In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
But that is not accepted by a large section of the population north of the border and, if the latest polls are correct, the proportion is growing.
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
Mississippi was the most overt holdout, but the saltires on Alabama's and Florida's flags are clearly based on the Confederate battle flag, as are the designs of Arkansas's and Tennessee's. Georgia removed the battle flag about a generation ago, but their current flag is closely modelled on the "Stars and Bars", the original national flag of the Confederate States. The saltire battle flag was never the actual flag of the Confederacy but was part of the last two national flags of the CSA.
I thought the Florida flag was based on Spain's old flag?
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
The only upside is that these vandalisms are now becoming so unpopular, pointless and moronic, they are making people shy away from the more extreme parts of the BLM cause.
I see Gary Lineker was delicately backpedalling his support from BLM UK this morning, on Twitter, thanks to the defund police/anti-Semitism stuff
The mob have mow moved onto attacking Matt Lucas and David Baddiel for pointing this out.
Yes, but I don't think it's working. Baddiel in particular is very feisty and resilient on Twitter.
I get the sense that BLM as a radical moment in the UK is maybe losing momentum (and my worst fears about statue-toppling might not be realised - though it is too soon to tell).
What a very pleasant comment. This is the mundane reality I have been on and off trying to steer you to. All will rejoice.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
But that is not accepted by a large section of the population north of the border and, if the latest polls are correct, the proportion is growing.
Whether its accepted or not is moot. The UK is legally a country. Scotland may be politically a country within a country, but that doesn't change the fact the UK is a country.
Yes but it's not Israel and we need phones. ETA hold on though. Does China still limit family size for its entire population? The one child policy was only abandoned recently iirc.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
I think that Stuart thinks his country begins just north of Berwick on the east side and just north of Carlisle on the west
True Nationalists believe Berwick is in Scotland and Tweedmouth England
The middle of the Tweed is the border until it diverts north and east by chainbridge
Hence why Wendy Wood in my days living in Berwick (1954 - 1962) used to paint a white line across the centre of the Royal Tweed Bridge
Oh? Where in the burgh did you live? I know it well ...
The border does or did divert into England for a bit some way before the Chain Bridge - reflecting the result of the last game of rustic football played between a Scottish and ann English village, and the resulting ownership of the playing field till the next time. But there never was one and the surveyors came round. Allegedly.
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
Mississippi was the most overt holdout, but the saltires on Alabama's and Florida's flags are clearly based on the Confederate battle flag, as are the designs of Arkansas's and Tennessee's. Georgia removed the battle flag about a generation ago, but their current flag is closely modelled on the "Stars and Bars", the original national flag of the Confederate States. The saltire battle flag was never the actual flag of the Confederacy but was part of the last two national flags of the CSA.
I thought the Florida flag was based on Spain's old flag?
I'm sure they say it is!
No, it really is. It comes from the Burgundy flag.
Oh yes, I know that is supposed to be the reason, but I think the coincidence that it uses a saltire and so did the Confederate battle flag is not, shall we say, entirely serendipitous.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
We do have more tornadoes per unit area than the US, of course...
I am not a meteorologist, though I have an amateur interest, but isn't that a proper tornado, inasmuch as it seems to be touching the ground?
I thought funnel clouds were would-be tornadoes that never quite made it to earth?
It could be a tornado, but images like that are often deceptive. The funnel is likely further away than it looks, and is obviously part hidden by the hill in the foreground. A bit like foreshortened photos of crowds on beaches don't always tell you the truth.
If pictures emerge of winds on the ground (or reports of damage) then yes, tornado.
In rural areas like that there often isn't much to damage though.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
I think that Stuart thinks his country begins just north of Berwick on the east side and just north of Carlisle on the west
True Nationalists believe Berwick is in Scotland and Tweedmouth England
The middle of the Tweed is the border until it diverts north and east by chainbridge
Hence why Wendy Wood in my days living in Berwick (1954 - 1962) used to paint a white line across the centre of the Royal Tweed Bridge
Oh? Where in the burgh did you live? I know it well ...
The border does or did divert into England for a bit some way before the Chain Bridge - reflecting the result of the last game of rustic football played between a Scottish and ann English village, and the resulting ownership of the playing field till the next time. But there never was one and the surveyors came round. Allegedly.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
The funny thing about Tim Tams is that if the government wants to make the biscuits cheaper for UK consumers, they control the tariffs. They don't need an FTA with Australia to do that.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
I think that Stuart thinks his country begins just north of Berwick on the east side and just north of Carlisle on the west
True Nationalists believe Berwick is in Scotland and Tweedmouth England
The middle of the Tweed is the border until it diverts north and east by chainbridge
Hence why Wendy Wood in my days living in Berwick (1954 - 1962) used to paint a white line across the centre of the Royal Tweed Bridge
Oh? Where in the burgh did you live? I know it well ...
