Once again, PB lefties missing the forest for the trees, the issue isn't asylum seekers or refugees landing in Dover. It's that we get economic migrants coached by people smugglers to claim asylum and then disappear into the ether. This issue is also not isolated to the UK, it happens all across Europe because no country is willing to face up to this. If anyone believes that those arriving at Dover are all genuine refugees I also have a bridge to sell them.
Don't worry - that will be classed as a racist statement.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Imagine a world where asylum seekers are pooled and redistributed irrespective of where they made the claim. You’d be fucked off royally to end up in Iceland!
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
If you end up in a country that you don't like that much you can seek to migrate then through proper channels. But your life is no longer at risk by the regime you fled.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Geographical position is a swings and roundabouts affair, isn;t it? wherever you are, you take the rough with the smooth.
UK horrible weather, cramped Island, but a way away from the middle east.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
Which law says you claim in the first safe country you get to?
Article 31 says "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". Directly that is the word written. France is not direct.
The UK case law - see ex parte Adimi in particular and a string of other cases - is that you are still "coming directly" to the intended destination even if you go through other places in transit.
I don't get as wound up by this as say Mr Farage, but would have no problem in a law passed that overturns ex parte Adimi. If you are fleeing for your life, you have satisfied that condition when you have escaped that jurisdiction that would harm you. Give asylum seekers the choice, and ofcourse they will go somewhere with free healhcare and an extensive social welfare safety net.
In an ideal world, there would be a functioning agency that worked out quotas to all safe countries - and dispatched those asylum seekers there. With sanctions on those countries who refused. They would also send back to their country of origin those who were found to be economic migrants. That true asylum seekers have been so adversely affected by those who queue-barge to get here is a good reason to treat them harshly, in my book.
Your trouble isn't changing the law (although query consistency with international obligations) but how you implement it.
If you send back to the country of origin, you're sending back to an unsafe place.
If you send back to the country of transit, they will say "where's your proof?" and may well physically prevent it.
If you criminalise the asylum seeker, where does it get you? You still have the issue of what to do with them.
It is true any of there MIGHT reduce the risk of people crossing the Channel unsafely, and I agree that's a good thing. But it might not as there are still reasons a person may take their chances, and you do rely on international cooperation to limit these attempts as they do leave from a location outside your jurisdiction.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Imagine a world where asylum seekers are pooled and redistributed irrespective of where they made the claim. You’d be fucked off royally to end up in Iceland!
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
If you end up in a country that you don't like that much you can seek to migrate then through proper channels. But your life is no longer at risk by the regime you fled.
But if the aim was to get countries to take their fair share (not sure how that should be determined), then you’d have to say no to most people.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about the tangible matter that you raise, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Geographical position is a swings and roundabouts affair, isn;t it? wherever you are, you take the rough with the smooth.
UK horrible weather, cramped Island, but a way away from the middle east.
Turkey The opposite.
I know you're joking, but Britain is incredibly lucky geographically in vast numbers of ways.
Just for a few examples, the (typically) mild weather means we don't need to spend that much on heating and air conditioning; the moderate moisture means we have fertile land without a particularly high risk of extreme weather; the location means we're hard to invade (or indeed get to as a refugee in relative terms) whilst close enough to the continent for trade; the geology is diverse so we have quite a lot of natural resources to extract.
The list just goes on and on. And as to "cramped" really? We have large areas of great natural beauty. Yes we also have some crowded cities but that's because cities are popular places to be for various reasons and are designed in various different ways, some better than others - New York is far more crowded than any UK city even though it's in a country with far lower population density overall.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Turkey isn't entirely innocent in this situation though given their treatment of the Kurds.
The problem about making agreements is that to define a 'fair share', you first have to define what you are sharing.
There are refugees all over the planet, some whom have a much higher claim on the UK being somewhat responsible for their plight.
And even if you agree to a 'share', there will still be some migrants who don't like the country they've been 'allocated' to and will want to move anyway.
There's also the problem of encouraging economic migration, which, whilst understandable only makes the problems in the source countries worse.
This Channel thing has to stop though. And realistically the French are the only ones that can do anything about it. Whether they want to is another question...
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Imagine a world where asylum seekers are pooled and redistributed irrespective of where they made the claim. You’d be fucked off royally to end up in Iceland!
