seems to be the default state of every government department.
The particular problem with DfIT is that Dr Fox has been unfailingly loyal to Mrs May, and as he's the only Leaver whose stuck around, she daren't sack him, despite the fact that he has been an utter disaster.
He should never have been appointed to the role. He sent a limited number of gifted negotiators and trade lawyers to the wrong places. And he lost a number of senior (and dedicated) people to the private sector because the department is disfunctional.
Realising what a terrible f*ck up he's made, he's now proposing abondoning all tariffs (great in theory). But even here he's done a terrible job. There has been f*ck all work done on replicating existing non-contraversial mutual standards recognition agreements.
Right. Rant over. I warned everyone on the board repeatedly over the last two years that Dr Fox was unfit for purpose. His incompetence has made No Deal Brexit significantly more disruptive and dangerous than it might have been.
The situation is actually even worse than that. As everyone knows, the UK and Switzerland announced an agreement to maintain a free trade agreement in a No Deal scenario. Unfortunately, the legal text of the proposed agreement still doesn't exist. The DfIT got the principle agreed, but hasn't actually done the hard work of getting an actual binding agreement drafted and signed.
It now looks next to impossible that this will be done by Brexit day.
Dr Liam Fox has been a disastrous cabinet minister. The history books will not be kind.
That suggests DfIT is totally unfit for purpose.
Which seems to be the default state of every government department.
The particular problem with DfIT is that Dr Fox has been unfailingly loyal to Mrs May, and as he's the only Leaver whose stuck around, she daren't sack him, despite the fact that he has been an utter disaster.
He should never have been appointed to the role. He sent a limited number of gifted negotiators and trade lawyers to the wrong places. And he lost a number of senior (and dedicated) people to the private sector because the department is disfunctional.
Realising what a terrible f*ck up he's made, he's now proposing abondoning all tariffs (great in theory). But even here he's done a terrible job. There has been f*ck all work done on replicating existing non-contraversial mutual standards recognition agreements.
Right. Rant over. I warned everyone on the board repeatedly over the last two years that Dr Fox was unfit for purpose. His incompetence has made No Deal Brexit significantly more disruptive and dangerous than it might have been.
Shocking considering we held all the cards and the EU need us more than we need them.
Now I appreciate somebody whose knowledge of education and history comes from the work of liar, forger and pseudoscholar Dominic Cummings is going to be overloaded with myths.
But I think you will find if you check carefully that actually William won. That's why the entire fecking module is called 'The Norman Conquest of England 1066-1100.'
This is one of a huge number of errors I have been coming across, although it's the daftest. For example, claims about the importance of universities in Norman England (there weren't any, Oxford being a school at the time) or that the Duke of Suffolk wasn't murdered in 1450 (astonishingly, an error that wasn't overturned on both appeal and complaint). And these are at least partly due to the rushed way your hero brought in these reforms and the incompetence he and his acolytes showed in administering them.
As for your personal abuse about my qualifications, when you tell me you have written five history books, eight scholarly articles and worked in a university history department as a lecturer for four years I'll accept that from you, and not one second before.
I don’t have quite in front of me but I do t think it did
I think it is poorly written but trying to say that you can argue that Harold was a brilliant and imaginative commander - against all the odds he did incredible things and his troops nearly managed to hold out
It said 'his army survived nearly the whole day to beat off William's attacks.'
Edit - I'm not making any comment either way on Harold's ability, just making the point that this sentence without qualification is simply wrong. What I think they meant to say was 'Harold's army maintained cohesion most off the day, beating off numerous attacks by the Normans, before breaking in the afternoon.' But that's not what it says.
But if they had said “Army beat off William’s attacks and survived nearly the whole day” it would have been ok
I think it’s sloppy proof reading rather than they don’t know what they are doing
The Giletes Jaunes have been manna from heaven for Macron. He's been able to pose as a defender of the middle classes from the loonies.
(And a lit bit of credit is due to him. He hasn't caved like, errrrr, practically all previous French Presidents.)
the gilets jaunes will help Macron by contesting the European elections, they will split the protest vote and give him a clear run, he should be grateful to them
Your definition is a brave attempt but there are logical fallacies. It seems to boil down to a subjective view - which is fair enough. Chavez would be a populist but his policies weren't de facto amoral. Some were worthy, but as with Cuba, there's a tendency to run out of money unless you protect the sources of revenue.