The border does or did divert into England for a bit some way before the Chain Bridge - reflecting the result of the last game of rustic football played between a Scottish and ann English village, and the resulting ownership of the playing field till the next time. But there never was one and the surveyors came round. Allegedly.
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
Mississippi was the most overt holdout, but the saltires on Alabama's and Florida's flags are clearly based on the Confederate battle flag, as are the designs of Arkansas's and Tennessee's. Georgia removed the battle flag about a generation ago, but their current flag is closely modelled on the "Stars and Bars", the original national flag of the Confederate States. The saltire battle flag was never the actual flag of the Confederacy but was part of the last two national flags of the CSA.
I thought the Florida flag was based on Spain's old flag?
I'm sure they say it is!
No, it really is. It comes from the Burgundy flag.
Oh yes, I know that is supposed to be the reason, but I think the coincidence that it uses a saltire and so did the Confederate battle flag is not, shall we say, entirely serendipitous.
...it's a different colour and contains different heraldic symbols. But sure if all flags that have saltires on are problematic I think you're going to be in trouble with our braveheart contingent.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
I think that Stuart thinks his country begins just north of Berwick on the east side and just north of Carlisle on the west
True Nationalists believe Berwick is in Scotland and Tweedmouth England
The middle of the Tweed is the border until it diverts north and east by chainbridge
Hence why Wendy Wood in my days living in Berwick (1954 - 1962) used to paint a white line across the centre of the Royal Tweed Bridge
Oh? Where in the burgh did you live? I know it well ...
The border does or did divert into England for a bit some way before the Chain Bridge - reflecting the result of the last game of rustic football played between a Scottish and ann English village, and the resulting ownership of the playing field till the next time. But there never was one and the surveyors came round. Allegedly.
I lived in Berwick and witnessed Wendy Woods art work on the bridge quite often
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
Mississippi was the most overt holdout, but the saltires on Alabama's and Florida's flags are clearly based on the Confederate battle flag, as are the designs of Arkansas's and Tennessee's. Georgia removed the battle flag about a generation ago, but their current flag is closely modelled on the "Stars and Bars", the original national flag of the Confederate States. The saltire battle flag was never the actual flag of the Confederacy but was part of the last two national flags of the CSA.
I thought the Florida flag was based on Spain's old flag?
I'm sure they say it is!
No, it really is. It comes from the Burgundy flag.
Oh yes, I know that is supposed to be the reason, but I think the coincidence that it uses a saltire and so did the Confederate battle flag is not, shall we say, entirely serendipitous.
...it's a different colour and contains different heraldic symbols. But sure if all flags that have saltires on are problematic I think you're going to be in trouble with our braveheart contingent.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
The funny thing about Tim Tams is that if the government wants to make the biscuits cheaper for UK consumers, they control the tariffs. They don't need an FTA with Australia to do that.
The funny thing with Tim Tams is that they're available in the UK under the brand name "Penguin" already.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
The funny thing about Tim Tams is that if the government wants to make the biscuits cheaper for UK consumers, they control the tariffs. They don't need an FTA with Australia to do that.
The funny thing with Tim Tams is that they're available in the UK under the brand name "Penguin" already.
"There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.
And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description."
*****
I know quite a few hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like in Scotland, esp the Highlands and Islands.
I was planning a professional trip to Skye this summer as lockdown eases, but the locals are adamant that no one must come to Skye, for many months, to keep the virus out. They're not especially keen on Glaswegians, let alone the English. And they really mean it, they won't cooperate. Or so I am told.
All the people employed directly in tourism are tearing their hair out, they know how much tourism means to the Skye economy: it is hugely important. Without it, Skye basically goes bust.
I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.
A good friend of mine is the principal shareholder of a business with a number of hotels in and around Inverness. If they don't open soon they don't open at all. The Scottish schools are already out and many Scots go on holiday as soon as that happens before the Sassenachs drive up the prices!
I think there's a trend away from hotels to self-catering that the CV19 epidemic accelerates. There's a role for business travel, which itself will be suppressed in the next year or so, and for wedding venues. The concept of hotels as a leisure destination is on the way out, unfortunately.
Notwithstanding the necessity of working out a smart form of semi-lockdown, which will be our way of life for the medium term.
One of the many problems that hotels in Scotland at least are going to have is pools. They have to remain shut at the moment which will significantly diminish the hotel as a destination. I am pretty sure that chlorine is going to kill the virus but there will be others better qualified to comment.
Other countries have been very hesitant to re-open pools, especially in holiday resort hotels. It's not possible to wear masks in the water, and pools are often the focus of boisterous games and activities likely to spread a virus around.
"Research has found that the family of germs known as coronaviruses can survive in water for days or even weeks, but surviving and having the ability to infect are two different things. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says there is no evidence that the novel coronavirus—the one that causes the pandemic illness known as COVID-19—can actually spread or infect people who come in contact with it in the water." https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/does-chlorine-kill-coronavirus/ar-BB14Te44 Always a little bit wary of assertions that include "there is no evidence that"
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
But that is not accepted by a large section of the population north of the border and, if the latest polls are correct, the proportion is growing.