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
Iceland is one step up from St. Helena, which was the proposal (later said to be a joke but for all the world reading like it was deadly serious) from one contributor here.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
I gave the answer. We will have control over our laws, that is the answer.
Can anyone imagine Sturgeon inviting Boris to sit beside her at the Scottish Assembly?
Yes.
Holding a "Westminster" cabinet meeting in Edinburgh is a PR stunt.
Presumably the idea behind the stunt is to show Scots what a valued part of the Union they are. That would have been demonstrated by inviting the First Minister along.
Instead BoZo has completely fucked it (again) and the purpose of the stunt is now to explicitly show Scots what disdain Westminster holds for Holyrood.
Nippy couldn't have designed it better.
And if she thought she could get PR mileage out of inviting BoZo to Holyrood, draped in Saltires, she would jump at the chance.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
I gave the answer. We will have control over our laws, that is the answer.
Okay then, which laws that we now "control" are going to help us with the upcoming economic catastrophe.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
@Stocky You're one of the few posters who doesn't shout and scream when I ask a question, even if I disagree with you at least you're pleasant to talk to.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
I gave the answer. We will have control over our laws, that is the answer.
Okay then, which laws that we now "control" are going to help us with the upcoming economic catastrophe.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Geographical position is a swings and roundabouts affair, isn;t it? wherever you are, you take the rough with the smooth.
UK horrible weather, cramped Island, but a way away from the middle east.
Turkey The opposite.
Ask whoever it was yesterday (apols) to post that picture again of his view as he sat there with his 1Gbps wifi download speed.
Or ask @MarqueeMark to post some pics local to him.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
I gave the answer. We will have control over our laws, that is the answer.
But it's an utterly useless, dimwitted answer, because we won't control Japan's laws or the EU's laws.
There are a range of important issues - trade, environmental, asylum and so on - where there are no sensible answers that don't involve multinational agreement. Simply spouting the slogan "control over our laws" - whilst it may have merits in some areas - is simply moronic in others.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
Which law says you claim in the first safe country you get to?
Article 31 says "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". Directly that is the word written. France is not direct.
The UK case law - see ex parte Adimi in particular and a string of other cases - is that you are still "coming directly" to the intended destination even if you go through other places in transit.
I don't get as wound up by this as say Mr Farage, but would have no problem in a law passed that overturns ex parte Adimi. If you are fleeing for your life, you have satisfied that condition when you have escaped that jurisdiction that would harm you. Give asylum seekers the choice, and ofcourse they will go somewhere with free healhcare and an extensive social welfare safety net.
In an ideal world, there would be a functioning agency that worked out quotas to all safe countries - and dispatched those asylum seekers there. With sanctions on those countries who refused. They would also send back to their country of origin those who were found to be economic migrants. That true asylum seekers have been so adversely affected by those who queue-barge to get here is a good reason to treat them harshly, in my book.
Your trouble isn't changing the law (although query consistency with international obligations) but how you implement it.
If you send back to the country of origin, you're sending back to an unsafe place.
If you send back to the country of transit, they will say "where's your proof?" and may well physically prevent it.
If you criminalise the asylum seeker, where does it get you? You still have the issue of what to do with them.
It is true any of there MIGHT reduce the risk of people crossing the Channel unsafely, and I agree that's a good thing. But it might not as there are still reasons a person may take their chances, and you do rely on international cooperation to limit these attempts as they do leave from a location outside your jurisdiction.
If I was PM with absolute powers I'd solve this with a chequebook. I'd write a big check to the Turks with the understanding anyone who illegally makes their way to this country will be deported to one of their camps, with an exchange of approved refugees coming the other way.
That way anybody that makes a dangerous crossing across the Channel knows they will end up in Turkey not the UK and we take genuine refugees who need our help the other way.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
I gave the answer. We will have control over our laws, that is the answer.
You do make me laugh. You are an ad-man's dream. Putin loves folk like you Philip.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Imagine a world where asylum seekers are pooled and redistributed irrespective of where they made the claim. You’d be fucked off royally to end up in Iceland!
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
Iceland is one step up from St. Helena, which was the proposal (later said to be a joke but for all the world reading like it was deadly serious) from one contributor here.
Iceland is very far from being St Helena. It's a small country but very economically developed etc.
The proposal to pool refugees and take them from camps near the conflict zones is a good one. A pity that it was not done.