Napoleon (the pig, not the Emperor) discovered that. Farmer Jones didn't make Venezuela strip the assets of the oil industry and reduce its production, although the Greens might applaud his actions. Trotsky's aim was to make the whole world communist, so that problem didn't exist.
The problem emerges when production falters. You either accept the risk of a backlash or you repress totally. It will always be the latter because 'they' always know they're right. Hence Castro's exhortation to Kruschev' during the Cuban Missile Crisis to start World War Three 'for the sake of socialism'. Cuba is ready to be destroyed for that purpose.
So how will she appeal to the rust belt and other parts of the US. Another West Coast liberal. Needs to pick her running mate carefully if she gets the nomination.
The rust belt is not an impregnable fortress. Trump won the rust belt states only by tiny margins despite Hillary not deigning to show up.
I think people sometimes forget how close HRC came to winning.
I'd love to see it but I think it's unlikely. The trouble is there is so much phoniness and dishonesty in Hollywood that his comments will seem inexplicable. He deserves our praise or as John Barnes said, a medal.
I'm surprised they haven't arrested him. If he was living in the UK I'm sure they would have.
The situation is actually even worse than that. As everyone knows, the UK and Switzerland announced an agreement to maintain a free trade agreement in a No Deal scenario. Unfortunately, the legal text of the proposed agreement still doesn't exist. The DfIT got the principle agreed, but hasn't actually done the hard work of getting an actual binding agreement drafted and signed.
It now looks next to impossible that this will be done by Brexit day.
Dr Liam Fox has been a disastrous cabinet minister. The history books will not be kind.
That suggests DfIT is totally unfit for purpose.
Which seems to be the default state of every government department.
The particular problem with DfIT is that Dr Fox has been unfailingly loyal to Mrs May, and as he's the only Leaver whose stuck around, she daren't sack him, despite the fact that he has been an utter disaster.
He should never have been appointed to the role. He sent a limited number of gifted negotiators and trade lawyers to the wrong places. And he lost a number of senior (and dedicated) people to the private sector because the department is disfunctional.
Realising what a terrible f*ck up he's made, he's now proposing abondoning all tariffs (great in theory). But even here he's done a terrible job. There has been f*ck all work done on replicating existing non-contraversial mutual standards recognition agreements.
Right. Rant over. I warned everyone on the board repeatedly over the last two years that Dr Fox was unfit for purpose. His incompetence has made No Deal Brexit significantly more disruptive and dangerous than it might have been.
The popularity of Liam Fox has been one of the great mysteries to me.
Cameron rated him highly, May gave him a job when she didn't have to and he seems to be popular among many Conservatives.
My theory is that he's benefited from some 'wise Scottish doctor' meme which subconsciously impresses people.
I know Professor Minford and was lucky enough to be on a course taught party by him. He is very, very bright.
But I think he's naive about the effects of an immediate abolition of all tariffs. The consequences for the UK economy would be three fold:
1. In sectors like agriculture, there would be a severe impact, especially as a lot of traditional export markets would have tariff barriers.
2. The savings rate would drop. Tariffs are effectively a tax on spending over saving*. If you make spending suddenly cheaper, then people will spend more. It would make the UK economy even more unbalanced. Which is not what
3. We would lose all leverage in persuading other countries to lower their tariff and non-tariff barriers.
* Well worth reading Michael Pettis on this.
Professor Minford is very bright as is often the case, focuses so narrowly on one area that he misses other important issues. And your point 3 is the important one here - to get access to export markets we would need to make importing into the UK so painful that it's worth giving us access to their markets by agreeing a trade deal...
Thankfully as my job is invisible exports I can't see how things will impact me.
So Liam Fox is going the Minford route and looking to abolish all tariffs.
On the one hand they do indeed distort trade; while on the other hand destroying (mainly leaver?) manufacturing and agriculture is probably not what the burghers of Stoke were thinking.
Plus not a great augur for our free trade bargaining position.
