Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
I've not read the book just the snippet you've quoted but I'd trace the roots of the problem to before 1979 which I think was itself a symptom rather than a cause, the problem began earlier in the 70s and in one word was: Oil.
Oil and OPEC's actions in the 70s cause the Middle East to be awash with oil money that led to and funded the radical issues of 1979 onwards. By having so much money associated with a single export that the state could control it led to corruption and opportunities for it.
For me I am very keen on seeing us end our use of oil and always have been but not just for "environmental" reasons but also to end our relationship with the Middle East and the financing of petrochemical countries.
Once we leave oil in the ground and consider it worthless because we've moved on to alternative technologies, then the Middle East may face a reckoning of reality once more.
Have you read The Prize? Until the mid-1970s, the price of oil was basically fixed by the big oil companies and the countries who produced the actual oil got very little.
As Middle Eastern countries took back control of their oil, they realised they had been screwed over by BP, Exxon and Shell for decades. I think this contributed to a sense of grievence in the Middle East.
No I've not but that makes a lot of sense. And it furthers my theory that the issues of the early to mid 70s were the trigger for the devastating actions of the late 70s.
Grievance plus vast sums of money is a toxic combination.
There’s no way we are going to sign up to whatever white piece of paper the next EU environmental or employment legislation happens to be, given that it will be designed specifically to harm the UK. Any trade deal needs to be based on equivalence not alignment (as are the EU trade deals with Japan and Canada).
Nothing substantial is going to happen until the June deadline, when our refusal to agree an extension to the standstill makes the EU side understand that the result of failure of the talks will be no deal at all.
I don't know about the employment regs, but the idea that the next set of EU environmental regulations will "be designed specifically to harm the UK" is just a touch paranoid.
I respectfully disagree. The stated aim of the EU negotiators was to make the UK ‘pay’ for leaving. If we sign up to implement any future EU legislation then every single piece of it will contain a ‘f*** the UK’ clause.
The rivalry existed yes, of course it did, but it didn't lead to what we see today. Why did an ancient rivalry suddenly from 1979 lead to what we have now?
It is the exploitation of oil money that has (as the saying goes) thrown petrol on the fire of that pre-existing conflict. The Saudis and Iranians and others have been able to finance their religious conflict with billions of petrodollars.
The article points out the three events in 1979 that led to a race to be the "leader" of the Muslim world between SA and Iran. Both sides stoked sectarianism to such a level that war and violence and hate were the result.
Indeed they did, but that did not occur in a vaccuum. All sides in the conflict were unprecedentedly funded (and able to seek more funding) by oil. And being leader of the Muslim world meant more control over oil and its vast wealth too.
The unprecendented, vast and very recent influx of billions of dollars of wealth via oil money to Iran and Saudi Arabia and others earlier in the decade played its part in both funding and encouraging the events of 1979.
Hilarious. This is the guy who proposed telling those who voted in the biggest democratic vote in our history to vote again as they got it wrong first time. Now he's posing as a champion of accountability and democracy.
But I doubt he has either the self-awareness or humour to see the glaring contradiction.
The contradiction of asking (the same) people to vote about an issue they voted on several years ago? Exactly what part of that constitutes a contradiction?
Posing as a champion of democracy and accountability while using any excuse to avoid implementing a democratic vote, as promised in the manifesto he stood on in 2017. Pretty obvious really. I'm sure he'd have found a reason for a third and fourth vote had the proles voted the wrong way the second time.
Unless of course you think he'd also have proposed another referendum had Remain won in 2016, but I doubt you're that deluded.
Although a very bad idea, holding another and then another referendum is not anti-democratic. Because a referendum, by definition, is a democratic exercise.
Equally, a democratic exercise of the type we have just seen is to ask the people whether they want a party to continue holding referendum after referendum. In this last instance they didn't.
Another benefit: Britain will be excluded from the Schengen Information sharing system which the British police use.
Perhaps we can ask the Chinese to hack into it for us.
Presumably if the EU excludes us from information sharing, we won't share information with them either. Including intelligence.
Or perhaps they want our information, in which case they'll treat us as equals and share it so long as we share ours? Both parties need to act like equal partners on the world stage and grown ups.
A different agreement may be reached but as the EU has made clear over and over again, a non-member will not get the same access as a member. That is presumably what you want.
I'm 100% fine with that, so long as we act with parity. Whatever information we desire from them is presumably the same information they desire from us and so long as we act as equals and share willingly then what is wrong with that?
What are we going to be cut off from, that we desire - and why won't they desire it from us? Why would they cut themselves off from something both parties desire to be agreed.
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
Hilarious. This is the guy who proposed telling those who voted in the biggest democratic vote in our history to vote again as they got it wrong first time. Now he's posing as a champion of accountability and democracy.
But I doubt he has either the self-awareness or humour to see the glaring contradiction.
The contradiction of asking (the same) people to vote about an issue they voted on several years ago? Exactly what part of that constitutes a contradiction?
Posing as a champion of democracy and accountability while using any excuse to avoid implementing a democratic vote, as promised in the manifesto he stood on in 2017. Pretty obvious really. I'm sure he'd have found a reason for a third and fourth vote had the proles voted the wrong way the second time.
Unless of course you think he'd also have proposed another referendum had Remain won in 2016, but I doubt you're that deluded.
Try accepting that the world has moved on.
As someone who voted Leave, I have absolutely no problem with Starmer's stance on Brexit prior to the GE, because that is ancient history now and he has enough nous to know that there is no political mileage in trying to do anything but move on.
His ideas on devolution of power within England are interesting and exactly the sort of thing I want to hear from an aspiring Labour leader. What he is essentially saying that the EU was but one casualty of a much wider issue of powerlessness felt by local communities and that Brexit alone is not going to address that. I agree with him and welcome the change of focus.
Trump is an absolute racing certainty. He will increase his EC share.
It's all over before it has begun.
Dead opposite view to mine. I think Trump will lose either easily or VERY easily depending on who gets the Dem nomination. However this is not a tip. I freely admit that it is pure intuition that he loses big.
There’s no way we are going to sign up to whatever white piece of paper the next EU environmental or employment legislation happens to be, given that it will be designed specifically to harm the UK. Any trade deal needs to be based on equivalence not alignment (as are the EU trade deals with Japan and Canada).
Nothing substantial is going to happen until the June deadline, when our refusal to agree an extension to the standstill makes the EU side understand that the result of failure of the talks will be no deal at all.
I don't know about the employment regs, but the idea that the next set of EU environmental regulations will "be designed specifically to harm the UK" is just a touch paranoid.
I respectfully disagree. The stated aim of the EU negotiators was to make the UK ‘pay’ for leaving. If we sign up to implement any future EU legislation then every single piece of it will contain a ‘f*** the UK’ clause.
Not saying you're wrong but have you got a link to the statement? I googled the phrase up and there were a bunch of British newspaper articles with that title, but they were from early in the negotiation process, talking about the exit bill, which IIUC has now been agreed.
There’s no way we are going to sign up to whatever white piece of paper the next EU environmental or employment legislation happens to be, given that it will be designed specifically to harm the UK. Any trade deal needs to be based on equivalence not alignment (as are the EU trade deals with Japan and Canada).
Nothing substantial is going to happen until the June deadline, when our refusal to agree an extension to the standstill makes the EU side understand that the result of failure of the talks will be no deal at all.
I don't know about the employment regs, but the idea that the next set of EU environmental regulations will "be designed specifically to harm the UK" is just a touch paranoid.
The idea that we are leaving the EU but will still be right at the centre of the EU's thinking is yet another necessary component of the Brexiteer mindset.
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world. I agree with you on the problems with the Police and that should be a bigger priority than simply ensuring we have a massive database to rely upon.
If the data is necessary, then they will want our data, and we will reach an agreement. If its not, then they shouldn't have it in the first place. I'm OK either way. In fact if it is not necessary data but we as a continent have been gathering it despite not needing it and now we stop doing so then on liberal principles that is probably a good thing not a bad thing!
The rivalry existed yes, of course it did, but it didn't lead to what we see today. Why did an ancient rivalry suddenly from 1979 lead to what we have now?
It is the exploitation of oil money that has (as the saying goes) thrown petrol on the fire of that pre-existing conflict. The Saudis and Iranians and others have been able to finance their religious conflict with billions of petrodollars.
The article points out the three events in 1979 that led to a race to be the "leader" of the Muslim world between SA and Iran. Both sides stoked sectarianism to such a level that war and violence and hate were the result.
Indeed they did, but that did not occur in a vaccuum. All sides in the conflict were unprecedentedly funded (and able to seek more funding) by oil. And being leader of the Muslim world meant more control over oil and its vast wealth too.
The unprecendented, vast and very recent influx of billions of dollars of wealth via oil money to Iran and Saudi Arabia and others earlier in the decade played its part in both funding and encouraging the events of 1979.
All true.
But the disappearance of such money does not mean that the grievances and/or sectarianism and/or extremism go away. There will be no return to the status quo ante. So what happens next when you have all those things which have been stoked up + relative poverty. That’s a recipe for further disaster rather than fading away into peaceful obscurity.
Look at Saudi Arabia: a country with a young population who are kept onside with the liberal use of wealth. What do you think will happen to a country steeped in extremism with a lot of young men who can no longer be kept happy with oil money?
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world.
That is all fine until some ghastly crime happens here and it turns out that the offender could have been caught or stopped if only the police had had access to information held in a EU country.
There’s no way we are going to sign up to whatever white piece of paper the next EU environmental or employment legislation happens to be, given that it will be designed specifically to harm the UK. Any trade deal needs to be based on equivalence not alignment (as are the EU trade deals with Japan and Canada).