The people crossing the channel are mostly economic migrants. "Mostly" because such things are not black and white (ha). Many are leaving a fucked up country, where they could stay....
Once again, PB lefties missing the forest for the trees, the issue isn't asylum seekers or refugees landing in Dover. It's that we get economic migrants coached by people smugglers to claim asylum and then disappear into the ether. This issue is also not isolated to the UK, it happens all across Europe because no country is willing to face up to this. If anyone believes that those arriving at Dover are all genuine refugees I also have a bridge to sell them.
The amount of successful asylum claims suggests you are wrong.
Or suggests that those claiming it know how best to be approved e.g. claim you are gay and you will be persecuted if returned, even though you may be as heterosexual as they come
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
The Russian Government is completely untrustworthy and criminal at every level.
There are many, clear evidenced reasons that no-one trusts them.
You do have to wonder whom were the humans "selected" for the trials...
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Geographical position is a swings and roundabouts affair, isn;t it? wherever you are, you take the rough with the smooth.
UK horrible weather, cramped Island, but a way away from the middle east.
Turkey The opposite.
Ask whoever it was yesterday (apols) to post that picture again of his view as he sat there with his 1Gbps wifi download speed.
Or ask @MarqueeMark to post some pics local to him.
Cramped is not how I would describe it.
It is cramped compared to other countries. How many people could post a picture like that from their front window?
An interesting way to see this is to look at the Strava heatmap. I know this only works for places where people have time to indulge in such nonsense, but still...
Once again, PB lefties missing the forest for the trees, the issue isn't asylum seekers or refugees landing in Dover. It's that we get economic migrants coached by people smugglers to claim asylum and then disappear into the ether. This issue is also not isolated to the UK, it happens all across Europe because no country is willing to face up to this. If anyone believes that those arriving at Dover are all genuine refugees I also have a bridge to sell them.
Don't worry - that will be classed as a racist statement.
What kind of bridges do you have in stock?
The classic right wing response to that is "it isn't racist as asylum seeker is not a race"
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
I gave the answer. We will have control over our laws, that is the answer.
But it's an utterly useless, dimwitted answer, because we won't control Japan's laws or the EU's laws.
There are a range of important issues - trade, environmental, asylum and so on - where there are no sensible answers that don't involve multinational agreement. Simply spouting the slogan "control over our laws" - whilst it may have merits in some areas - is simply moronic in others.
We don't need to control their laws. I don't want to control their laws.
I was going to comment that I've met plenty of arrogant good scientists, but then reflected that - if truly good - they're not actually arrogant, just correct about their abilities
So I think @Nigelb is probably right, but because when scientists become arrogant they cease to be good scientists - good scientists should question everything, including (and perhaps particularly), their own knowledge and abilities.
The truly great scientists aren't arrogant in my experience. When I was studying for my doctorate I met quite a few of the big names of theoretical particles physics of the time, including spending a couple of weeks working with one of the very greatest of all, Sheldon Glashow. It was really striking how open and approachable the top scientists were - self-confident, yes, and enthusiastic, but remarkably generous with their time and patience for a lowly post-grad. It tended to be the ones who were never going to be great achievers who were unhelpful and arrogant.
I think something similar may apply to most walks of life - including politicians. Probably that's because the top ones don't have anything to prove, and also they know how much luck there is in everything.
Contrary to popular belief, almost all top scientists are good communicators. There are of course a few who get to the top by being incredibly good and focussed, and simply rely on other scientists to publicise their work. But the typical top scientist has to be successful at writing interesting (for ther peers) scientific papers, being invited to conferences which means giving consistently interesting talks, being sucessful at writing grant applications to pay for the post docs who help you with your best research and to buy you out of teaching. Most will also be good at playing the internal uni politics game. Appearance on popular science programs like the Infinite Monkey Cage or articles in the New Scientist/newspapers are great for reputation and promotion. Oh and they also work incredibly long hours.
When you take all of this into consideration, it is not so surprising that most top scientists are pleasant and approachable, because it is an characteristic which has helped them get to the top.
Yes, I think that's right. Where top scientists may be weaker in my experience is in lecturing, because they don't understand what middle-ability students find difficult - everything they say in a lecture to undergraduates is equally trivial to them, so they don't slow down for the bits that newcomers find harder. When I studied maths I learned to appreciate the middle-flyers!