Whether its accepted or not is moot. The UK is legally a country. Scotland may be politically a country within a country, but that doesn't change the fact the UK is a country.
I thought the UK was a state but not a country. Not arguing, just genuinely thought that was the definition. England and Scotland are countries, the UK is a state.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
I think that Stuart thinks his country begins just north of Berwick on the east side and just north of Carlisle on the west
True Nationalists believe Berwick is in Scotland and Tweedmouth England
The middle of the Tweed is the border until it diverts north and east by chainbridge
Hence why Wendy Wood in my days living in Berwick (1954 - 1962) used to paint a white line across the centre of the Royal Tweed Bridge
Oh? Where in the burgh did you live? I know it well ...
The border does or did divert into England for a bit some way before the Chain Bridge - reflecting the result of the last game of rustic football played between a Scottish and ann English village, and the resulting ownership of the playing field till the next time. But there never was one and the surveyors came round. Allegedly.
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
Mississippi was the most overt holdout, but the saltires on Alabama's and Florida's flags are clearly based on the Confederate battle flag, as are the designs of Arkansas's and Tennessee's. Georgia removed the battle flag about a generation ago, but their current flag is closely modelled on the "Stars and Bars", the original national flag of the Confederate States. The saltire battle flag was never the actual flag of the Confederacy but was part of the last two national flags of the CSA.
I thought the Florida flag was based on Spain's old flag?
I'm sure they say it is!
No, it really is. It comes from the Burgundy flag.
Oh yes, I know that is supposed to be the reason, but I think the coincidence that it uses a saltire and so did the Confederate battle flag is not, shall we say, entirely serendipitous.
BTW, I just dug out my 1981 edition of Flags of the World by E. M. C. Barraclough and W. G. Crampton. This was for a long time the standard British reference work on flags, and it specifically states both Alabama and Florida's flags were intended to "recall the Confederate battle flag".
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
I hear you, LadyG, agree with you on both counts. Note that Georgia also used to feature the Confederate flag on its state flag (you can see it on old "Matlock" reruns) but it was removed in 2001.
Why was it put on these state flags? Partly our of pride of tradition, but mostly and chiefly to send the message loud and clear: this is White man's country, boy, and don't you ever forget it!
Well, more and more and more and more folks are saying: to hell with that shit!!!
We're judging the past by the present again. These symbols were probably granted to the southern states in an attempt to smoothe over relations after what had been an exhausting and extremely bitter war.
You don;t completely humiliate those you defeat if you want them to be your fellow citizens again. Which of course the North did.
Many confederate soldiers fought under that flag because it was the flag of their country, not because it was 'pro-slavery'. Slavery wasn;t an issue as they owned no slaves.
I'm not saying these flags should be flown now, but why they were around until recently was at least explainable.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
I sense that the government is in despair. They know Covid has been poorly handled, the statue stuff fizzled out without providing any real law-'n'-order panic to exploit. Now they've returned to the only thing they can do well: Boris making vague but gushing pronouncements on the post-Brexit Golden Age. But will the old magic still work?
In case you missed it that was an argument for Brexit.
Again the argument was that the Civil Service "often" has to say "no". How "often" do you think the government seeks to break international laws?
You think the Government seeking to break International law is an argument for Brexit?
Why wasn't that on the side of a bus?
No, I think the Government reclaiming control to change the law was an argument for Brexit - in fact it was the strapline.
And yet you simultaneously believe that a civil servant *during the time of EU membership* would hardly ever have occasion to tell a minister something would be against EU law.
Anyway your objections are boring because they seem to depend on what you mean by "often". Would "sometimes" be ok for you?
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
The funny thing about Tim Tams is that if the government wants to make the biscuits cheaper for UK consumers, they control the tariffs. They don't need an FTA with Australia to do that.
The funny thing with Tim Tams is that they're available in the UK under the brand name "Penguin" already.
This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).
Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)
This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.
But, it's true. He has that mischievous glint in his eye, which is always a sign he is on form.
It's been notably absent of late, to the extent I wondered if it would ever return and he might retire very soon.
Mischievous glint? What have you been drinking?
I accept there are some on here whose visceral dislike of the PM would lead them to believe he is ginger haired, eight foot tall, of Amerindian descent, and is entirely infertile, if it confirmed their dislike of him, but to my studiedly neutral eye, he looks like a healthy man again. With his old charm returned (even if the charm only works on some).
We are free to disagree, but I am entirely right.
Of course you are right there is no room for self doubt.
So much so that you could even be Boris Johnson imself. But we must not speculate.
Bene dicere autem, si non esset mortuus esset admonitus, ut verbis: Nolo eam?
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
But that is not accepted by a large section of the population north of the border and, if the latest polls are correct, the proportion is growing.