Nothing substantial is going to happen until the June deadline, when our refusal to agree an extension to the standstill makes the EU side understand that the result of failure of the talks will be no deal at all.
I don't know about the employment regs, but the idea that the next set of EU environmental regulations will "be designed specifically to harm the UK" is just a touch paranoid.
I respectfully disagree. The stated aim of the EU negotiators was to make the UK ‘pay’ for leaving. If we sign up to implement any future EU legislation then every single piece of it will contain a ‘f*** the UK’ clause.
Not saying you're wrong but have you got a link to the statement? I googled the phrase up and there were a bunch of British newspaper articles with that title, but they were from early in the negotiation process, talking about the exit bill, which IIUC has now been agreed.
I've not read the book just the snippet you've quoted but I'd trace the roots of the problem to before 1979 which I think was itself a symptom rather than a cause, the problem began earlier in the 70s and in one word was: Oil.
Oil and OPEC's actions in the 70s cause the Middle East to be awash with oil money that led to and funded the radical issues of 1979 onwards. By having so much money associated with a single export that the state could control it led to corruption and opportunities for it.
For me I am very keen on seeing us end our use of oil and always have been but not just for "environmental" reasons but also to end our relationship with the Middle East and the financing of petrochemical countries.
Once we leave oil in the ground and consider it worthless because we've moved on to alternative technologies, then the Middle East may face a reckoning of reality once more.
The Sunni-Shia rivalry long predated the discovery - let alone use - of oil and will long outlast it. It is central to what sort of Islam becomes dominant in different Muslim countries. That issue is not going to disappear and, even if the West becomes wholly independent of the Middle East for energy, given the size of Muslim communities in the West we still be affected by the continuation and outcome of that rivalry.
The rivalry existed yes, of course it did, but it didn't lead to what we see today. Why did an ancient rivalry suddenly from 1979 lead to what we have now?
It is the exploitation of oil money that has (as the saying goes) thrown petrol on the fire of that pre-existing conflict. The Saudis and Iranians and others have been able to finance their religious conflict with billions of petrodollars.
They have, but I think that analysis a little reductive. After all, it's not as though there aren't stable rich states, and unstable poor ones in the region.
And one can trace the radicalism of 1979 Iran back to the coup we and the US engineered against Mosaddegh in 53, who might otherwise have instituted a stable democracy in Iran.
And most of the current problems of the ME trace directly back in some way to the imposed postwar settlement.
I've not read the book just the snippet you've quoted but I'd trace the roots of the problem to before 1979 which I think was itself a symptom rather than a cause, the problem began earlier in the 70s and in one word was: Oil.
Oil and OPEC's actions in the 70s cause the Middle East to be awash with oil money that led to and funded the radical issues of 1979 onwards. By having so much money associated with a single export that the state could control it led to corruption and opportunities for it.
For me I am very keen on seeing us end our use of oil and always have been but not just for "environmental" reasons but also to end our relationship with the Middle East and the financing of petrochemical countries.
Once we leave oil in the ground and consider it worthless because we've moved on to alternative technologies, then the Middle East may face a reckoning of reality once more.
The Sunni-Shia rivalry long predated the discovery - let alone use - of oil and will long outlast it. It is central to what sort of Islam becomes dominant in different Muslim countries. That issue is not going to disappear and, even if the West becomes wholly independent of the Middle East for energy, given the size of Muslim communities in the West we still be affected by the continuation and outcome of that rivalry.
The rivalry existed yes, of course it did, but it didn't lead to what we see today. Why did an ancient rivalry suddenly from 1979 lead to what we have now?
It is the exploitation of oil money that has (as the saying goes) thrown petrol on the fire of that pre-existing conflict. The Saudis and Iranians and others have been able to finance their religious conflict with billions of petrodollars.
They have, but I think that analysis a little reductive. After all, it's not as though there aren't stable rich states, and unstable poor ones in the region.
And one can trace the radicalism of 1979 Iran back to the coup we and the US engineered against Mosaddegh in 53, who might otherwise have instituted a stable democracy in Iran.
And most of the current problems of the ME trace directly back in some way to the imposed postwar settlement.
But the disappearance of such money does not mean that the grievances and/or sectarianism and/or extremism go away. There will be no return to the status quo ante. So what happens next when you have all those things which have been stoked up + relative poverty. That’s a recipe for further disaster rather than fading away into peaceful obscurity.
Look at Saudi Arabia: a country with a young population who are kept onside with the liberal use of wealth. What do you think will happen to a country steeped in extremism with a lot of young men who can no longer be kept happy with oil money?
Agreed, it doesn't mean it will go away, nothing on its own does, but it gives an opportunity. Having wealth purely concentrated in the hands of the elite that can control the taps is not healthy and the problems aren't going away today. Stopping that won't bring back a middle class that is needed but it opens an opportunity.
I would be concerned about the young in Saudi no longer being kept onside if I thought they should be kept onside and the despicable Saudi regime keeping them onside was a good thing. I don't.
Post oil I see three possible futures for the Middle East - two bad and one good.
Two bad possibilities: 1: Africa: Like Africa the absence of wealth or opportunities to create it, plus corruption lead to destitution, corruption, poverty and emigration. Such opportunities that do exist like diamonds primarily help fuel further conflict. 2: Russia: The collapse of the old regime and its power leads to disruption, instability (Yeltsin era) before a hardman (Putin era) finds funding via a new mechanism and takes control. Though note it was oil that led to the oligarchs and Putin in Russia too, but that doesn't mean an oil Mk2 won't be their future.
One good possibility: 3: South East Asia: Conflict reigns but ultimately simmers and settles down. The countries adapt to a new independent order and ultimately open up and develop.
I think it is the lack of oil and equivalent sovereign wealth products in much of South East Asia that has led to that being one of the better formerly third world parts of the world to develop.
Trump is an absolute racing certainty. He will increase his EC share.
It's all over before it has begun.
Dead opposite view to mine. I think Trump will lose either easily or VERY easily depending on who gets the Dem nomination. However this is not a tip. I freely admit that it is pure intuition that he loses big.
You are way too confident about this. I agree that it will matter who gets the Dem nomination - if it is Sanders or any woman then Trump will win easily. If a non-Sanders male then it`s difficult to call and you may be right - though don`t underestimate the skill and dubiousness on the Rep side when it comes to social marketing (aka manipulating the electorate).
I`m not being sexist by the way. Personally I`d go for Warren. I just harbour a hypothesis that in my lifetime at least no female leader of a left wing party in US or UK will ever be elected president/PM.
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world.
That is all fine until some ghastly crime happens here and it turns out that the offender could have been caught or stopped if only the police had had access to information held in a EU country.
Argument of authoritarians the world over. (I know you're not an authoritarian)
So Varadkar thinks the UK’s population is “about 60 million” - only 7 million out (nearly twice Ireland’s) and that “UK politicians don’t understand Irish ones.....”
"About 60 million" is actually correct, albeit -ish. Latest[1] ONS estimate is 66,435,600.
He is also correct about UK politicians not understanding Irish ones nor Ireland generally. It's been one of my biggest complaints since I've been on PB, to the point of tedium.
Truth is irrelevant to Carlotta , she works on bias and who she hates only , Ireland is second only to Scotland on her list and she will spout any old rubbish to denigrate them. She is a real Scottish Unionist.
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world.
That is all fine until some ghastly crime happens here and it turns out that the offender could have been caught or stopped if only the police had had access to information held in a EU country.
You'll find that Leavers' response to that will be to stop foreigners coming to Britain on safety grounds.
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world.
That is all fine until some ghastly crime happens here and it turns out that the offender could have been caught or stopped if only the police had had access to information held in a EU country.
You'll find that Leavers' response to that will be to stop foreigners coming to Britain on safety grounds.
No. How about letting Leavers speak for themselves and not putting your own words in their mouths for them? You asked for an apology the other day, I'm going to ask for one here - I have never been anti-immigration and its offensive of you to claim that is my or others opinion just because some Leavers are racists.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
Really? Sorry, that’s completely unacceptable - half the Cabinet should have been there.
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world.
That is all fine until some ghastly crime happens here and it turns out that the offender could have been caught or stopped if only the police had had access to information held in a EU country.
Argument of authoritarians the world over. (I know you're not an authoritarian)
Not really. The argument authoritarians makes is that they must have x amount of information. That is a little different from saying that, as we did not have access to this information which had already been collected and to which we had access last month but not now, this bad consequence has happened.
But it is a political risk for the government and, specifically, the Home Secretary.
I hope a sensible resolution can be reached. But I don’t think we should be sanguine about the risks which are being run. Cynically, if something bad happens, I fully expect our police to blame a lack of information-sharing, almost regardless of the facts. And once that sort of story takes hold it’s hard to counter.
I've not read the book just the snippet you've quoted but I'd trace the roots of the problem to before 1979 which I think was itself a symptom rather than a cause, the problem began earlier in the 70s and in one word was: Oil.
Oil and OPEC's actions in the 70s cause the Middle East to be awash with oil money that led to and funded the radical issues of 1979 onwards. By having so much money associated with a single export that the state could control it led to corruption and opportunities for it.
For me I am very keen on seeing us end our use of oil and always have been but not just for "environmental" reasons but also to end our relationship with the Middle East and the financing of petrochemical countries.
Once we leave oil in the ground and consider it worthless because we've moved on to alternative technologies, then the Middle East may face a reckoning of reality once more.