I don't think that's necessarily true. Some individuals are just natural pedagogues, and others aren't; that doesn't correlate with being good at a subject (one of the best mathematicians at Imperial is also one of the best teachers, I am reliably informed.)
It continues to be good news bad news for Houston on the Covid front.
The hospitals continue to empty of Covid patients (2 weeks ago 50% of ICU pateints were Covid patients, now that is down to 37%, overall they've went from 2078 Covid patients down to 1353) but yesterday an astonishing 18% of Covid patients who left the hospital did so by dying.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
I gave the answer. We will have control over our laws, that is the answer.
You do make me laugh. You are an ad-man's dream. Putin loves folk like you Philip.
I couldn't give a flying fuck what Putin loves. He could love chocolate for all I care it wouldn't stop me liking chocolate.
You're rather disturbingly obsessed with Putin. A backwards leader of a backwards country that is nowhere near as good or as powerful as our own. What's your problem?
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
The legal point being made is that the inaccurate claim made by the Home Secretary (and others) is that the refugee is required to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive.
Very simply, that's untrue. What there is is an EU agreement between members (the Dublin Regulation) that, administratively, says which state is responsible for processing the application. That's not a requirement on the asylum seeker. In theory, if a country knows that an applicant arrived in another country first, it can require that country to process the application. This is a very helpful regulation for the UK, Ireland or Denmark for example, but a real pain for countries on the Med who, in practice, aren't at all keen to apply it if they can possibly cast doubt and wriggle out of it.
But, crucially, this doesn't apply to the asylum seeker who does nothing illegal by claiming asylum in a country other than the first country of arrival. If the UK authorities have their asylum claim and the UK can't get another country to process it, the UK must do so. And they have to treat the asylum seeker as being from the country of origin - if they have no right to remain in another country, they are from the country of origin.
It's very dangerous of the Home Secretary to claim otherwise - whether that's because she's thick and doesn't understand the actual position, or deliberately to whip up hatred against asylum seekers by wrongly claiming arriving and claiming asylum is some kind of criminal act.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
Once again you fundamentally misunderstand the complex interaction between business, economics, trade and international politics. If Britain is weak, which it will be post Brexit and post covid (thanks to numpties that voted for the former), our economic growth will be dependent on other nations not economically bullying us for our stupidity.
It is possible that as all who have the swivelly eyes naively trust in, that Britain is magically transformed by Brexit into a global economic superpower that is "world class" in everything . Most non-swivelly-eyed folk know that the world is not as cooperative as that, so while it is possible in a utopian sort of way, it is not very likely.
Britain being made better off in any way by Brexit is for the fairies and those that believe in those magical creatures are more grounded and realistic than those that still think Brexit is a good idea.
It continues to be good news bad news for Houston on the Covid front.
The hospitals continue to empty of Covid patients (2 weeks ago 50% of ICU pateints were Covid patients, now that is down to 37%, overall they've went from 2078 Covid patients down to 1353) but yesterday an astonishing 18% of Covid patients who left the hospital did so by dying.
Is 18% dying astonishing?
I thought the figure for those who were intubated was 50% earlier on in this process so is 18% overall of those who've been admitted to ICU that shocking?
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
Once again you fundamentally misunderstand the complex interaction between business, economics, trade and international politics. If Britain is weak, which it will be post Brexit and post covid (thanks to numpties that voted for the former), our economic growth will be dependent on other nations not economically bullying us for our stupidity.
It is possible that as all who have the swivelly eyes naively trust in, that Britain is magically transformed by Brexit into a global economic superpower that is "world class" in everything . Most non-swivelly-eyed folk know that the world is not as cooperative as that, so while it is possible in a utopian sort of way, it is not very likely.
Britain being made better off in any way by Brexit is for the fairies and those that believe in those magical creatures are more grounded and realistic than those that still think Brexit is a good idea.
Britain won't be transformed into being world class.
Mr. Foremain, I share your dismay at the incompetence of governments and PMs over our departure. Would be interested to hear what you make of the EU offering a Canadian-style deal right up until the point we actually wanted it, at which time they suddenly discovered the UK was proximate which apparently meant such a deal was impossible despite having been on offer for months...