Yep - someone really needs to ask Liam why every major country has a trade deal with South Korea. Hint - it's because their tariffs are so high you want one..
Liam Fox is a disgraced former General Practitioner. Asking him his views on business and trade is akin to asking a trade commissioner his/her views on how to treat your haemorrhoids, and whether they would inspect them for you .
Unless and until we call out politicians on their lack of knowledge in areas they claim to know things about or to be responsible for we will continue to be in this mess...
Indeed. There is a certain segment of our political class that appeals to the populist agenda by saying "we have had enough of experts".
But we also have a press that simply won't call people out as the idiots they are..
Ahh - the thought process of a Remainer encapsulated.
I see we are back on PB favourite subject.....duff wine obvs.
I can't do wine. Let's do best biscuits. First one to mention the best biscuit wins.
Pause.
HOB-NOBS!
I win...
1. They're called Hobnobs. 2. If you mean chocolate Hobnobs you should say so.
2. Milk Chocolate Hobnobs or Plain Chocolate Hobnobs?
Dark chocolate digestives
Years ago the Co-op used to make Milk Chocolate Nice biscuits. As a Uni student I used to have them as they were so sickly sweet no-one else would touch them and you could never eat more than 1 or 2.
So how will she appeal to the rust belt and other parts of the US. Another West Coast liberal. Needs to pick her running mate carefully if she gets the nomination.
Personally view, incumbents lose reelection bids, rather than challengers win them.
Bush W lost because the US economy had just gone through a painful recession, and he'd raised taxes.
Carter lost because the US economy had just gone through a painful recession, and there had been a series of embarassing military setbacks.
Ford lost because the Republican Party was still reeling from the departure of both the previous Presient and Vice-President
etc.
If Trump is sufficiently unpopular with independents, or if the US economy weakens (especially in the rust belt), then it may not matter who his opponent is. (See Carter.)
Have you seen Liam Fox's latest flag flying, Robert? Writing to each industry sector asking if an abolition of tariffs would harm them or not.
Ceramics on R4 this morning saying it would.
Minford Victorius are we really going there?
I know Professor Minford and was lucky enough to be on a course taught party by him. He is very, very bright.
But I think he's naive about the effects of an immediate abolition of all tariffs. The consequences for the UK economy would be three fold:
1. In sectors like agriculture, there would be a severe impact, especially as a lot of traditional export markets would have tariff barriers.
2. The savings rate would drop. Tariffs are effectively a tax on spending over saving*. If you make spending suddenly cheaper, then people will spend more. It would make the UK economy even more unbalanced. Which is not what
3. We would lose all leverage in persuading other countries to lower their tariff and non-tariff barriers.
* Well worth reading Michael Pettis on this.
On point 2 is that not likely to cause an economic boom (or at least prevent a recession) in the short term?
At a point where it looks like the Eurozone is teetering on the brink of recession it would be quite ironic if we left without a deal, without paying billions in severance and entered a mid 90s style boom while they hit a recession.
Even if it is unbalanced and temporary if that happens it will help address point 3. Non tariff barriers will still be an issue and if the worlds 5th largest economy is booming we will have more leverage than people expect in negotiations.
Now I appreciate somebody whose knowledge of education and history comes from the work of liar, forger and pseudoscholar Dominic Cummings is going to be overloaded with myths.
But I think you will find if you check carefully that actually William won. That's why the entire fecking module is called 'The Norman Conquest of England 1066-1100.'
This is one of a huge number of errors I have been coming across, although it's the daftest. For example, claims about the importance of universities in Norman England (there weren't any, Oxford being a school at the time) or that the Duke of Suffolk wasn't murdered in 1450 (astonishingly, an error that wasn't overturned on both appeal and complaint). And these are at least partly due to the rushed way your hero brought in these reforms and the incompetence he and his acolytes showed in administering them.
As for your personal abuse about my qualifications, when you tell me you have written five history books, eight scholarly articles and worked in a university history department as a lecturer for four years I'll accept that from you, and not one second before.
I don’t have quite in front of me but I do t think it did
I think it is poorly written but trying to say that you can argue that Harold was a brilliant and imaginative commander - against all the odds he did incredible things and his troops nearly managed to hold out
It said 'his army survived nearly the whole day to beat off William's attacks.'