The Sunni-Shia rivalry long predated the discovery - let alone use - of oil and will long outlast it. It is central to what sort of Islam becomes dominant in different Muslim countries. That issue is not going to disappear and, even if the West becomes wholly independent of the Middle East for energy, given the size of Muslim communities in the West we still be affected by the continuation and outcome of that rivalry.
The rivalry existed yes, of course it did, but it didn't lead to what we see today. Why did an ancient rivalry suddenly from 1979 lead to what we have now?
It is the exploitation of oil money that has (as the saying goes) thrown petrol on the fire of that pre-existing conflict. The Saudis and Iranians and others have been able to finance their religious conflict with billions of petrodollars.
They have, but I think that analysis a little reductive. After all, it's not as though there aren't stable rich states, and unstable poor ones in the region.
And one can trace the radicalism of 1979 Iran back to the coup we and the US engineered against Mosaddegh in 53, who might otherwise have instituted a stable democracy in Iran.
And most of the current problems of the ME trace directly back in some way to the imposed postwar settlement.
Sunni and Shia have been fighting each other for way longer than 75 years.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
Really? Sorry, that’s completely unacceptable - half the Cabinet should have been there.
The Duchess of Cornwall has gone and Eric Pickles. But no Minister.
I've not read the book just the snippet you've quoted but I'd trace the roots of the problem to before 1979 which I think was itself a symptom rather than a cause, the problem began earlier in the 70s and in one word was: Oil.
Oil and OPEC's actions in the 70s cause the Middle East to be awash with oil money that led to and funded the radical issues of 1979 onwards. By having so much money associated with a single export that the state could control it led to corruption and opportunities for it.
For me I am very keen on seeing us end our use of oil and always have been but not just for "environmental" reasons but also to end our relationship with the Middle East and the financing of petrochemical countries.
Once we leave oil in the ground and consider it worthless because we've moved on to alternative technologies, then the Middle East may face a reckoning of reality once more.
The Sunni-Shia rivalry long predated the discovery - let alone use - of oil and will long outlast it. It is central to what sort of Islam becomes dominant in different Muslim countries. That issue is not going to disappear and, even if the West becomes wholly independent of the Middle East for energy, given the size of Muslim communities in the West we still be affected by the continuation and outcome of that rivalry.
The rivalry existed yes, of course it did, but it didn't lead to what we see today. Why did an ancient rivalry suddenly from 1979 lead to what we have now?
It is the exploitation of oil money that has (as the saying goes) thrown petrol on the fire of that pre-existing conflict. The Saudis and Iranians and others have been able to finance their religious conflict with billions of petrodollars.
They have, but I think that analysis a little reductive. After all, it's not as though there aren't stable rich states, and unstable poor ones in the region.
And one can trace the radicalism of 1979 Iran back to the coup we and the US engineered against Mosaddegh in 53, who might otherwise have instituted a stable democracy in Iran.
And most of the current problems of the ME trace directly back in some way to the imposed postwar settlement.
Sunni and Shia have been fighting each other for way longer than 75 years.
Of course. But that does not take regional conflict inevitable.
Trump is an absolute racing certainty. He will increase his EC share.
It's all over before it has begun.
Dead opposite view to mine. I think Trump will lose either easily or VERY easily depending on who gets the Dem nomination. However this is not a tip. I freely admit that it is pure intuition that he loses big.
Well in December Trump would have probably won.
Now in January he would probably lose, but it's Trump 206 vs Top 3 Democrats 240 with 6 states within 2% on average.
And the Generic Congresional Ballot Democrat lead is down to 5%, at 5% it's down to Omaha or upper Maine for Trump to get to 270 E.V. it's 50-50.
Candidates do matter, the most "electable" candidates have won only 2 out of 18 presidential elections since WW2.
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world.
That is all fine until some ghastly crime happens here and it turns out that the offender could have been caught or stopped if only the police had had access to information held in a EU country.
You'll find that Leavers' response to that will be to stop foreigners coming to Britain on safety grounds.
No. How about letting Leavers speak for themselves and not putting your own words in their mouths for them? You asked for an apology the other day, I'm going to ask for one here - I have never been anti-immigration and its offensive of you to claim that is my or others opinion just because some Leavers are racists.
I didn't mention you by name, nor did I attribute that view to you. You are deluded if you think that there aren't battalions of Leavers whose animating spirit is hostility to immigration.
Indeed, for all the Conservatives who witter on here about how green they are and what a good story they have to tell about the environment (and on power generation it's true), here's something to make you think.
A Centre for Cities report has shown one death in 19 is linked to air pollution and in London and other major cities deaths related to air pollution are 25 times higher than deaths from road traffic accidents.
6.4% of deaths in London and Slough are linked to PM2.5 which, as you all know, is atmospheric particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers which is 3% of the diameter of a human hair.
62% of roads breach WHO guidelines for PM2.5. About half the PM2.5 toxins originate from wood burning and coal fires with the rest from transport.
The report recommends extending Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) and banning the use of wood stoves and coal fires in cities.
It's a different kind of challenge to the smog of the 1950s which brought about the Clean Air Act but it's an integral part of the whole environment question and too little has been done to improve air quality.
There’s no way we are going to sign up to whatever white piece of paper the next EU environmental or employment legislation happens to be, given that it will be designed specifically to harm the UK. Any trade deal needs to be based on equivalence not alignment (as are the EU trade deals with Japan and Canada).
Nothing substantial is going to happen until the June deadline, when our refusal to agree an extension to the standstill makes the EU side understand that the result of failure of the talks will be no deal at all.
The big issues will be state aid and taxation (tax breaks and avoidance schemes are the key items, not rates) IMO. I think as long as the UK is there or thereabouts on the environment and workers rights, it will be OK. We'll see.
Maybe if Corbyn was negotiating would state aid be the issue.
Fishing and environmental/workers rights etc will be a bigger issue for the Tories. There's no way we can agree to remain aligned with whatever workers rights the EU comes up with into the future without a say, that's absurd.
There’s no way we are going to sign up to whatever white piece of paper the next EU environmental or employment legislation happens to be, given that it will be designed specifically to harm the UK. Any trade deal needs to be based on equivalence not alignment (as are the EU trade deals with Japan and Canada).
Nothing substantial is going to happen until the June deadline, when our refusal to agree an extension to the standstill makes the EU side understand that the result of failure of the talks will be no deal at all.
I don't know about the employment regs, but the idea that the next set of EU environmental regulations will "be designed specifically to harm the UK" is just a touch paranoid.
I respectfully disagree. The stated aim of the EU negotiators was to make the UK ‘pay’ for leaving. If we sign up to implement any future EU legislation then every single piece of it will contain a ‘f*** the UK’ clause.
Not saying you're wrong but have you got a link to the statement? I googled the phrase up and there were a bunch of British newspaper articles with that title, but they were from early in the negotiation process, talking about the exit bill, which IIUC has now been agreed.
Junker and Tusk used phrases such as “must be made to suffer, and be seen to suffer” a couple of years ago. I’ll drag up some articles when I’m on the computer and not the phone.
There’s no chance that the EU Council, who propose new EU legislation, won’t want to find a way to make the UK suffer at any opportunity. Pour encourager les autres. Brexit being a success is worst nightmare of the EU Establishment.
Not really. The argument authoritarians makes is that they must have x amount of information. That is a little different from saying that, as we did not have access to this information which had already been collected and to which we had access last month but not now, this bad consequence has happened.
But it is a political risk for the government and, specifically, the Home Secretary.
I hope a sensible resolution can be reached. But I don’t think we should be sanguine about the risks which are being run. Cynically, if something bad happens, I fully expect our police to blame a lack of information-sharing, almost regardless of the facts. And once that sort of story takes hold it’s hard to counter.
Of course that is true in both directions. If something bad happens in Paris, or Berlin, or Dublin, or Prague or anywhere else that could have been stopped with our information then that story could take hold too.
Which again begs the question why would the EU not want our data and why would we not agree therefore? It is illogical, unless one or more parties decide the data is not necessary - and if its not necessary my liberal principles say we shouldn't have or share that.
Either the data is necessary in which case an agreement will be reached, or its not in which case it shouldn't. Quite possibly (if not probably) its not necessary but an accord will be reached anyway based upon that projected fear.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world.
That is all fine until some ghastly crime happens here and it turns out that the offender could have been caught or stopped if only the police had had access to information held in a EU country.
You'll find that Leavers' response to that will be to stop foreigners coming to Britain on safety grounds.
No. How about letting Leavers speak for themselves and not putting your own words in their mouths for them? You asked for an apology the other day, I'm going to ask for one here - I have never been anti-immigration and its offensive of you to claim that is my or others opinion just because some Leavers are racists.
I didn't mention you by name, nor did I attribute that view to you. You are deluded if you think that there aren't battalions of Leavers whose animating spirit is hostility to immigration.
You stepped into a conversation in which I was the Leaver concerned and put out an offensive remark generalised to "Leavers" and not "some Leavers". If you want to attack Farage and his ilk be my guest, I'll join you, but he doesn't post here so that's not what you did in saying "Leavers's response" you generalised to people like me who could reply and put offensive remarks out there.
Are you going to apologise for that generalisation or double down on it?
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
Really? Sorry, that’s completely unacceptable - half the Cabinet should have been there.
The Duchess of Cornwall has gone and Eric Pickles. But no Minister.
I think it is quite shameful of Britain.
Things are a bit **cked when Viktor Orban shows you up.
Not really. The argument authoritarians makes is that they must have x amount of information. That is a little different from saying that, as we did not have access to this information which had already been collected and to which we had access last month but not now, this bad consequence has happened.