The incompetence of Johnson and May is cause for serious concern. That doesn't wash away the duplicitous behaviour of the EU, however.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
Once again you fundamentally misunderstand the complex interaction between business, economics, trade and international politics. If Britain is weak, which it will be post Brexit and post covid (thanks to numpties that voted for the former), our economic growth will be dependent on other nations not economically bullying us for our stupidity.
It is possible that as all who have the swivelly eyes naively trust in, that Britain is magically transformed by Brexit into a global economic superpower that is "world class" in everything . Most non-swivelly-eyed folk know that the world is not as cooperative as that, so while it is possible in a utopian sort of way, it is not very likely.
Britain being made better off in any way by Brexit is for the fairies and those that believe in those magical creatures are more grounded and realistic than those that still think Brexit is a good idea.
Britain won't be transformed into being world class.
Not sure how much this means but five of the eight candidates mentioned by the NYT are mentioned as speakers. I wouldn't imagine they would speak twice (as VP and a speaker).
There are three names not in the confirmed list of speakers are Rice, Demmings and Bass
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
Once again you fundamentally misunderstand the complex interaction between business, economics, trade and international politics. If Britain is weak, which it will be post Brexit and post covid (thanks to numpties that voted for the former), our economic growth will be dependent on other nations not economically bullying us for our stupidity.
It is possible that as all who have the swivelly eyes naively trust in, that Britain is magically transformed by Brexit into a global economic superpower that is "world class" in everything . Most non-swivelly-eyed folk know that the world is not as cooperative as that, so while it is possible in a utopian sort of way, it is not very likely.
Britain being made better off in any way by Brexit is for the fairies and those that believe in those magical creatures are more grounded and realistic than those that still think Brexit is a good idea.
Britain won't be transformed into being world class.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
Approaches to clinical trials don't differ all that much, and the time required to conduct them, and data requirements for valid statistical analysis don't change just because it's a different country.
Russia have undoubtedly taken a risky shortcut by rolling out a vaccine about which they simply cannot know if it has dangerous side effects. They may consider that a reasonable risk to take in the circumstances, and they might indeed get away with it, but it is undeniably a risk.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
Once again you fundamentally misunderstand the complex interaction between business, economics, trade and international politics. If Britain is weak, which it will be post Brexit and post covid (thanks to numpties that voted for the former), our economic growth will be dependent on other nations not economically bullying us for our stupidity.
It is possible that as all who have the swivelly eyes naively trust in, that Britain is magically transformed by Brexit into a global economic superpower that is "world class" in everything . Most non-swivelly-eyed folk know that the world is not as cooperative as that, so while it is possible in a utopian sort of way, it is not very likely.
Britain being made better off in any way by Brexit is for the fairies and those that believe in those magical creatures are more grounded and realistic than those that still think Brexit is a good idea.
Britain won't be transformed into being world class.
Not sure how much this means but five of the eight candidates mentioned by the NYT are mentioned as speakers. I wouldn't imagine they would speak twice (as VP and a speaker).
There are three names not in the confirmed list of speakers are Rice, Demmings and Bass
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
Which law says you claim in the first safe country you get to?
Article 31 says "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". Directly that is the word written. France is not direct.
The UK case law - see ex parte Adimi in particular and a string of other cases - is that you are still "coming directly" to the intended destination even if you go through other places in transit.
I don't get as wound up by this as say Mr Farage, but would have no problem in a law passed that overturns ex parte Adimi. If you are fleeing for your life, you have satisfied that condition when you have escaped that jurisdiction that would harm you. Give asylum seekers the choice, and ofcourse they will go somewhere with free healhcare and an extensive social welfare safety net.
In an ideal world, there would be a functioning agency that worked out quotas to all safe countries - and dispatched those asylum seekers there. With sanctions on those countries who refused. They would also send back to their country of origin those who were found to be economic migrants. That true asylum seekers have been so adversely affected by those who queue-barge to get here is a good reason to treat them harshly, in my book.
Your trouble isn't changing the law (although query consistency with international obligations) but how you implement it.
If you send back to the country of origin, you're sending back to an unsafe place.
If you send back to the country of transit, they will say "where's your proof?" and may well physically prevent it.
If you criminalise the asylum seeker, where does it get you? You still have the issue of what to do with them.