Edit - I'm not making any comment either way on Harold's ability, just making the point that this sentence without qualification is simply wrong. What I think they meant to say was 'Harold's army maintained cohesion most off the day, beating off numerous attacks by the Normans, before breaking in the afternoon.' But that's not what it says.
Surely, "survived nearly the whole day" must imply "but it did not survive the whole day"?
But yes, this person should be given some LEGO rather than words to work with.
The real problem is it implies the Saxons beat off all the Norman attacks. It overlooks the fairly important point that they broke at the last one...
(In any case, they seem to have lasted about five or six hours, which is not really 'nearly the whole day.' It's a bit like saying 'almost everyone voted Leave.')
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
The situation is actually even worse than that. As everyone knows, the UK and Switzerland announced an agreement to maintain a free trade agreement in a No Deal scenario. Unfortunately, the legal text of the proposed agreement still doesn't exist. The DfIT got the principle agreed, but hasn't actually done the hard work of getting an actual binding agreement drafted and signed.
It now looks next to impossible that this will be done by Brexit day.
Dr Liam Fox has been a disastrous cabinet minister. The history books will not be kind.
That suggests DfIT is totally unfit for purpose.
Which seems to be the default state of every government department.
The particular problem with DfIT is that Dr Fox has been unfailingly loyal to Mrs May, and as he's the only Leaver whose stuck around, she daren't sack him, despite the fact that he has been an utter disaster.
He should never have been appointed to the role. He sent a limited number of gifted negotiators and trade lawyers to the wrong places. And he lost a number of senior (and dedicated) people to the private sector because the department is disfunctional.
Realising what a terrible f*ck up he's made, he's now proposing abondoning all tariffs (great in theory). But even here he's done a terrible job. There has been f*ck all work done on replicating existing non-contraversial mutual standards recognition agreements.
Right. Rant over. I warned everyone on the board repeatedly over the last two years that Dr Fox was unfit for purpose. His incompetence has made No Deal Brexit significantly more disruptive and dangerous than it might have been.
The popularity of Liam Fox has been one of the great mysteries to me.
Cameron rated him highly, May gave him a job when she didn't have to and he seems to be popular among many Conservatives.
My theory is that he's benefited from some 'wise Scottish doctor' meme which subconsciously impresses people.
I think it's more that he is that rare combination of being a lunatic headbanger about the EU and not a completely treacherous shit. Since that is a very lightly populated sector of the Venn diagram, it means that the quality threshold is set at a much lower level.
Now I appreciate somebody whose knowledge of education and history comes from the work of liar, forger and pseudoscholar Dominic Cummings is going to be overloaded with myths.
But I think you will find if you check carefully that actually William won. That's why the entire fecking module is called 'The Norman Conquest of England 1066-1100.'
This is one of a huge number of errors I have been coming across, although it's the daftest. For example, claims about the importance of universities in Norman England (there weren't any, Oxford being a school at the time) or that the Duke of Suffolk wasn't murdered in 1450 (astonishingly, an error that wasn't overturned on both appeal and complaint). And these are at least partly due to the rushed way your hero brought in these reforms and the incompetence he and his acolytes showed in administering them.
As for your personal abuse about my qualifications, when you tell me you have written five history books, eight scholarly articles and worked in a university history department as a lecturer for four years I'll accept that from you, and not one second before.
I don’t have quite in front of me but I do t think it did
I think it is poorly written but trying to say that you can argue that Harold was a brilliant and imaginative commander - against all the odds he did incredible things and his troops nearly managed to hold out
It said 'his army survived nearly the whole day to beat off William's attacks.'
Edit - I'm not making any comment either way on Harold's ability, just making the point that this sentence without qualification is simply wrong. What I think they meant to say was 'Harold's army maintained cohesion most off the day, beating off numerous attacks by the Normans, before breaking in the afternoon.' But that's not what it says.
But if they had said “Army beat off William’s attacks and survived nearly the whole day” it would have been ok
I think it’s sloppy proof reading rather than they don’t know what they are doing
I've read the quote and I think it's poorly worded. But it does not say Harold won the Battle of Hastings.