But it is a political risk for the government and, specifically, the Home Secretary.
I hope a sensible resolution can be reached. But I don’t think we should be sanguine about the risks which are being run. Cynically, if something bad happens, I fully expect our police to blame a lack of information-sharing, almost regardless of the facts. And once that sort of story takes hold it’s hard to counter.
Of course that is true in both directions. If something bad happens in Paris, or Berlin, or Dublin, or Prague or anywhere else that could have been stopped with our information then that story could take hold too.
Which again begs the question why would the EU not want our data and why would we not agree therefore? It is illogical, unless one or more parties decide the data is not necessary - and if its not necessary my liberal principles say we shouldn't have or share that.
Either the data is necessary in which case an agreement will be reached, or its not in which case it shouldn't. Quite possibly (if not probably) its not necessary but an accord will be reached anyway based upon that projected fear.
I think you are assuming that a decision will be reached on whether the data is necessary and the merits of co-operation rather than for other reasons. I think it quite possible that no sensible decision is reached because parties will go into “cutting nose off to spite face” mode.
If the latter, the risks still remain but the explanation will look unjustifiable to those harmed if the risks materialise.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
Just what I would expect from this shower.
Though if we had had a Corbyn government would the result have been any different?
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
Really? Sorry, that’s completely unacceptable - half the Cabinet should have been there.
The Duchess of Cornwall has gone and Eric Pickles. But no Minister.
I think it is quite shameful of Britain.
That’s the sort of occasion I’d expect to find if not the Queen then at least Charles, and the PM & Foreign Sec on the political side.
It would be fitting as HMQ’s final overseas trip.
Played carefully, there was even a political point to be made by inviting the Leader of the Opposition and seeing him not turn up.
1. Agreement on this may not be based simply on the advantages to both sides of getting agreement on this but will very possibly be linked to other matters. 2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
1. Very true, but also something that is reasonable and can be lived with. 2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world.
That is all fine until some ghastly crime happens here and it turns out that the offender could have been caught or stopped if only the police had had access to information held in a EU country.
You'll find that Leavers' response to that will be to stop foreigners coming to Britain on safety grounds.
No. How about letting Leavers speak for themselves and not putting your own words in their mouths for them? You asked for an apology the other day, I'm going to ask for one here - I have never been anti-immigration and its offensive of you to claim that is my or others opinion just because some Leavers are racists.
I didn't mention you by name, nor did I attribute that view to you. You are deluded if you think that there aren't battalions of Leavers whose animating spirit is hostility to immigration.
You stepped into a conversation in which I was the Leaver concerned and put out an offensive remark generalised to "Leavers" and not "some Leavers". If you want to attack Farage and his ilk be my guest, I'll join you, but he doesn't post here so that's not what you did in saying "Leavers's response" you generalised to people like me who could reply and put offensive remarks out there.
Are you going to apologise for that generalisation or double down on it?
I'm not going to apologise for noting something that Leavers would advocate in those circumstances. If you're uncomfortable about your bedfellows, you need to consider your sleeping arrangements.
But the disappearance of such money does not mean that the grievances and/or sectarianism and/or extremism go away. There will be no return to the status quo ante. So what happens next when you have all those things which have been stoked up + relative poverty. That’s a recipe for further disaster rather than fading away into peaceful obscurity.
Look at Saudi Arabia: a country with a young population who are kept onside with the liberal use of wealth. What do you think will happen to a country steeped in extremism with a lot of young men who can no longer be kept happy with oil money?
Agreed, it doesn't mean it will go away, nothing on its own does, but it gives an opportunity. Having wealth purely concentrated in the hands of the elite that can control the taps is not healthy and the problems aren't going away today. Stopping that won't bring back a middle class that is needed but it opens an opportunity.
I would be concerned about the young in Saudi no longer being kept onside if I thought they should be kept onside and the despicable Saudi regime keeping them onside was a good thing. I don't.
Post oil I see three possible futures for the Middle East - two bad and one good.
Two bad possibilities: 1: Africa: Like Africa the absence of wealth or opportunities to create it, plus corruption lead to destitution, corruption, poverty and emigration. Such opportunities that do exist like diamonds primarily help fuel further conflict. 2: Russia: The collapse of the old regime and its power leads to disruption, instability (Yeltsin era) before a hardman (Putin era) finds funding via a new mechanism and takes control. Though note it was oil that led to the oligarchs and Putin in Russia too, but that doesn't mean an oil Mk2 won't be their future.
One good possibility: 3: South East Asia: Conflict reigns but ultimately simmers and settles down. The countries adapt to a new independent order and ultimately open up and develop.
I think it is the lack of oil and equivalent sovereign wealth products in much of South East Asia that has led to that being one of the better formerly third world parts of the world to develop.
Education matters. Historically east Asia always had a very high level of education for religious reasons.
The middle east has not recovered since the mongol invasion, like 15th century Europe only lately do you see magnificent palaces and buildings built after centuries of destruction, we will know in the far future what the far future holds.
In an alternative universe, there is an impeachment trial where the case for the prosecution is just a series of Trump's own tweets. Maybe in this universe too, after the real trial, such a book or film will be produced.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
Really? Sorry, that’s completely unacceptable - half the Cabinet should have been there.
The Duchess of Cornwall has gone and Eric Pickles. But no Minister.
I think it is quite shameful of Britain.
That’s the sort of occasion I’d expect to find if not the Queen then at least Charles, and the PM & Foreign Sec on the political side.
It would be fitting as HMQ’s final overseas trip.
Played carefully, there was even a political point to be made by inviting the Leader of the Opposition and seeing him not turn up.
Trump is an absolute racing certainty. He will increase his EC share.
It's all over before it has begun.
Dead opposite view to mine. I think Trump will lose either easily or VERY easily depending on who gets the Dem nomination. However this is not a tip. I freely admit that it is pure intuition that he loses big.
You are way too confident about this. I agree that it will matter who gets the Dem nomination - if it is Sanders or any woman then Trump will win easily. If a non-Sanders male then it`s difficult to call and you may be right - though don`t underestimate the skill and dubiousness on the Rep side when it comes to social marketing (aka manipulating the electorate).
I`m not being sexist by the way. Personally I`d go for Warren. I just harbour a hypothesis that in my lifetime at least no female leader of a left wing party in US or UK will ever be elected president/PM.
I think Klobuchar would do fine. Ultimately, she's not threatening to Republicans and she's from the Midwest. I think she'd stand a good chance against Trump.
I didn't mention you by name, nor did I attribute that view to you. You are deluded if you think that there aren't battalions of Leavers whose animating spirit is hostility to immigration.
You stepped into a conversation in which I was the Leaver concerned and put out an offensive remark generalised to "Leavers" and not "some Leavers". If you want to attack Farage and his ilk be my guest, I'll join you, but he doesn't post here so that's not what you did in saying "Leavers's response" you generalised to people like me who could reply and put offensive remarks out there.
Are you going to apologise for that generalisation or double down on it?
I'm not going to apologise for noting something that Leavers would advocate in those circumstances. If you're uncomfortable about your bedfellows, you need to consider your sleeping arrangements.
Except Leavers don't advocate that. I am a Leaver and I don't, there are many Leavers here that don't. A minority might but that does not extend to all. If you're not big enough to apologise that says more about you than your offensive generalisation says about me.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
Really? Sorry, that’s completely unacceptable - half the Cabinet should have been there.
The Duchess of Cornwall has gone and Eric Pickles. But no Minister.
I think it is quite shameful of Britain.
That’s the sort of occasion I’d expect to find if not the Queen then at least Charles, and the PM & Foreign Sec on the political side.
It would be fitting as HMQ’s final overseas trip.
Played carefully, there was even a political point to be made by inviting the Leader of the Opposition and seeing him not turn up.
Didn't Charles go to Israel last week?
And Palestine (or Greater Israel as the Old Testamentals would have it).
Not really. The argument authoritarians makes is that they must have x amount of information. That is a little different from saying that, as we did not have access to this information which had already been collected and to which we had access last month but not now, this bad consequence has happened.
But it is a political risk for the government and, specifically, the Home Secretary.
I hope a sensible resolution can be reached. But I don’t think we should be sanguine about the risks which are being run. Cynically, if something bad happens, I fully expect our police to blame a lack of information-sharing, almost regardless of the facts. And once that sort of story takes hold it’s hard to counter.
Of course that is true in both directions. If something bad happens in Paris, or Berlin, or Dublin, or Prague or anywhere else that could have been stopped with our information then that story could take hold too.
Which again begs the question why would the EU not want our data and why would we not agree therefore? It is illogical, unless one or more parties decide the data is not necessary - and if its not necessary my liberal principles say we shouldn't have or share that.
Either the data is necessary in which case an agreement will be reached, or its not in which case it shouldn't. Quite possibly (if not probably) its not necessary but an accord will be reached anyway based upon that projected fear.
I think you are assuming that a decision will be reached on whether the data is necessary and the merits of co-operation rather than for other reasons. I think it quite possible that no sensible decision is reached because parties will go into “cutting nose off to spite face” mode.
If the latter, the risks still remain but the explanation will look unjustifiable to those harmed if the risks materialise.
If that happens then so be it, unless or until all parties mature and want to treat each other as equal partners.
There’s no way we are going to sign up to whatever white piece of paper the next EU environmental or employment legislation happens to be, given that it will be designed specifically to harm the UK. Any trade deal needs to be based on equivalence not alignment (as are the EU trade deals with Japan and Canada).