Whether its accepted or not is moot. The UK is legally a country. Scotland may be politically a country within a country, but that doesn't change the fact the UK is a country.
I thought the UK was a state but not a country. Not arguing, just genuinely thought that was the definition. England and Scotland are countries, the UK is a state.
In case you missed it that was an argument for Brexit.
Again the argument was that the Civil Service "often" has to say "no". How "often" do you think the government seeks to break international laws?
You think the Government seeking to break International law is an argument for Brexit?
Why wasn't that on the side of a bus?
No, I think the Government reclaiming control to change the law was an argument for Brexit - in fact it was the strapline.
And yet you simultaneously believe that a civil servant *during the time of EU membership* would hardly ever have occasion to tell a minister something would be against EU law.
Anyway your objections are boring because they seem to depend on what you mean by "often". Would "sometimes" be ok for you?
Sometimes would be OK and I never said "hardly ever" during our EU membership. But we're post-Brexit now and that was a reason for Brexit.
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
I hear you, LadyG, agree with you on both counts. Note that Georgia also used to feature the Confederate flag on its state flag (you can see it on old "Matlock" reruns) but it was removed in 2001.
Why was it put on these state flags? Partly our of pride of tradition, but mostly and chiefly to send the message loud and clear: this is White man's country, boy, and don't you ever forget it!
Well, more and more and more and more folks are saying: to hell with that shit!!!
But here's what President Donald J Trump would articulate against that if only he could string a sentence together and it wasn't against the law -
"Sleepy Joe Biden and the Radical Democrats would tear down everything we hold dear. Do not let them. Show them that the greatness of our country is founded upon exactly the opposite of their crazy ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. My second term, I promise you, will be based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
UK regional case data (Pillar 1) - by specimen date
Warning: Weekend reporting effect & reporting delay mean that the last 3-5 days will have heavy revision later. This product may contain nuts. This product may contain nutters. This product may contain trained marxist nutters. All wrongs reserved. I accept no liability for this product, up to and including the destruction of the Universe.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
But that is not accepted by a large section of the population north of the border and, if the latest polls are correct, the proportion is growing.
Whether its accepted or not is moot. The UK is legally a country. Scotland may be politically a country within a country, but that doesn't change the fact the UK is a country.
I thought the UK was a state but not a country. Not arguing, just genuinely thought that was the definition. England and Scotland are countries, the UK is a state.
Since there has been much talk about Leicester - Pillar 1 cases
Warning: Weekend reporting effect & reporting delay mean that the last 3-5 days will have heavy revision later. This product may contain nuts. This product may contain nutters. This product may contain trained marxist nutters. All wrongs reserved. I accept no liability for this product, up to and including the destruction of the Universe.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
I think that Stuart thinks his country begins just north of Berwick on the east side and just north of Carlisle on the west
True Nationalists believe Berwick is in Scotland and Tweedmouth England
The middle of the Tweed is the border until it diverts north and east by chainbridge
Hence why Wendy Wood in my days living in Berwick (1954 - 1962) used to paint a white line across the centre of the Royal Tweed Bridge
Oh? Where in the burgh did you live? I know it well ...
The border does or did divert into England for a bit some way before the Chain Bridge - reflecting the result of the last game of rustic football played between a Scottish and ann English village, and the resulting ownership of the playing field till the next time. But there never was one and the surveyors came round. Allegedly.
The Ba Green at Coldstream! The only part of Scotland south of the Tweed and east of Carlham Burn. It's effectively a Scottish enclave within England with a population of zero (it's a meadow).
My understanding is that the English effectively gave the land up as they knew they would lose the annual football match every year – their argument was that Coldstream (SCO) had grown so much larger than Wark (ENG) that the Scots had vastly more men to choose from and would always be able to field the stronger team.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
I sense that the government is in despair. They know Covid has been poorly handled, the statue stuff fizzled out without providing any real law-'n'-order panic to exploit. Now they've returned to the only thing they can do well: Boris making vague but gushing pronouncements on the post-Brexit Golden Age. But will the old magic still work?
23/6/16.
12/12/19.
It will be a dark day indeed for this country if sufficient of its inhabitants are once again successfully played for suckers by this charming but vacuous charlatan.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
It looks like Government trade policy has been refocused to reflect political reality.
Previously, with Trump likely to obtain a second term, the plan was to get a US trade deal and go cold on the Europeans.
Now, it with Biden in the driving seat, it is not going to be possible to get a US trade deal signed, sealed and ratified before the presidency changes.
Thus, the recent change of approach by Truss on farming, and the new realism to obtain a European deal.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
Likely covered in the withdrawal agreement. Have you got a couple of hours spare?
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
I sense that the government is in despair. They know Covid has been poorly handled, the statue stuff fizzled out without providing any real law-'n'-order panic to exploit. Now they've returned to the only thing they can do well: Boris making vague but gushing pronouncements on the post-Brexit Golden Age. But will the old magic still work?