It is true any of there MIGHT reduce the risk of people crossing the Channel unsafely, and I agree that's a good thing. But it might not as there are still reasons a person may take their chances, and you do rely on international cooperation to limit these attempts as they do leave from a location outside your jurisdiction.
If I was PM with absolute powers I'd solve this with a chequebook. I'd write a big check to the Turks with the understanding anyone who illegally makes their way to this country will be deported to one of their camps, with an exchange of approved refugees coming the other way.
That way anybody that makes a dangerous crossing across the Channel knows they will end up in Turkey not the UK and we take genuine refugees who need our help the other way.
That is far more humane.
What if you are Kurdish? Or indeed an opposition activist?
It continues to be good news bad news for Houston on the Covid front.
The hospitals continue to empty of Covid patients (2 weeks ago 50% of ICU pateints were Covid patients, now that is down to 37%, overall they've went from 2078 Covid patients down to 1353) but yesterday an astonishing 18% of Covid patients who left the hospital did so by dying.
Is 18% dying astonishing?
I thought the figure for those who were intubated was 50% earlier on in this process so is 18% overall of those who've been admitted to ICU that shocking?
@Philip_Thompson that's not ICU death figure, that's any level of Covid admission to hospital.
I normally respect Gove but the idea of Sturgeon attending Cabinet is absolutely insane.
Why would you support that? Why is "BoZo" a sleeper agent for rejecting it?
This kind of attitude is why the Scottish are now more and more likely to leave the UK.
What is wrong with the attitude?
Remember I actually think it's for the best if Scotland goes independent but whether you are a unionist or a nationalist it is insane to suggest that Sturgeon either could or should be bound by the UK governments Cabinet collective responsibility. And if she's not bound by collective responsibility as part of the Cabinet then she can't be a part of it.
So what do you suggest to make this work? Have Sturgeon in the cabinet but not bound to it? Or have Sturgeon compelled to be bound by Boris's decisions?
It's insane and doesn't meet the first bit of thinking about. I doubt Sturgeon would even want to be a part of Boris's Cabinet!
Can anyone imagine Sturgeon inviting Boris to sit beside her at the Scottish Assembly?
It's not been an Assembly for a very long time - but the comparison is surely between governments not legislatures: so sitting with the Scottish Ministers at their periodic meetings.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
Approaches to clinical trials don't differ all that much, and the time required to conduct them, and data requirements for valid statistical analysis don't change just because it's a different country.
Russia have undoubtedly taken a risky shortcut by rolling out a vaccine about which they simply cannot know if it has dangerous side effects. They may consider that a reasonable risk to take in the circumstances, and they might indeed get away with it, but it is undeniably a risk.
All vaccines come with some side effects and some benefits. The balance between benefits and risks must vary by country. To give a simple theoretical example:
A vaccine for a random disease might be safe for most but particularly dangerous for over 80s. Two countries with average life expectancy of 55 and 80 might come to a different conclusion as to the risks they are willing to take with this vaccine.
Also if this virus was even more deadly we would be taking more shortcuts, and rightly so, if it was less deadly we would be taking fewer shortcuts.
By shortening the testing period to a few months, as we are doing, we are clearly less capable of spotting long term health impacts of a particular vaccine, that might not be observable until a couple of years after its been taken.
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
Once again, PB lefties missing the forest for the trees, the issue isn't asylum seekers or refugees landing in Dover. It's that we get economic migrants coached by people smugglers to claim asylum and then disappear into the ether. This issue is also not isolated to the UK, it happens all across Europe because no country is willing to face up to this. If anyone believes that those arriving at Dover are all genuine refugees I also have a bridge to sell them.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Imagine a world where asylum seekers are pooled and redistributed irrespective of where they made the claim. You’d be fucked off royally to end up in Iceland!
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
Iceland is one step up from St. Helena, which was the proposal (later said to be a joke but for all the world reading like it was deadly serious) from one contributor here.
Are you suggesting that Iceland is too small to take in refugees? The reason I went for Iceland is that geographically they are in an even more favourable position than Britain is. For sure there is a point at which a country can probably be considered too small to take any (Monaco?), but I think Iceland could find room for some.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing that will satisfy your original question about what is a tangible matter, CHB.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
I understand that side of it - but my question was very specifically related to jobs and the economy.
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
No because that misses the point. Our economic growth will be determined by the laws we set and the governments we elect far more than any trade deal.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
Because we will be better off controlling our own laws.