Nothing substantial is going to happen until the June deadline, when our refusal to agree an extension to the standstill makes the EU side understand that the result of failure of the talks will be no deal at all.
The big issues will be state aid and taxation (tax breaks and avoidance schemes are the key items, not rates) IMO. I think as long as the UK is there or thereabouts on the environment and workers rights, it will be OK. We'll see.
Maybe if Corbyn was negotiating would state aid be the issue.
Fishing and environmental/workers rights etc will be a bigger issue for the Tories. There's no way we can agree to remain aligned with whatever workers rights the EU comes up with into the future without a say, that's absurd.
I didn't mention you by name, nor did I attribute that view to you. You are deluded if you think that there aren't battalions of Leavers whose animating spirit is hostility to immigration.
You stepped into a conversation in which I was the Leaver concerned and put out an offensive remark generalised to "Leavers" and not "some Leavers". If you want to attack Farage and his ilk be my guest, I'll join you, but he doesn't post here so that's not what you did in saying "Leavers's response" you generalised to people like me who could reply and put offensive remarks out there.
Are you going to apologise for that generalisation or double down on it?
I'm not going to apologise for noting something that Leavers would advocate in those circumstances. If you're uncomfortable about your bedfellows, you need to consider your sleeping arrangements.
Except Leavers don't advocate that. I am a Leaver and I don't, there are many Leavers here that don't. A minority might but that does not extend to all. If you're not big enough to apologise that says more about you than your offensive generalisation says about me.
I have no need to apologise to you - I did not name you and the point I made was a fair reflection of the views that won the referendum for Leave.
But as it happens, you fell in enthusiastically behind a campaign that succeeded by frightening people with untrue suggestions that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on the UK. Actions speak louder than words. So before you demand apologies for having been traduced, consider your own small part in the debasement of the country.
In an alternative universe, there is an impeachment trial where the case for the prosecution is just a series of Trump's own tweets. Maybe in this universe too, after the real trial, such a book or film will be produced.
A film about tweets will be boring.
Speaking of which the Trump campaign has the best ads but there are never on TV only on the internet, it's silly because 75% or something of people still watch TV, here is an example:
Trump is an absolute racing certainty. He will increase his EC share.
It's all over before it has begun.
Dead opposite view to mine. I think Trump will lose either easily or VERY easily depending on who gets the Dem nomination. However this is not a tip. I freely admit that it is pure intuition that he loses big.
You are way too confident about this. I agree that it will matter who gets the Dem nomination - if it is Sanders or any woman then Trump will win easily. If a non-Sanders male then it`s difficult to call and you may be right - though don`t underestimate the skill and dubiousness on the Rep side when it comes to social marketing (aka manipulating the electorate).
I`m not being sexist by the way. Personally I`d go for Warren. I just harbour a hypothesis that in my lifetime at least no female leader of a left wing party in US or UK will ever be elected president/PM.
I think Klobuchar would do fine. Ultimately, she's not threatening to Republicans and she's from the Midwest. I think she'd stand a good chance against Trump.
My guess for what's ifs worth is that Nikki Haley will be first female POTUS.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
Really? Sorry, that’s completely unacceptable - half the Cabinet should have been there.
The Duchess of Cornwall has gone and Eric Pickles. But no Minister.
I think it is quite shameful of Britain.
That’s the sort of occasion I’d expect to find if not the Queen then at least Charles, and the PM & Foreign Sec on the political side.
It would be fitting as HMQ’s final overseas trip.
Played carefully, there was even a political point to be made by inviting the Leader of the Opposition and seeing him not turn up.
Trump is an absolute racing certainty. He will increase his EC share.
It's all over before it has begun.
Dead opposite view to mine. I think Trump will lose either easily or VERY easily depending on who gets the Dem nomination. However this is not a tip. I freely admit that it is pure intuition that he loses big.
You are way too confident about this. I agree that it will matter who gets the Dem nomination - if it is Sanders or any woman then Trump will win easily. If a non-Sanders male then it`s difficult to call and you may be right - though don`t underestimate the skill and dubiousness on the Rep side when it comes to social marketing (aka manipulating the electorate).
I`m not being sexist by the way. Personally I`d go for Warren. I just harbour a hypothesis that in my lifetime at least no female leader of a left wing party in US or UK will ever be elected president/PM.
I think Klobuchar would do fine. Ultimately, she's not threatening to Republicans and she's from the Midwest. I think she'd stand a good chance against Trump.
My guess for what's ifs worth is that Nikki Haley will be first female POTUS.
How does she win the Republican nomination ? Why her in 2024 and not Pence or Ron DeSandis or even one of the Trump kids ?
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Trump is an absolute racing certainty. He will increase his EC share.
It's all over before it has begun.
Dead opposite view to mine. I think Trump will lose either easily or VERY easily depending on who gets the Dem nomination. However this is not a tip. I freely admit that it is pure intuition that he loses big.
You are way too confident about this. I agree that it will matter who gets the Dem nomination - if it is Sanders or any woman then Trump will win easily. If a non-Sanders male then it`s difficult to call and you may be right - though don`t underestimate the skill and dubiousness on the Rep side when it comes to social marketing (aka manipulating the electorate).
I`m not being sexist by the way. Personally I`d go for Warren. I just harbour a hypothesis that in my lifetime at least no female leader of a left wing party in US or UK will ever be elected president/PM.
I think Klobuchar would do fine. Ultimately, she's not threatening to Republicans and she's from the Midwest. I think she'd stand a good chance against Trump.
My guess for what's ifs worth is that Nikki Haley will be first female POTUS.
I think she needs Trump to be defeated this year, and to run in 2024.
Not really. The argument authoritarians makes is that they must have x amount of information. That is a little different from saying that, as we did not have access to this information which had already been collected and to which we had access last month but not now, this bad consequence has happened.
But it is a political risk for the government and, specifically, the Home Secretary.
I hope a sensible resolution can be reached. But I don’t think we should be sanguine about the risks which are being run. Cynically, if something bad happens, I fully expect our police to blame a lack of information-sharing, almost regardless of the facts. And once that sort of story takes hold it’s hard to counter.
Of course that is true in both directions. If something bad happens in Paris, or Berlin, or Dublin, or Prague or anywhere else that could have been stopped with our information then that story could take hold too.
Which again begs the question why would the EU not want our data and why would we not agree therefore? It is illogical, unless one or more parties decide the data is not necessary - and if its not necessary my liberal principles say we shouldn't have or share that.
Either the data is necessary in which case an agreement will be reached, or its not in which case it shouldn't. Quite possibly (if not probably) its not necessary but an accord will be reached anyway based upon that projected fear.
I think you are assuming that a decision will be reached on whether the data is necessary and the merits of co-operation rather than for other reasons. I think it quite possible that no sensible decision is reached because parties will go into “cutting nose off to spite face” mode.
If the latter, the risks still remain but the explanation will look unjustifiable to those harmed if the risks materialise.
We probably shouldn't get too excited about it at this stage either way.
I suspect both sides are laying out their threats and cakes on the table as the opening gambit - normal part of a negotiation strategy - and we'll hone in on something cooperative, cordial and fair and in the end.
Mr. Isam, that article is utter nonsense. There's a fine sense of sexism (shockingly, some women like sport) and if the principle is accepted then presumably women won't be allowed to discuss Strictly Come Dancing in case any men at work don't watch it.
It's pathetic, from some idiot who clearly has too much time on their hands.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Precisely. This is an area where we are at the very least equal partners. There is no logic for anyone to be absurd on this and if they are then let them cool off without agreement until grown ups take charge from them.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. It's not a question of the EU playing silly buggers. The EU is the EU: it is a very strange beast, quite unlike any other organisation, and it has to work within the framework of the treaties. It is not a single monolithic decision-making body; some decisions can be taken by the Commission, but others can't.
One thing the Commission can do is enter into a trade agreement with the UK - but crucially, only if it is exclusively a trade deal and doesn't impinge on rights reserved to member states. Given the ludicrous timetable which Boris has arbitrarily imposed, that means in practice that the only deal we can do is one limited exclusively to trade; there simply is zero chance of getting 27 member states including oddball institutions like the Walloon parliament to ratify anything more ambitious in the few months available.
So cooperation on crime is likely to fall away by default, and will have to be clawed back country-by-country. This is the direct and inevitable consequence of the Boris timetable.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. It's not a question of the EU playing silly buggers. The EU is the EU: it is a very strange beast, quite unlike any other organisation, and it has to work within the framework of the treaties. It is not a single monolithic decision-making body; some decisions can be taken by the Commission, but others can't.
One thing the Commission can do is enter into a trade agreement with the UK - but crucially, only if it is exclusively a trade deal and doesn't impinge on rights reserved to member states. Given the ludicrous timetable which Boris has arbitrarily imposed, that means in practice that the only deal we can do is one limited exclusively to trade; there simply is zero chance of getting 27 member states including oddball institutions like the Walloon parliament to ratify anything more ambitious in the few months available.
So cooperation on crime is likely to fall away by default, and will have to be clawed back country-by-country. This is the direct and inevitable consequence of the Boris timetable.
Don't be so pessimistic. If the 27 countries want a deal on intelligence and crime [and why wouldn't they] then they have an incentive to agree one rapidly.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Precisely. This is an area where we are at the very least equal partners. There is no logic for anyone to be absurd on this and if they are then let them cool off without agreement until grown ups take charge from them.
Your side was threatening/is using citizens rights as leverage. Therefore has no right to criticise the EU for utilising their own leverage.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
The EAW and intelligence-sharing are two different things, though connected. I don’t like the EAW at all. But sharing information is sensible.