That's the other way of reading the machinery-of-government stuff over the weekend; the Gove speech and the forcing out of Sedwill. That it's born of frustration. They have been frantically been pressing buttons on the government machine and discovering that they don't work the way they want.
Whilst that could be because the Civil Service isn't being supportive enough, it could equally be that what they want to do isn't really workable. Or a bit of both.
So the coming reorganisation (which is really coming at a peculiar time; every reorg ever has given a temporary loss of efficiency, and we're not post-crisis yet) could be a mark of strength. But it could also be a sign of weakness; shrinking the government to whatever can fit in Dom's (substantial) brain.
The fear might be that the mediocrity of government isn't down to bad politicians or lazy administrators, but is simply because running a country is really really hard. You can't just say "do X", because X might be illegal, or numerically impossible, or go against instruction Y you gave half an hour ago.
The current government top team have done so much to get to where they are. Perhaps they will triumph, but it doesn't look like it's what they wanted. There must be a classical allusion for this.
York City were top of National League North when the football was shutdown to co - vid. I have read that they are due to be in the play offs behind closed doors. They were about to go into a new ground. I am sure they could have spaced the few fans about as county cricket must be doing.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
We do have more tornadoes per unit area than the US, of course...
I am not a meteorologist, though I have an amateur interest, but isn't that a proper tornado, inasmuch as it seems to be touching the ground?
I thought funnel clouds were would-be tornadoes that never quite made it to earth?
It could be a tornado, but images like that are often deceptive. The funnel is likely further away than it looks, and is obviously part hidden by the hill in the foreground. A bit like foreshortened photos of crowds on beaches don't always tell you the truth.
If pictures emerge of winds on the ground (or reports of damage) then yes, tornado.
In rural areas like that there often isn't much to damage though.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
We do have more tornadoes per unit area than the US, of course...
I am not a meteorologist, though I have an amateur interest, but isn't that a proper tornado, inasmuch as it seems to be touching the ground?
I thought funnel clouds were would-be tornadoes that never quite made it to earth?
It could be a tornado, but images like that are often deceptive. The funnel is likely further away than it looks, and is obviously part hidden by the hill in the foreground. A bit like foreshortened photos of crowds on beaches don't always tell you the truth.
If pictures emerge of winds on the ground (or reports of damage) then yes, tornado.
In rural areas like that there often isn't much to damage though.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
I sense that the government is in despair. They know Covid has been poorly handled, the statue stuff fizzled out without providing any real law-'n'-order panic to exploit. Now they've returned to the only thing they can do well: Boris making vague but gushing pronouncements on the post-Brexit Golden Age. But will the old magic still work?
That's the other way of reading the machinery-of-government stuff over the weekend; the Gove speech and the forcing out of Sedwill. That it's born of frustration. They have been frantically been pressing buttons on the government machine and discovering that they don't work the way they want.
Whilst that could be because the Civil Service isn't being supportive enough, it could equally be that what they want to do isn't really workable. Or a bit of both.
So the coming reorganisation (which is really coming at a peculiar time; every reorg ever has given a temporary loss of efficiency, and we're not post-crisis yet) could be a mark of strength. But it could also be a sign of weakness; shrinking the government to whatever can fit in Dom's (substantial) brain.
The fear might be that the mediocrity of government isn't down to bad politicians or lazy administrators, but is simply because running a country is really really hard. You can't just say "do X", because X might be illegal, or numerically impossible, or go against instruction Y you gave half an hour ago.
The current government top team have done so much to get to where they are. Perhaps they will triumph, but it doesn't look like it's what they wanted. There must be a classical allusion for this.
There is also the matter of "but goes against the Proper Policy"
Where Proper Policy is defined by group think among permanent officials.
For an amusing riff on this - read the various papers in the 1980s on the savage disdain and anger by the professionals at Margaret Thatcher encouraging the UK micro computer industry. Quite a lot of effort was put into slowing down or stopping anything happening. Why?
Well, the Official Idea was that the UK would develop mini-computers, while the Americans would have the mainframes.
Aside from the fact that mini-computers were already a dying idea - and one well covered by American products....
Micro computers were a "distraction" from proper policy. They would cause "companies to move into areas that did not align with UK trade objectives"....
The crowds are so low it won;t need to be. They've been distancing for decades.
While I would concede that, at Essex (which where I go) not many pay on the day, the Members areas are quite crowded, especially on the first day of a game. I believe though, that that is not the case at all counties.
London's R is up to 1.44. The seven day moving average of cases is now 155 compared with 108 seven days previously. If an R of 1.44 persists, cases will double every two weeks. The absolute number is still small for the population of London so not yet serious, but if it carries on, it will become a worry.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
But that is not accepted by a large section of the population north of the border and, if the latest polls are correct, the proportion is growing.
Whether its accepted or not is moot. The UK is legally a country. Scotland may be politically a country within a country, but that doesn't change the fact the UK is a country.