The situation is actually even worse than that. As everyone knows, the UK and Switzerland announced an agreement to maintain a free trade agreement in a No Deal scenario. Unfortunately, the legal text of the proposed agreement still doesn't exist. The DfIT got the principle agreed, but hasn't actually done the hard work of getting an actual binding agreement drafted and signed.
It now looks next to impossible that this will be done by Brexit day.
Dr Liam Fox has been a disastrous cabinet minister. The history books will not be kind.
That suggests DfIT is totally unfit for purpose.
Which seems to be the default state of every government department.
The particular problem with DfIT is that Dr Fox has been unfailingly loyal to Mrs May, and as he's the only Leaver whose stuck around, she daren't sack him, despite the fact that he has been an utter disaster.
He should never have been appointed to the role. He sent a limited number of gifted negotiators and trade lawyers to the wrong places. And he lost a number of senior (and dedicated) people to the private sector because the department is disfunctional.
Realising what a terrible f*ck up he's made, he's now proposing abondoning all tariffs (great in theory). But even here he's done a terrible job. There has been f*ck all work done on replicating existing non-contraversial mutual standards recognition agreements.
Right. Rant over. I warned everyone on the board repeatedly over the last two years that Dr Fox was unfit for purpose. His incompetence has made No Deal Brexit significantly more disruptive and dangerous than it might have been.
I think you were pushing at something of an open door there.
Aside from the most one eyed leavers, there seems to be something of a consensus over the uselessness of Fox.
As for Minford, he appears to fall into the category of very clever fool.
I should probably have said "hasn't caved quite as cravenly or universally as previous Presidents"...
early days, he has promised to reverse a whole slew of measures after his national debate. wealth tax, pensions taxation, speed limits all up for grabs
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
It was certainly there but I always thought the concerns of Ireland would be a minimal part of the campaign. I just don't see the sympathy for them outside privileged do-gooder circles. The reality is that the north is a major drain on our public finances with no sign of any changes that would make those funds less necessary. It's a completely alien place to most on the mainland and I don't think there is a great deal of concern for them. As for the south is has turned itself in to a tax haven whilst free-riding on issues like defence and security. None of this is recognised by the remain elite - perhaps because their idea of Ireland is still stuck in colonial times.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
Now I appreciate somebody whose knowledge of education and history comes from the work of liar, forger and pseudoscholar Dominic Cummings is going to be overloaded with myths.
But I think you will find if you check carefully that actually William won. That's why the entire fecking module is called 'The Norman Conquest of England 1066-1100.'
This is one of a huge number of errors I have been coming across, although it's the daftest. For example, claims about the importance of universities in Norman England (there weren't any, Oxford being a school at the time) or that the Duke of Suffolk wasn't murdered in 1450 (astonishingly, an error that wasn't overturned on both appeal and complaint). And these are at least partly due to the rushed way your hero brought in these reforms and the incompetence he and his acolytes showed in administering them.
As for your personal abuse about my qualifications, when you tell me you have written five history books, eight scholarly articles and worked in a university history department as a lecturer for four years I'll accept that from you, and not one second before.
I don’t have quite in front of me but I do t think it did
I think it is poorly written but trying to say that you can argue that Harold was a brilliant and imaginative commander - against all the odds he did incredible things and his troops nearly managed to hold out
It said 'his army survived nearly the whole day to beat off William's attacks.'
Edit - I'm not making any comment either way on Harold's ability, just making the point that this sentence without qualification is simply wrong. What I think they meant to say was 'Harold's army maintained cohesion most off the day, beating off numerous attacks by the Normans, before breaking in the afternoon.' But that's not what it says.
Surely, "survived nearly the whole day" must imply "but it did not survive the whole day"?
But yes, this person should be given some LEGO rather than words to work with.
The real problem is it implies the Saxons beat off all the Norman attacks. It overlooks the fairly important point that they broke at the last one...
(In any case, they seem to have lasted about five or six hours, which is not really 'nearly the whole day.' It's a bit like saying 'almost everyone voted Leave.')
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
It was highly irresponsible and the actions of Varadkar and Barnier since are also highly irresponsible.