Don't be so pessimistic. If the 27 countries want a deal on intelligence and crime [and why wouldn't they] then they have an incentive to agree one rapidly.
This isn't just "countries", it's multiple veto points in each country (lower house + upper house and/or president), and sometimes one of those veto players has an interest in making their government fail.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. It's not a question of the EU playing silly buggers. The EU is the EU: it is a very strange beast, quite unlike any other organisation, and it has to work within the framework of the treaties. It is not a single monolithic decision-making body; some decisions can be taken by the Commission, but others can't.
One thing the Commission can do is enter into a trade agreement with the UK - but crucially, only if it is exclusively a trade deal and doesn't impinge on rights reserved to member states. Given the ludicrous timetable which Boris has arbitrarily imposed, that means in practice that the only deal we can do is one limited exclusively to trade; there simply is zero chance of getting 27 member states including oddball institutions like the Walloon parliament to ratify anything more ambitious in the few months available.
So cooperation on crime is likely to fall away by default, and will have to be clawed back country-by-country. This is the direct and inevitable consequence of the Boris timetable.
Don't be so pessimistic. If the 27 countries want a deal on intelligence and crime [and why wouldn't they] then they have an incentive to agree one rapidly.
Just because a deal may be desired and agreed doesn't mean it can be progressed and implemented quickly.
There was a desire to leave the EU and our Parliament delayed it for a year, other parliaments can (and will) do the same especially if there is little incentive for them to agree to it.
and that's the bit Brexiters seem to forget - a lot of people may have a say on the final agreement and may want very specific things before they agree - it's why agreements take 10 years to agree rather than 5 months.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Precisely. This is an area where we are at the very least equal partners. There is no logic for anyone to be absurd on this and if they are then let them cool off without agreement until grown ups take charge from them.
Your side was threatening/is using citizens rights as leverage. Therefore has no right to criticise the EU for utilising their own leverage.
What did you expect to happen?
Actually I think you're giving the EU [and my side] both too much and too little credit.
Firstly my side never threatened citizens rights as leverage. Theresa May did I agree but she was never "on my side". My side, including during the referendum, said all along that citizens rights should be maintained and guaranteed and its quite noteworthy that even during the leadership campaign that Remainer May won the Leavers continued to say that citizens rights should not be leverage.
Secondly crime and intelligence is not leverage for the EU. Again we are world leaders on intelligence punching well above our weight.
Finally what I did expect to happen is what I still expect to happen. All parties will act like grown ups and reach an equitable accord. It is noteworthy that the talk about not getting an agreement on crime and intelligence sharing is not coming from M Barnier or people like him - it is coming from the increasingly delusional Brexitsceptics on our shores.
Sometime this year M Barnier and our side will reach an agreement on intelligence and crime data sharing and it will be ratified either within a larger agreement or on its own. Once we sign it off with Barnier and co on the EU's side the 27 will ratify it in short order - none of the 27 nations, nor Wallonia nor others, are going to want to be responsible for vetoing intelligence sharing and then be responsible for a terrorist atrocity in their country/state/province.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Precisely. This is an area where we are at the very least equal partners. There is no logic for anyone to be absurd on this and if they are then let them cool off without agreement until grown ups take charge from them.
Your side was threatening/is using citizens rights as leverage. Therefore has no right to criticise the EU for utilising their own leverage.
What did you expect to happen?
The blame game already shaping up. Looking forward to 12 months - at least - of: "EU are unreasonable" "EU shooting themselves in the foot" "But it's actually really easy, honest, so it must be someone elses fault" "Sabotaged by remainers in the civil service" "This behaviour is why we had to leave" "Yummy, chlorine is actually my new favourite food" etc, etc, etc, etc.
Don't be so pessimistic. If the 27 countries want a deal on intelligence and crime [and why wouldn't they] then they have an incentive to agree one rapidly.
This isn't just "countries", it's multiple veto points in each country (lower house + upper house and/or president), and sometimes one of those veto players has an interest in making their government fail.
None of those veto points have an incentive in vetoing intelligence sharing.
If an agreement is reached on sharing intelligence and crime data (and they will be linked together) then who do you suggest is going to veto that and want to be responsible for a terrorist or other criminal attack on their ground that could have been prevented?
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Precisely. This is an area where we are at the very least equal partners. There is no logic for anyone to be absurd on this and if they are then let them cool off without agreement until grown ups take charge from them.
Your side was threatening/is using citizens rights as leverage. Therefore has no right to criticise the EU for utilising their own leverage.
What did you expect to happen?
The blame game already shaping up. Looking forward to 12 months - at least - of: "EU are unreasonable" "EU shooting themselves in the foot" "But it's actually really easy, honest, so it must be someone elses fault" "Sabotaged by remainers in the civil service" "This behaviour is why we had to leave" "Yummy, chlorine is actually my new favourite food" etc, etc, etc, etc.
You mean the new 50p won't sort it? Hugely disappointing.
But the disappearance of such money does not mean that the grievances and/or sectarianism and/or extremism go away. There will be no return to the status quo ante. So what happens next when you have all those things which have been stoked up + relative poverty. That’s a recipe for further disaster rather than fading away into peaceful obscurity.
Look at Saudi Arabia: a country with a young population who are kept onside with the liberal use of wealth. What do you think will happen to a country steeped in extremism with a lot of young men who can no longer be kept happy with oil money?
Agreed, it doesn't mean it will go away, nothing on its own does, but it gives an opportunity. Having wealth purely concentrated in the hands of the elite that can control the taps is not healthy and the problems aren't going away today. Stopping that won't bring back a middle class that is needed but it opens an opportunity.
I would be concerned about the young in Saudi no longer being kept onside if I thought they should be kept onside and the despicable Saudi regime keeping them onside was a good thing. I don't.
Post oil I see three possible futures for the Middle East - two bad and one good.
Two bad possibilities: 1: Africa: Like Africa the absence of wealth or opportunities to create it, plus corruption lead to destitution, corruption, poverty and emigration. Such opportunities that do exist like diamonds primarily help fuel further conflict. 2: Russia: The collapse of the old regime and its power leads to disruption, instability (Yeltsin era) before a hardman (Putin era) finds funding via a new mechanism and takes control. Though note it was oil that led to the oligarchs and Putin in Russia too, but that doesn't mean an oil Mk2 won't be their future.
One good possibility: 3: South East Asia: Conflict reigns but ultimately simmers and settles down. The countries adapt to a new independent order and ultimately open up and develop.
I think it is the lack of oil and equivalent sovereign wealth products in much of South East Asia that has led to that being one of the better formerly third world parts of the world to develop.
You are way too confident about this. I agree that it will matter who gets the Dem nomination - if it is Sanders or any woman then Trump will win easily. If a non-Sanders male then it`s difficult to call and you may be right - though don`t underestimate the skill and dubiousness on the Rep side when it comes to social marketing (aka manipulating the electorate).
I`m not being sexist by the way. Personally I`d go for Warren. I just harbour a hypothesis that in my lifetime at least no female leader of a left wing party in US or UK will ever be elected president/PM.
Female AND left wing too much for people to swallow? Don't know about that. Warren would test the theory obviously. But probably not - she's a long shot for the nom now. Looking like Bernie but I'm far from convinced about that.
I am too confident on Trump losing, you're right, but I'm nevertheless very confident. One thing I'm not doing, in case you're wondering, is letting what I WANT to happen influence my view. Least I don't think I am. I backed him to win in 2016 at good odds. Ditto no Ref2 and Con landslide. Bets I hoped would prove losers but knew would win.
But I don't expect my intuition to convince other people on an Internet forum. EYE know I can rival Gypsy Rose Lee when I get a "strong one" - flash of big picture intuition, I mean, not a drink - but they don't know that.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Precisely. This is an area where we are at the very least equal partners. There is no logic for anyone to be absurd on this and if they are then let them cool off without agreement until grown ups take charge from them.
Your side was threatening/is using citizens rights as leverage. Therefore has no right to criticise the EU for utilising their own leverage.
What did you expect to happen?
The blame game already shaping up. Looking forward to 12 months - at least - of: "EU are unreasonable" "EU shooting themselves in the foot" "But it's actually really easy, honest, so it must be someone elses fault" "Sabotaged by remainers in the civil service" "This behaviour is why we had to leave" "Yummy, chlorine is actually my new favourite food" etc, etc, etc, etc.
You mean the new 50p won't sort it? Hugely disappointing.
Sorry to have been the bearer of such bad news.
[BTW do the Scottish banks mint their own coins? I've seen the notes but never anything smaller.]
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Precisely. This is an area where we are at the very least equal partners. There is no logic for anyone to be absurd on this and if they are then let them cool off without agreement until grown ups take charge from them.
Your side was threatening/is using citizens rights as leverage. Therefore has no right to criticise the EU for utilising their own leverage.
What did you expect to happen?
The blame game already shaping up. Looking forward to 12 months - at least - of: "EU are unreasonable" "EU shooting themselves in the foot" "But it's actually really easy, honest, so it must be someone elses fault" "Sabotaged by remainers in the civil service" "This behaviour is why we had to leave" "Yummy, chlorine is actually my new favourite food" etc, etc, etc, etc.
For all that people have seriously underestimated the effectiveness of the current incarnation of the Tory machine, if there is an area in which they could become unstuck, it is around food standards. People are (mostly excessively) frightened of people messing with their food. From BSE, to GMOs, to "chemicals" a message can land highly unpredictably...