I thought the UK was a state but not a country. Not arguing, just genuinely thought that was the definition. England and Scotland are countries, the UK is a state.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
Oh no. The punch bowl is being taken away and the kettle has gone on.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
But that is not accepted by a large section of the population north of the border and, if the latest polls are correct, the proportion is growing.
Whether its accepted or not is moot. The UK is legally a country. Scotland may be politically a country within a country, but that doesn't change the fact the UK is a country.
I thought the UK was a state but not a country. Not arguing, just genuinely thought that was the definition. England and Scotland are countries, the UK is a state.
Wales is now officially listed as a country not a principality.
Scotland is a country within a country.
So you're both right.
How irritatingly un-PB.
Best. Comment. Ever.
Surely it's within our collective gift to argue the toss for several more hours and find a tiny point of difference that suggests one party might be more right than the other?
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
And put in the application asap when it becomes eligible for a passport.
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
London's R is up to 1.44. The seven day moving average of cases is now 155 compared with 108 seven days previously. If an R of 1.44 persists, cases will double every two weeks. The absolute number is still small for the population of London so not yet serious, but if it carries on, it will become a worry.
Do regional R rates have much basis in science? It would presumably be possible to draw a circle to lasso a +1 R rate anywhere in the UK depending on where one draws the boundary. An arbitrary line through the middle of Epping Forest is where Greater London ends and becomes the East of England.
The only upside is that these vandalisms are now becoming so unpopular, pointless and moronic, they are making people shy away from the more extreme parts of the BLM cause.
I see Gary Lineker was delicately backpedalling his support from BLM UK this morning, on Twitter, thanks to the defund police/anti-Semitism stuff
The mob have mow moved onto attacking Matt Lucas and David Baddiel for pointing this out.
Yes, but I don't think it's working. Baddiel in particular is very feisty and resilient on Twitter.
I get the sense that BLM as a radical moment in the UK is maybe losing momentum (and my worst fears about statue-toppling might not be realised - though it is too soon to tell).
In America there is no sign. It is still going full throttle. A real frenzy, on all fronts, from cancellations to riots.
Baddiel gets, quite rightly, a lot of stick for his past treatment, along with his fellow tv host, of soccer player Jason Lee and the blacking up,too.
You have to laugh at the likes of Lineker rowing back. They post endless crap for likes and retweets and try to ride any popular public wave on social media. Oops.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Obviously it is partly a very difficult situation which, after initial good will, has seen Boris falter, but Starmer has generally picked a good tone, been sensible or at least not obviously unsensible, and has even occasionally shown some personality. Good for him, let's see if Boris can rise to the challenge, particularly given the very difficult situation the government will be in for many years.
Yes, pretty much he does. Just as he did when trump won the US election. The response from people was interesting, many accusing him of being an apologist for the right and Trump. These cranks just can’t see it.
UK regional case data (Pillar 1) - by specimen date
Warning: Weekend reporting effect & reporting delay mean that the last 3-5 days will have heavy revision later. This product may contain nuts. This product may contain nutters. This product may contain trained marxist nutters. All wrongs reserved. I accept no liability for this product, up to and including the destruction of the Universe.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Obviously it is partly a very difficult situation which, after initial good will, has seen Boris falter, but Starmer has generally picked a good tone, been sensible or at least not obviously unsensible, and has even occasionally shown some personality. Good for him, let's see if Boris can rise to the challenge, particularly given the very difficult situation the government will be in for many years.
A lot of the goodwill is gone though, the "us and them" thing has re-entered the debate quietly - and Starmer knows he now has a win with voters. Expect to see a lot of that over the next four years.
London's R is up to 1.44. The seven day moving average of cases is now 155 compared with 108 seven days previously. If an R of 1.44 persists, cases will double every two weeks. The absolute number is still small for the population of London so not yet serious, but if it carries on, it will become a worry.
I think the average re-infection time found for COVID is around 4 days. So, if you want a truer epidemiologic R value, you should use the 4/7th power.
I've reached the conclusion that some of the professionals aren't using vastly more sophisticated calculations than us on here. Some go for an 8 day gap and go for the root of R squared. RKI in Germany look like they barely average things out at all, this their recent 2.88. Some of my own recent quoted numbers are 7 days averages, 4 days apart: overlapping like that would probably give a half decent statistician conniptions, but I don't worry, the 20 second calculation for any place you can pull in the numbers for is worth it.
I've been thinking that a really cool chart would be one of R vs weekly infection rate per 100000 for several countries together, creating time crawl loops like the brilliant mortgage affordability charts you sometimes see on here. You'd see the UK suppress from a high level on the R<1 side (which I'd put on the right) to the current 10 per 100k per week, you'd see Germany doing a tight loop the loop, you'd see the USA stall at the R=1 line with a high concentration of data points close together and now loop left and up again.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
London's R is up to 1.44. The seven day moving average of cases is now 155 compared with 108 seven days previously. If an R of 1.44 persists, cases will double every two weeks. The absolute number is still small for the population of London so not yet serious, but if it carries on, it will become a worry.