I agree with Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble.
Barnier just enacts what the EU 27 agreed. The Irish border was a major part of that.
Yes and the EU 27 agreed to back wholeheartedly what they view as their side in the agreement and f**k the unionists. That is highly irresponsible if you want peace you need to respect both sides.
The situation is actually even worse than that. As everyone knows, the UK and Switzerland announced an agreement to maintain a free trade agreement in a No Deal scenario. Unfortunately, the legal text of the proposed agreement still doesn't exist. The DfIT got the principle agreed, but hasn't actually done the hard work of getting an actual binding agreement drafted and signed.
It now looks next to impossible that this will be done by Brexit day.
Dr Liam Fox has been a disastrous cabinet minister. The history books will not be kind.
That suggests DfIT is totally unfit for purpose.
Which seems to be the default state of every government department.
The particular problem with DfIT is that Dr Fox has been unfailingly loyal to Mrs May, and as he's the only Leaver whose stuck around, she daren't sack him, despite the fact that he has been an utter disaster.
He should never have been appointed to the role. He sent a limited number of gifted negotiators and trade lawyers to the wrong places. And he lost a number of senior (and dedicated) people to the private sector because the department is disfunctional.
Realising what a terrible f*ck up he's made, he's now proposing abondoning all tariffs (great in theory). But even here he's done a terrible job. There has been f*ck all work done on replicating existing non-contraversial mutual standards recognition agreements.
Right. Rant over. I warned everyone on the board repeatedly over the last two years that Dr Fox was unfit for purpose. His incompetence has made No Deal Brexit significantly more disruptive and dangerous than it might have been.
The popularity of Liam Fox has been one of the great mysteries to me.
Cameron rated him highly, May gave him a job when she didn't have to and he seems to be popular among many Conservatives.
My theory is that he's benefited from some 'wise Scottish doctor' meme which subconsciously impresses people.
I think it's more that he is that rare combination of being a lunatic headbanger about the EU and not a completely treacherous shit. Since that is a very lightly populated sector of the Venn diagram, it means that the quality threshold is set at a much lower level.
That doesn't explain why Cameron thought him suitable to be Defence Minister, Howard thought him suitable to be Party Chairman and over 40 Conservative MPs voted for him to be Party Leader in 2005.
In fact but for Adam Werrity Fox would have held government office or shadowed it from 1993 onwards.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
I see we are back on PB favourite subject.....duff wine obvs.
I can't do wine. Let's do best biscuits. First one to mention the best biscuit wins.
Pause.
HOB-NOBS!
I win...
1. They're called Hobnobs. 2. If you mean chocolate Hobnobs you should say so.
2. Milk Chocolate Hobnobs or Plain Chocolate Hobnobs?
Dark chocolate digestives
Years ago the Co-op used to make Milk Chocolate Nice biscuits. As a Uni student I used to have them as they were so sickly sweet no-one else would touch them and you could never eat more than 1 or 2.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
It was highly irresponsible and the actions of Varadkar and Barnier since are also highly irresponsible.
I agree with Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble.
Barnier just enacts what the EU 27 agreed. The Irish border was a major part of that.
Yes and the EU 27 agreed to back wholeheartedly what they view as their side in the agreement and f**k the unionists. That is highly irresponsible if you want peace you need to respect both sides.
The EU27 agreed to a UK-wide customs backstop to placate the unionists.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
It was highly irresponsible and the actions of Varadkar and Barnier since are also highly irresponsible.
I agree with Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble.
Barnier just enacts what the EU 27 agreed. The Irish border was a major part of that.
Yes and the EU 27 agreed to back wholeheartedly what they view as their side in the agreement and f**k the unionists. That is highly irresponsible if you want peace you need to respect both sides.
But the unionists don't want a hard border either! Perhaps if the British government had realised on 24th June how crucial this issue would be then the EU 27 might have looked at if differently.
I see we are back on PB favourite subject.....duff wine obvs.
I can't do wine. Let's do best biscuits. First one to mention the best biscuit wins.
Pause.
HOB-NOBS!
I win...