So Varadkar thinks the UK’s population is “about 60 million” - only 7 million out (nearly twice Ireland’s) and that “UK politicians don’t understand Irish ones.....”
"About 60 million" is actually correct, albeit -ish. Latest[1] ONS estimate is 66,435,600.
He is also correct about UK politicians not understanding Irish ones nor Ireland generally. It's been one of my biggest complaints since I've been on PB, to the point of tedium.
I agree the Irish (in particular their Brussels diplomats) have run rings round the British - what I thought funny was Varadkar criticising ignorance in foreign politicians while demonstrating it himself.
I think the EU need to be careful about playing silly buggers with criminal cooperation.
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
Precisely. This is an area where we are at the very least equal partners. There is no logic for anyone to be absurd on this and if they are then let them cool off without agreement until grown ups take charge from them.
Your side was threatening/is using citizens rights as leverage. Therefore has no right to criticise the EU for utilising their own leverage.
What did you expect to happen?
The blame game already shaping up. Looking forward to 12 months - at least - of: "EU are unreasonable" "EU shooting themselves in the foot" "But it's actually really easy, honest, so it must be someone elses fault" "Sabotaged by remainers in the civil service" "This behaviour is why we had to leave" "Yummy, chlorine is actually my new favourite food" etc, etc, etc, etc.
You mean the new 50p won't sort it? Hugely disappointing.
Sorry to have been the bearer of such bad news.
[BTW do the Scottish banks mint their own coins? I've seen the notes but never anything smaller.]
Nope, I think all coins come from the Royal Mint, albeit with some regional variations in design.
Haven't seen a £ note for an age. The Ubiquitous Chip (a bar restaurant in the west end of Glasgow) always used to hand them out in their change for some reason.
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
Incidentally, why has the British government failed to send a single Minister to the commemorations at Auschwitz today? A poor show, frankly. (To put it mildly.)
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
That's not the point. The UK was in the forefront of defeating the Nazis ans while we didn't liberate Auschwitz-Birkenau directly we were part of the alliance that did.
It's perfectly possible to send both a royal and a Government representative - the Norwegians have so we could have.
In my view, we should have - I find the poor representation from BOTH the USA and Russia strange.
It's a place where the best and worst of humanity co-existed - it must never be forgotten or relegated.
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
That's not the point. The UK was in the forefront of defeating the Nazis ans while we didn't liberate Auschwitz-Birkenau directly we were part of the alliance that did.
It's perfectly possible to send both a royal and a Government representative - the Norwegians have so we could have.
In my view, we should have - I find the poor representation from BOTH the USA and Russia strange.
It's a place where the best and worst of humanity co-existed - it must never be forgotten or relegated.
I find it most bizarre if anything's going to be commented on that the Germans haven't sent a government representative. If anyone should have ensured their top representation went it should surely be the Germans?
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
That's not the point. The UK was in the forefront of defeating the Nazis ans while we didn't liberate Auschwitz-Birkenau directly we were part of the alliance that did.
It's perfectly possible to send both a royal and a Government representative - the Norwegians have so we could have.
In my view, we should have - I find the poor representation from BOTH the USA and Russia strange.
It's a place where the best and worst of humanity co-existed - it must never be forgotten or relegated.
I find it most bizarre if anything's going to be commented on that the Germans haven't sent a government representative. If anyone should have ensured their top representation went it should surely be the Germans?
They've sent their President. I think this is seen as more of a "State" event than a "Political{ one - so for example, the Polish President is there.
You are way too confident about this. I agree that it will matter who gets the Dem nomination - if it is Sanders or any woman then Trump will win easily. If a non-Sanders male then it`s difficult to call and you may be right - though don`t underestimate the skill and dubiousness on the Rep side when it comes to social marketing (aka manipulating the electorate).
I`m not being sexist by the way. Personally I`d go for Warren. I just harbour a hypothesis that in my lifetime at least no female leader of a left wing party in US or UK will ever be elected president/PM.
Female AND left wing too much for people to swallow? Don't know about that. Warren would test the theory obviously. But probably not - she's a long shot for the nom now. Looking like Bernie but I'm far from convinced about that.
I am too confident on Trump losing, you're right, but I'm nevertheless very confident. One thing I'm not doing, in case you're wondering, is letting what I WANT to happen influence my view. Least I don't think I am. I backed him to win in 2016 at good odds. Ditto no Ref2 and Con landslide. Bets I hoped would prove losers but knew would win.
But I don't expect my intuition to convince other people on an Internet forum. EYE know I can rival Gypsy Rose Lee when I get a "strong one" - flash of big picture intuition, I mean, not a drink - but they don't know that.
Your entertaining stream of conciousness leads me to glean - I think - that you believe that the Dems will beat Trump regardless of the nominee. We`ll have to differ on that.
I, like you, am keen that Trump loses, as his is a simpleton. There are many other reasons - but simpleton is sufficient disqualification I feel without going into further detail.
However ... a humourous aside, in Lewis`s book (The Fifth Risk) p.29 - when Trump`s surprise win became clear and calls started coming in from world leaders - "the president of Egypt called in to the switchboard at Trump Tower and got the operator to put him straight through to Trump. Trump was like ... "I love the Bangles! You know that song "Walk like an Egyptian?" ...."
What baffles me is how and why the Republican Party allowed Trump to become a potential candidate in the first place.
If the Dems priority is to beat Trump (it should be) they need to select Biden.
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
That's not the point. The UK was in the forefront of defeating the Nazis ans while we didn't liberate Auschwitz-Birkenau directly we were part of the alliance that did.
It's perfectly possible to send both a royal and a Government representative - the Norwegians have so we could have.
In my view, we should have - I find the poor representation from BOTH the USA and Russia strange.
It's a place where the best and worst of humanity co-existed - it must never be forgotten or relegated.
I find it most bizarre if anything's going to be commented on that the Germans haven't sent a government representative. If anyone should have ensured their top representation went it should surely be the Germans?
They've sent their President. I think this is seen as more of a "State" event than a "Political{ one - so for example, the Polish President is there.
Indeed in which case us sending a State representative to join the German and other State representatives is entirely fitting. If the Germans, Poles and others are sending State representatives then why is it odd that we have too?
There are very few heads of government attending (No Macron, Merkel, the US has sent the Secretary to the Treasury) - there are more heads of State (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland) or their delegates (Norway, Sweden) - so in our case sending the 72 year old wife of the heir to the throne to Poland in a freezing January is not too shabby, especially since the 93 year old head of state is laid up with a cold - many counties have just sent ambassadors:
That's not the point. The UK was in the forefront of defeating the Nazis ans while we didn't liberate Auschwitz-Birkenau directly we were part of the alliance that did.
It's perfectly possible to send both a royal and a Government representative - the Norwegians have so we could have.
In my view, we should have - I find the poor representation from BOTH the USA and Russia strange.
It's a place where the best and worst of humanity co-existed - it must never be forgotten or relegated.
I find it most bizarre if anything's going to be commented on that the Germans haven't sent a government representative. If anyone should have ensured their top representation went it should surely be the Germans?
Head of State outranks Head of Government. So they have sent their top man.
Comments
Grievance plus vast sums of money is a toxic combination.
The unprecendented, vast and very recent influx of billions of dollars of wealth via oil money to Iran and Saudi Arabia and others earlier in the decade played its part in both funding and encouraging the events of 1979.
Equally, a democratic exercise of the type we have just seen is to ask the people whether they want a party to continue holding referendum after referendum. In this last instance they didn't.
2. The EU may not want as much from us as we think. Equally we may want more from them. (I am speculating here rather than asserting.)
At any event, unless agreement is reached, Britain will lose access to a very comprehensive database which our police currently use extensively. Whether the loss to police forces in EU states is as great or greater than the loss to Britain will to some extent determine what happens next. I wonder whether our police database is quite as wonderful as we like to claim. Nothing else about the police is, as far as I can see.
As someone who voted Leave, I have absolutely no problem with Starmer's stance on Brexit prior to the GE, because that is ancient history now and he has enough nous to know that there is no political mileage in trying to do anything but move on.
His ideas on devolution of power within England are interesting and exactly the sort of thing I want to hear from an aspiring Labour leader. What he is essentially saying that the EU was but one casualty of a much wider issue of powerlessness felt by local communities and that Brexit alone is not going to address that. I agree with him and welcome the change of focus.
2. Perhaps. In which case why do we desire that information from them?
If the Police have to cope with less data, then they have to cope with less data. So be it. The Police will have to do their jobs, I don't see that as the end of the world. I agree with you on the problems with the Police and that should be a bigger priority than simply ensuring we have a massive database to rely upon.
If the data is necessary, then they will want our data, and we will reach an agreement. If its not, then they shouldn't have it in the first place. I'm OK either way. In fact if it is not necessary data but we as a continent have been gathering it despite not needing it and now we stop doing so then on liberal principles that is probably a good thing not a bad thing!
But the disappearance of such money does not mean that the grievances and/or sectarianism and/or extremism go away. There will be no return to the status quo ante. So what happens next when you have all those things which have been stoked up + relative poverty. That’s a recipe for further disaster rather than fading away into peaceful obscurity.
Look at Saudi Arabia: a country with a young population who are kept onside with the liberal use of wealth. What do you think will happen to a country steeped in extremism with a lot of young men who can no longer be kept happy with oil money?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-len-mcclusky-rebecca-long-bailey-corbyn-a4344756.html
And one can trace the radicalism of 1979 Iran back to the coup we and the US engineered against Mosaddegh in 53, who might otherwise have instituted a stable democracy in Iran.