So erh, nothing then.
It's for us the voters to determine ultimately.
But yes, erh nothing.
Nothing will be set in stone. That's the whole point! Don't like a law? Then elect a government that changes it.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
No you just avoid questions you know have only bad answers.
I gave the answer. We will have control over our laws, that is the answer.
You do make me laugh. You are an ad-man's dream. Putin loves folk like you Philip.
I couldn't give a flying fuck what Putin loves. He could love chocolate for all I care it wouldn't stop me liking chocolate.
You're rather disturbingly obsessed with Putin. A backwards leader of a backwards country that is nowhere near as good or as powerful as our own. What's your problem?
There’s a certain type of arch-Remainer who thinks mentioning ‘Putin’ is some sort of killer point.
Done my first ever Zoom interview. I'm a great fit for what they're looking for, we got on very well, its a once in a blue moon opportunity. Sounds like I will hear soon and regardless of the result it was one of those interviews where I couldn't have done any better.
(first time I have worn a tie in what feels like forever. Too sticky warm for a tie...)
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
Do you think the situation in Hong Kong would be any different if we were still in the EU (genuine question)?
Done my first ever Zoom interview. I'm a great fit for what they're looking for, we got on very well, its a once in a blue moon opportunity. Sounds like I will hear soon and regardless of the result it was one of those interviews where I couldn't have done any better.
(first time I have worn a tie in what feels like forever. Too sticky warm for a tie...)
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
But, you can get round that with pan-international trade deals like the TPP.
Personally my view is that the “West” (worldwide) will mash itself together increasingly more over the next 10-20 years.
On the earlier education posts, lots of interesting ideas to explore but temperature checks is not one of them, I'm afraid. There needs to be a means of finding presymptomatic/asymptomatic carriers and that can only be done by very regular testing, I think.
There is one obvious solution that gets over the nature of the spread of this virus by both droplets and aerosols and somewhat mitigates (though not fully) the mask issue.
Teach outdoors.
More difficult for some subjects, acknowledged, and in inner city areas with zero space but using the natural world is educational and healthy. Outdoor education, haircuts etc, were a regular feature of the Spanish Flu response and not having people congregate indoors is by far the most effective way to disperse the virus in air. Most classrooms are poorly ventilated in this country and (as can be seen every year) are sick buildings that promote infection. Using them is asking for trouble.
If it gets colder, put on another layer. If you can afford them (and we'll ignore the environmental effect for now) use outdoor heaters. If it rains have open sided tents that can accommodate this.
EDIT: Should also say that there is a massive spanner in the works potentially, which is shared school transport. I really don't know how to adapt that in any particularly safe and closely monitored way.
Mr. B, I wonder if the Russian vaccine even works.
It's a modified adenovirus vaccine (like the Chinese effort, rather than the UK one, I think, although Russia has yet to publish any scientific papers on it), so it's unsurprising that it will have produced an immune response. If it's a human adenovirus, like the Chinese one, it's quite likely that a significant number of people will have antibodies to the adenovirus carrier already, rendering it ineffective for them.
We don't know if any of the vaccines 'work' in terms of rendering those vaccinated immune, and won't until longer term trials are complete. But it's quite likely that they will do so.
Not sure how much this means but five of the eight candidates mentioned by the NYT are mentioned as speakers. I wouldn't imagine they would speak twice (as VP and a speaker).
There are three names not in the confirmed list of speakers are Rice, Demmings and Bass
Very interesting. It might mean nothing, but I'm laying Harris back to zero off of that.
On the channel crossings I think the nature of public debate today is that this very rapidly polarises between “let them all in” and “keep them all out”.
I think it’s clear to most people that several things can be true at the same time: the existing asylum system is ripe for abuse and full of loopholes, there are many dangerous countries in a dire state that need our help, there are many who never make it (even to France) and it’s not feasible to let in everyone who’d qualify - which would run into the tens of millions.
I think Cameron’s solution was the closest I’d seen to a fair one on this. And, as I said yesterday, I’d prefer 80k legitimate and fair claims a year (with public support) to 40k illegitimate and unfair ones, that won’t.
It continues to be good news bad news for Houston on the Covid front.