Do regional R rates have much basis in science? It would presumably be possible to draw a circle to lasso a +1 R rate anywhere in the UK depending on where one draws the boundary. An arbitrary line through the middle of Epping Forest is where Greater London ends and becomes the East of England.
You could draw a circle around a hot spot and it would have a high R. But the high R probably woudn't persist because hopefully the hot spot would be quashed by test track and trace. R is just a measure of how fast the number of cases in any locality is increasing or decreasing. With small numbers it becomes quite random and useless.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
Yes, pretty much he does. Just as he did when trump won the US election. The response from people was interesting, many accusing him of being an apologist for the right and Trump. These cranks just can’t see it.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
And put in the application asap when it becomes eligible for a passport.
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
Brexit will not affect Irish citizenship law, which is based on the Irish constitution of 1937. Irish law granted citizenship by ius soli to all those born on the island of Ireland (with the usual exception for the children of diplomats) and by ius sanguinis to all those with a parent born on the island of Ireland. Further, children of Irish citizens not born on the island of Ireland may claim Irish citizenship by registration, but the citizenship thus claimed is only operable from the date of registration, so if as a family you want to keep transmitting Irish citizenship down the generations you need to make sure each generation has registered their claim before they themselves have children.
The biggest amendment to the above was by the the 27th Amendment to the Irish constitution in 2004 which limits the application of the ius soli rule to those born on the island of Ireland to be limited to only those with at least one parent who is themselves an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen. The amendment allowed for further inclusons to be provided by law, and the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 specifically included children born on the island of Ireland with at least one British citizen parent as qualifying for Irish citizenship from birth.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
My son has just dropped off my prescription and commented that today's return to his school has proven to everyone there, teachers, parents, and other staff that it is impossible to maintain social distancing with young children and they will just have to do their best
He has been in school throughout as head of IT and has undertaken a huge amount of distance work programmes and it has been very successful
Starmer is going to negate this culture war problem - but only if he can keep his MPs in line. He's clearly got the ability.
He's played that argument very well, not dismissing the movement or moment but unequivocally dismissing elements and arguments he would not support, in a way that means he cannot be accused of being too soft on the loony elements. It's not something that is as easy as it looks, but he is showing that it is not anywhere near as hard as Corbyn made it look. The man acted like his teeth were being pulled whenever something even slightly nuanced came up.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
What I find incredible is that a lot of Leave votes (who didn't seem to realise this would happen) who find this out blame that on...the EU!!!
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
By an EU passport you mean a passport of a member state? They'll have to be eligible for one of those nationalities to get it.
Comments
ETA hold on though. Does China still limit family size for its entire population? The one child policy was only abandoned recently iirc.
The border does or did divert into England for a bit some way before the Chain Bridge - reflecting the result of the last game of rustic football played between a Scottish and ann English village, and the resulting ownership of the playing field till the next time. But there never was one and the surveyors came round. Allegedly.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
If pictures emerge of winds on the ground (or reports of damage) then yes, tornado.
In rural areas like that there often isn't much to damage though.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/does-chlorine-kill-coronavirus/ar-BB14Te44
Always a little bit wary of assertions that include "there is no evidence that"
Is that wrong?
You don;t completely humiliate those you defeat if you want them to be your fellow citizens again. Which of course the North did.
Many confederate soldiers fought under that flag because it was the flag of their country, not because it was 'pro-slavery'. Slavery wasn;t an issue as they owned no slaves.
I'm not saying these flags should be flown now, but why they were around until recently was at least explainable.
Anyway your objections are boring because they seem to depend on what you mean by "often". Would "sometimes" be ok for you?
https://www.goodfood.com.au/eat-out/news/tim-tams-or-penguins-the-australia-versus-britain-sweet-treat-taste-test-20200622-h1owzt
Wales is now officially listed as a country not a principality.
Scotland is a country within a country.
"Sleepy Joe Biden and the Radical Democrats would tear down everything we hold dear. Do not let them. Show them that the greatness of our country is founded upon exactly the opposite of their crazy ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. My second term, I promise you, will be based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Warning: Weekend reporting effect & reporting delay mean that the last 3-5 days will have heavy revision later. This product may contain nuts. This product may contain nutters. This product may contain trained marxist nutters. All wrongs reserved. I accept no liability for this product, up to and including the destruction of the Universe.
How irritatingly un-PB.
Warning: Weekend reporting effect & reporting delay mean that the last 3-5 days will have heavy revision later. This product may contain nuts. This product may contain nutters. This product may contain trained marxist nutters. All wrongs reserved. I accept no liability for this product, up to and including the destruction of the Universe.