And most of the current problems of the ME trace directly back in some way to the imposed postwar settlement.
https://twitter.com/bbcbusiness/status/1221719067607883776?s=21
I would be concerned about the young in Saudi no longer being kept onside if I thought they should be kept onside and the despicable Saudi regime keeping them onside was a good thing. I don't.
Post oil I see three possible futures for the Middle East - two bad and one good.
Two bad possibilities:
1: Africa: Like Africa the absence of wealth or opportunities to create it, plus corruption lead to destitution, corruption, poverty and emigration. Such opportunities that do exist like diamonds primarily help fuel further conflict.
2: Russia: The collapse of the old regime and its power leads to disruption, instability (Yeltsin era) before a hardman (Putin era) finds funding via a new mechanism and takes control. Though note it was oil that led to the oligarchs and Putin in Russia too, but that doesn't mean an oil Mk2 won't be their future.
One good possibility:
3: South East Asia: Conflict reigns but ultimately simmers and settles down. The countries adapt to a new independent order and ultimately open up and develop.
I think it is the lack of oil and equivalent sovereign wealth products in much of South East Asia that has led to that being one of the better formerly third world parts of the world to develop.
I`m not being sexist by the way. Personally I`d go for Warren. I just harbour a hypothesis that in my lifetime at least no female leader of a left wing party in US or UK will ever be elected president/PM.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1221728588615077888?s=20
But it is a political risk for the government and, specifically, the Home Secretary.
I hope a sensible resolution can be reached. But I don’t think we should be sanguine about the risks which are being run. Cynically, if something bad happens, I fully expect our police to blame a lack of information-sharing, almost regardless of the facts. And once that sort of story takes hold it’s hard to counter.
I think it is quite shameful of Britain.
Now in January he would probably lose, but it's Trump 206 vs Top 3 Democrats 240 with 6 states within 2% on average.
And the Generic Congresional Ballot Democrat lead is down to 5%, at 5% it's down to Omaha or upper Maine for Trump to get to 270 E.V. it's 50-50.
Candidates do matter, the most "electable" candidates have won only 2 out of 18 presidential elections since WW2.
Indeed, for all the Conservatives who witter on here about how green they are and what a good story they have to tell about the environment (and on power generation it's true), here's something to make you think.
A Centre for Cities report has shown one death in 19 is linked to air pollution and in London and other major cities deaths related to air pollution are 25 times higher than deaths from road traffic accidents.
6.4% of deaths in London and Slough are linked to PM2.5 which, as you all know, is atmospheric particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers which is 3% of the diameter of a human hair.
62% of roads breach WHO guidelines for PM2.5. About half the PM2.5 toxins originate from wood burning and coal fires with the rest from transport.
The report recommends extending Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) and banning the use of wood stoves and coal fires in cities.
It's a different kind of challenge to the smog of the 1950s which brought about the Clean Air Act but it's an integral part of the whole environment question and too little has been done to improve air quality.
There’s no chance that the EU Council, who propose new EU legislation, won’t want to find a way to make the UK suffer at any opportunity. Pour encourager les autres. Brexit being a success is worst nightmare of the EU Establishment.
Which again begs the question why would the EU not want our data and why would we not agree therefore? It is illogical, unless one or more parties decide the data is not necessary - and if its not necessary my liberal principles say we shouldn't have or share that.
Either the data is necessary in which case an agreement will be reached, or its not in which case it shouldn't. Quite possibly (if not probably) its not necessary but an accord will be reached anyway based upon that projected fear.
Are you going to apologise for that generalisation or double down on it?
https://twitter.com/AuschwitzMuseum/status/1215654177436815360?s=20
If the latter, the risks still remain but the explanation will look unjustifiable to those harmed if the risks materialise.
It would be fitting as HMQ’s final overseas trip.
Played carefully, there was even a political point to be made by inviting the Leader of the Opposition and seeing him not turn up.
Historically east Asia always had a very high level of education for religious reasons.
The middle east has not recovered since the mongol invasion, like 15th century Europe only lately do you see magnificent palaces and buildings built after centuries of destruction, we will know in the far future what the far future holds.
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1220777470007357445?s=20
But as it happens, you fell in enthusiastically behind a campaign that succeeded by frightening people with untrue suggestions that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on the UK. Actions speak louder than words. So before you demand apologies for having been traduced, consider your own small part in the debasement of the country.
Speaking of which the Trump campaign has the best ads but there are never on TV only on the internet, it's silly because 75% or something of people still watch TV, here is an example:
https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1205885091894956033/video/1
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-climate-gulf-stream.html
Why her in 2024 and not Pence or Ron DeSandis or even one of the Trump kids ?
I had and have no time for the EAW (and in fact @Cyclefree was critiquing it several years ago on here too, as other EU countries don't have the same standards of criminal arrest or trial as the UK) but that's by the by.
The real issue is how the EU and UK will practically work together to reduce crime. Particularly international organised crime gangs that 'steal or traffick to order', for example.
The EU's security and intelligence services are also crap, and they rely quite heavily on the UK for this. If they start linking criminal cooperation to other things they might find we do the same thing too.
I suspect both sides are laying out their threats and cakes on the table as the opening gambit - normal part of a negotiation strategy - and we'll hone in on something cooperative, cordial and fair and in the end.
It's pathetic, from some idiot who clearly has too much time on their hands.
One thing the Commission can do is enter into a trade agreement with the UK - but crucially, only if it is exclusively a trade deal and doesn't impinge on rights reserved to member states. Given the ludicrous timetable which Boris has arbitrarily imposed, that means in practice that the only deal we can do is one limited exclusively to trade; there simply is zero chance of getting 27 member states including oddball institutions like the Walloon parliament to ratify anything more ambitious in the few months available.
So cooperation on crime is likely to fall away by default, and will have to be clawed back country-by-country. This is the direct and inevitable consequence of the Boris timetable.
What did you expect to happen?
There was a desire to leave the EU and our Parliament delayed it for a year, other parliaments can (and will) do the same especially if there is little incentive for them to agree to it.
and that's the bit Brexiters seem to forget - a lot of people may have a say on the final agreement and may want very specific things before they agree - it's why agreements take 10 years to agree rather than 5 months.
Firstly my side never threatened citizens rights as leverage. Theresa May did I agree but she was never "on my side". My side, including during the referendum, said all along that citizens rights should be maintained and guaranteed and its quite noteworthy that even during the leadership campaign that Remainer May won the Leavers continued to say that citizens rights should not be leverage.
Secondly crime and intelligence is not leverage for the EU. Again we are world leaders on intelligence punching well above our weight.
Finally what I did expect to happen is what I still expect to happen. All parties will act like grown ups and reach an equitable accord. It is noteworthy that the talk about not getting an agreement on crime and intelligence sharing is not coming from M Barnier or people like him - it is coming from the increasingly delusional Brexitsceptics on our shores.
Sometime this year M Barnier and our side will reach an agreement on intelligence and crime data sharing and it will be ratified either within a larger agreement or on its own. Once we sign it off with Barnier and co on the EU's side the 27 will ratify it in short order - none of the 27 nations, nor Wallonia nor others, are going to want to be responsible for vetoing intelligence sharing and then be responsible for a terrorist atrocity in their country/state/province.
"EU are unreasonable"
"EU shooting themselves in the foot"
"But it's actually really easy, honest, so it must be someone elses fault"
"Sabotaged by remainers in the civil service"
"This behaviour is why we had to leave"
"Yummy, chlorine is actually my new favourite food"
etc, etc, etc, etc.
If an agreement is reached on sharing intelligence and crime data (and they will be linked together) then who do you suggest is going to veto that and want to be responsible for a terrorist or other criminal attack on their ground that could have been prevented?
Not. Going. To. Happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Order_(book)
http://www.darkmatteressay.org/blog/book-review-world-order-by-henry-kissinger
I am too confident on Trump losing, you're right, but I'm nevertheless very confident. One thing I'm not doing, in case you're wondering, is letting what I WANT to happen influence my view. Least I don't think I am. I backed him to win in 2016 at good odds. Ditto no Ref2 and Con landslide. Bets I hoped would prove losers but knew would win.
But I don't expect my intuition to convince other people on an Internet forum. EYE know I can rival Gypsy Rose Lee when I get a "strong one" - flash of big picture intuition, I mean, not a drink - but they don't know that.
http://auschwitz.org/en/state-delegations/
[BTW do the Scottish banks mint their own coins? I've seen the notes but never anything smaller.]
Haven't seen a £ note for an age. The Ubiquitous Chip (a bar restaurant in the west end of Glasgow) always used to hand them out in their change for some reason.
It's perfectly possible to send both a royal and a Government representative - the Norwegians have so we could have.
In my view, we should have - I find the poor representation from BOTH the USA and Russia strange.
It's a place where the best and worst of humanity co-existed - it must never be forgotten or relegated.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jan/27/brexit-50p-coin-boycott-philip-pullman-oxford-comma
Cruising towards their target now.
I, like you, am keen that Trump loses, as his is a simpleton. There are many other reasons - but simpleton is sufficient disqualification I feel without going into further detail.
However ... a humourous aside, in Lewis`s book (The Fifth Risk) p.29 - when Trump`s surprise win became clear and calls started coming in from world leaders - "the president of Egypt called in to the switchboard at Trump Tower and got the operator to put him straight through to Trump. Trump was like ... "I love the Bangles! You know that song "Walk like an Egyptian?" ...."
What baffles me is how and why the Republican Party allowed Trump to become a potential candidate in the first place.
If the Dems priority is to beat Trump (it should be) they need to select Biden.
#numismaticproblems