1. They're called Hobnobs. 2. If you mean chocolate Hobnobs you should say so.
2. Milk Chocolate Hobnobs or Plain Chocolate Hobnobs?
Dark chocolate digestives
Years ago the Co-op used to make Milk Chocolate Nice biscuits. As a Uni student I used to have them as they were so sickly sweet no-one else would touch them and you could never eat more than 1 or 2.
The best thing about Chocolate Olivers is that it is felt necessary to explain who John Lennon is. Rich, dark chocolate, generously enrobed around a crisp slow-baked biscuit Chocolate Olivers are the ultimate biscuit indulgence, made using a patented recipe from the 1930’s, which includes hops and malt, with the thickest, richest dark chocolate.
During a visit to Warrenpoint Harbour, in Co Down, Chancellor George Osborne said: "There would have to be a hardening of the border imposed by the British Government or indeed by the Irish Government and that would have an impact on business."
Neither did Remainers - or they would have mentioned it continually in their otherwise misleading adverts.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair did.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
One other thing that has changed about Northern Ireland. During the troubles you had politicians like David Trimble and John Hume trying to bring peace to the place. Now you have the DUP and Sinn Fein. Why do people expect the British taxpayer to indefinitely write cheques to keep the place going when it is so alien to them - and even the unionists openly accept 'bribes' from the government? And then the south insists that if we want a customs border NI must be on their side of it. Britain however must keep paying the bills.
I should probably have said "hasn't caved quite as cravenly or universally as previous Presidents"...
I remember Mitterand being interviewed some years ago and when the questioner put to him that 85% of the population didn't approve of his performance what did he have to say? He replied "As I'm here for another four years that would appear to be their problem not mine"
I should probably have said "hasn't caved quite as cravenly or universally as previous Presidents"...
I remember Mitterand being interviewed some years ago and when the questioner put to him that 85% of the population didn't approve of his performance what did he have to say? He replied "As I'm here for another four years that would appear to be their problem not mine"
That is why Brexit will fail. It will not address the root causes of discontent, indeed it will aggravate most of them.
It offers more direct control over migration by the UK Government and an end to EU federalisation. Those who advocate its reversal have nothing to say on either of those subjects other than to say they’ve proved their point.
They haven’t and, still more, still haven’t really understood or accepted its legitimacy in the first place so they can propose a credible solution.
Brexit might indeed offer more control on migration but since no-one in government or the wider Establishment has expressed the slightest desire actually to reduce immigration, what's the point?
The powers will be there. It’s up to the electors to exercise their vote accordingly if they wish the Government to use them.
The powers were already there but look at the figures for non-EU immigration since 2010 under Conservative-led governments and Home Secretary Theresa hostile environment May.
I suspect those policies knocked a good 30-40k off the net non-EU migration figures that'd have otherwise been there.
Comments
Which seems to be the default state of every government department.
But I think he's naive about the effects of an immediate abolition of all tariffs. The consequences for the UK economy would be three fold:
1. In sectors like agriculture, there would be a severe impact, especially as a lot of traditional export markets would have tariff barriers.
2. The savings rate would drop. Tariffs are effectively a tax on spending over saving*. If you make spending suddenly cheaper, then people will spend more. It would make the UK economy even more unbalanced. Which is not what
3. We would lose all leverage in persuading other countries to lower their tariff and non-tariff barriers.
* Well worth reading Michael Pettis on this.
Mad Max Fac for imports at UK borders is a nailed on certainty in the event of No Deal, at very least temporarily.
The effect other Democrats have might be different.
He should never have been appointed to the role. He sent a limited number of gifted negotiators and trade lawyers to the wrong places. And he lost a number of senior (and dedicated) people to the private sector because the department is disfunctional.
Realising what a terrible f*ck up he's made, he's now proposing abondoning all tariffs (great in theory). But even here he's done a terrible job. There has been f*ck all work done on replicating existing non-contraversial mutual standards recognition agreements.
Right. Rant over. I warned everyone on the board repeatedly over the last two years that Dr Fox was unfit for purpose. His incompetence has made No Deal Brexit significantly more disruptive and dangerous than it might have been.
(And a lit bit of credit is due to him. He hasn't caved like, errrrr, practically all previous French Presidents.)