My understanding is that the English effectively gave the land up as they knew they would lose the annual football match every year – their argument was that Coldstream (SCO) had grown so much larger than Wark (ENG) that the Scots had vastly more men to choose from and would always be able to field the stronger team.
12/12/19.
It will be a dark day indeed for this country if sufficient of its inhabitants are once again successfully played for suckers by this charming but vacuous charlatan.
But I don't see it. One Term PM.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
Previously, with Trump likely to obtain a second term, the plan was to get a US trade deal and go cold on the Europeans.
Now, it with Biden in the driving seat, it is not going to be possible to get a US trade deal signed, sealed and ratified before the presidency changes.
Thus, the recent change of approach by Truss on farming, and the new realism to obtain a European deal.
Edit: I commend you to RobD's reply.
Whilst that could be because the Civil Service isn't being supportive enough, it could equally be that what they want to do isn't really workable. Or a bit of both.
So the coming reorganisation (which is really coming at a peculiar time; every reorg ever has given a temporary loss of efficiency, and we're not post-crisis yet) could be a mark of strength. But it could also be a sign of weakness; shrinking the government to whatever can fit in Dom's (substantial) brain.
The fear might be that the mediocrity of government isn't down to bad politicians or lazy administrators, but is simply because running a country is really really hard. You can't just say "do X", because X might be illegal, or numerically impossible, or go against instruction Y you gave half an hour ago.
The current government top team have done so much to get to where they are. Perhaps they will triumph, but it doesn't look like it's what they wanted. There must be a classical allusion for this.
I have read that they are due to be in the play offs behind closed doors.
They were about to go into a new ground.
I am sure they could have spaced the few fans about as county cricket must be doing.
https://twitter.com/RachAM/status/1277542540380704769
https://twitter.com/worrylist/status/1277558724782104576
Funnel cloud...
Amazing how misleading even unedited photographs can be.
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Hold all the cards, bollocks.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
Where Proper Policy is defined by group think among permanent officials.
For an amusing riff on this - read the various papers in the 1980s on the savage disdain and anger by the professionals at Margaret Thatcher encouraging the UK micro computer industry. Quite a lot of effort was put into slowing down or stopping anything happening. Why?
Well, the Official Idea was that the UK would develop mini-computers, while the Americans would have the mainframes.
Aside from the fact that mini-computers were already a dying idea - and one well covered by American products....
Micro computers were a "distraction" from proper policy. They would cause "companies to move into areas that did not align with UK trade objectives"....
I believe though, that that is not the case at all counties.
England under control overall.
London's R is up to 1.44. The seven day moving average of cases is now 155 compared with 108 seven days previously. If an R of 1.44 persists, cases will double every two weeks. The absolute number is still small for the population of London so not yet serious, but if it carries on, it will become a worry.
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
Do regional R rates have much basis in science? It would presumably be possible to draw a circle to lasso a +1 R rate anywhere in the UK depending on where one draws the boundary. An arbitrary line through the middle of Epping Forest is where Greater London ends and becomes the East of England.
On the money from Mr Pie
You have to laugh at the likes of Lineker rowing back. They post endless crap for likes and retweets and try to ride any popular public wave on social media. Oops.
Those trade deals right?
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1277592777057075202
I've reached the conclusion that some of the professionals aren't using vastly more sophisticated calculations than us on here. Some go for an 8 day gap and go for the root of R squared. RKI in Germany look like they barely average things out at all, this their recent 2.88. Some of my own recent quoted numbers are 7 days averages, 4 days apart: overlapping like that would probably give a half decent statistician conniptions, but I don't worry, the 20 second calculation for any place you can pull in the numbers for is worth it.
I've been thinking that a really cool chart would be one of R vs weekly infection rate per 100000 for several countries together, creating time crawl loops like the brilliant mortgage affordability charts you sometimes see on here. You'd see the UK suppress from a high level on the R<1 side (which I'd put on the right) to the current 10 per 100k per week, you'd see Germany doing a tight loop the loop, you'd see the USA stall at the R=1 line with a high concentration of data points close together and now loop left and up again.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-approach-to-joining-the-cptpp-trade-agreement
Hell has frozen over, again.
Starmer is going to negate this culture war problem - but only if he can keep his MPs in line. He's clearly got the ability.
Worth reading the whole thread to learn about the extent of the scandalous underinvestment in our justice system over recent years.
The state of Twitter.
The biggest amendment to the above was by the the 27th Amendment to the Irish constitution in 2004 which limits the application of the ius soli rule to those born on the island of Ireland to be limited to only those with at least one parent who is themselves an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen. The amendment allowed for further inclusons to be provided by law, and the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 specifically included children born on the island of Ireland with at least one British citizen parent as qualifying for Irish citizenship from birth.
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
He has been in school throughout as head of IT and has undertaken a huge amount of distance work programmes and it has been very successful
https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
https://twitter.com/damcou/status/1277598874107027468?s=21
https://twitter.com/damcou/status/1277599562195140610?s=21