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1093026626521235456?s=21
I think it’s sloppy proof reading rather than they don’t know what they are doing
Your definition is a brave attempt but there are logical fallacies. It seems to boil down to a subjective view - which is fair enough. Chavez would be a populist but his policies weren't de facto amoral. Some were worthy, but as with Cuba, there's a tendency to run out of money unless you protect the sources of revenue.
Napoleon (the pig, not the Emperor) discovered that. Farmer Jones didn't make Venezuela strip the assets of the oil industry and reduce its production, although the Greens might applaud his actions. Trotsky's aim was to make the whole world communist, so that problem didn't exist.
The problem emerges when production falters. You either accept the risk of a backlash or you repress totally. It will always be the latter because 'they' always know they're right. Hence Castro's exhortation to Kruschev' during the Cuban Missile Crisis to start World War Three 'for the sake of socialism'. Cuba is ready to be destroyed for that purpose.
And we thought IS was bad!
Cameron rated him highly, May gave him a job when she didn't have to and he seems to be popular among many Conservatives.
My theory is that he's benefited from some 'wise Scottish doctor' meme which subconsciously impresses people.
Thankfully as my job is invisible exports I can't see how things will impact me.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests-idUSKBN1O30MX
Nowadays you can't beat https://www.ringtons.co.uk/treats-c8/biscuits-c13/ringtons-dark-chocolate-ginger-biscuits-p857 when they are available or https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007NG5G8A/ when in Austria...
At a point where it looks like the Eurozone is teetering on the brink of recession it would be quite ironic if we left without a deal, without paying billions in severance and entered a mid 90s style boom while they hit a recession.
Even if it is unbalanced and temporary if that happens it will help address point 3. Non tariff barriers will still be an issue and if the worlds 5th largest economy is booming we will have more leverage than people expect in negotiations.
THERESA MAY’S visit to Belfast to discuss the so-called backstop should be set in the context of the EU referendum when Sir John Major and Tony Blair undertook a series of joint engagements in Northern Ireland.
Former premiers who brought about the peace process, they warned that a Leave vote may put Northern Ireland’s “future at risk” by threatening its current stability and re-open Scotland’s independence issue.
Yet the reaction of Leave campaigners at the time was one of incredulity. Theresa Villiers, the Brexit-supporting Northern Ireland Secretary, said it was “highly irresponsible” to suggest peace was at risk while Arlene Foster, who is still leader of the DUP, said that she found the intervention “rather sad”.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/the-yorkshire-post-says-no-hard-border-sir-john-major-and-tony-blair-were-ignored-over-northern-ireland-1-9575414/amp
Aside from the most one eyed leavers, there seems to be something of a consensus over the uselessness of Fox.
As for Minford, he appears to fall into the category of very clever fool.
I agree with Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble.
The bourbon biscuit.
That reminds me. I must just go and get a bourbon biscuit.
Try looking up his comments instead of fantasising about them like you did with Leo Varadkar and Scottish independence.
In fact but for Adam Werrity Fox would have held government office or shadowed it from 1993 onwards.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00E5GQBVW/ref=asc_df_B00E5GQBVW58373703/?tag=googshopuk-21&creative=22146&creativeASIN=B00E5GQBVW&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310856520403&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8218341304617415043&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045952&hvtargid=pla-562755833016
Rich, dark chocolate, generously enrobed around a crisp slow-baked biscuit Chocolate Olivers are the ultimate biscuit indulgence, made using a patented recipe from the 1930’s, which includes hops and malt, with the thickest, richest dark chocolate.
These biscuits are infamous – in fact it is said that John Lennon of The Beatles once refused to be paid in cash, preferring Chocolate Olivers instead!
https://www.huntleyandpalmers.com/product/chocolate-olivers/
(Whether infamous is quite the right word is left as an exercise for the GCSE examiner.)
"Throughout the EU referendum campaign, both the Remain and Leave sides have made frequent claims about what might happen to the border in the event of a UK exit from the EU.
During a visit to Warrenpoint Harbour, in Co Down, Chancellor George Osborne said: "There would have to be a hardening of the border imposed by the British Government or indeed by the Irish Government and that would have an impact on business."
That will be £11billion please.