The hospitals continue to empty of Covid patients (2 weeks ago 50% of ICU pateints were Covid patients, now that is down to 37%, overall they've went from 2078 Covid patients down to 1353) but yesterday an astonishing 18% of Covid patients who left the hospital did so by dying.
Is 18% dying astonishing?
I thought the figure for those who were intubated was 50% earlier on in this process so is 18% overall of those who've been admitted to ICU that shocking?
@Philip_Thompson that's not ICU death figure, that's any level of Covid admission to hospital.
I appreciate that but given they had over 2000 ICU patients I don't know how significant such a figure is.
Afterall case fatality rate in this country is about 6% last I checked, that's because we weren't testing everyone when people were dying the most but still ... You'd expect by definition those at hospital are the sickest axiomatically so I'm not sure where 18% falls in the grand scheme of things.
Surely preventing people from needing hospital in the first place is the best tactic?
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
Do you think the situation in Hong Kong would be any different if we were still in the EU (genuine question)?
No, I think our trade deals in the round won't be as good as the counterfactual though.
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
But, you can get round that with pan-international trade deals like the TPP.
Personally my view is that the “West” (worldwide) will mash itself together increasingly more over the next 10-20 years.
Yes, there is a conceivable future where the D10 plus a few others take their trade outside of the WTO if tough action against Chinese abuse isn't taken.
Mr. B, I wonder if the Russian vaccine even works.
As every vaccine in development has reported very positive results I would think it does
Have you looked at Russia's other recent scientific behaviour/organisations?
Such as their space program....
I realise that they lie a lot but without Russia Tim Peake may have struggled to get into Space.
In regard to the vaccine I will be amazed if one is not readily available in the UK within 6 months. I think that the people creating the vaccines know that they work already.
It continues to be good news bad news for Houston on the Covid front.
The hospitals continue to empty of Covid patients (2 weeks ago 50% of ICU pateints were Covid patients, now that is down to 37%, overall they've went from 2078 Covid patients down to 1353) but yesterday an astonishing 18% of Covid patients who left the hospital did so by dying.
Is 18% dying astonishing?
I thought the figure for those who were intubated was 50% earlier on in this process so is 18% overall of those who've been admitted to ICU that shocking?
@Philip_Thompson that's not ICU death figure, that's any level of Covid admission to hospital.
I appreciate that but given they had over 2000 ICU patients I don't know how significant such a figure is.
Once again. I wasn't clear, that was 2078 Covid patients of any type not just ICU patients.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
Approaches to clinical trials don't differ all that much, and the time required to conduct them, and data requirements for valid statistical analysis don't change just because it's a different country.
Russia have undoubtedly taken a risky shortcut by rolling out a vaccine about which they simply cannot know if it has dangerous side effects. They may consider that a reasonable risk to take in the circumstances, and they might indeed get away with it, but it is undeniably a risk.
All vaccines come with some side effects and some benefits. The balance between benefits and risks must vary by country. To give a simple theoretical example:
A vaccine for a random disease might be safe for most but particularly dangerous for over 80s. Two countries with average life expectancy of 55 and 80 might come to a different conclusion as to the risks they are willing to take with this vaccine.
Also if this virus was even more deadly we would be taking more shortcuts, and rightly so, if it was less deadly we would be taking fewer shortcuts.
By shortening the testing period to a few months, as we are doing, we are clearly less capable of spotting long term health impacts of a particular vaccine, that might not be observable until a couple of years after its been taken.
Of course. But Russia are rolling out a mass vaccination program before they have any clear idea of efficacy or side effects.
One of the reasons I am, on balance, in favour of running challenge trials is that they would give efficacy results much more quickly. They are potentially dangerous, but tens of thousands of people (including a number of medics and scientists, who are well aware of the risks) have volunteered for them.
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
But, you can get round that with pan-international trade deals like the TPP.
Personally my view is that the “West” (worldwide) will mash itself together increasingly more over the next 10-20 years.
Yes, there is a conceivable future where the D10 plus a few others take their trade outside of the WTO if tough action against Chinese abuse isn't taken.
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
Do you think the situation in Hong Kong would be any different if we were still in the EU (genuine question)?
No, I think our trade deals in the round won't be as good as the counterfactual though.
Nor would they be as good as the other counterfactual as to how much trade you'd have with a global government, global single currency and global free movement, which I think one or two opinion writers in the Economist have (seemingly seriously) argued for in the past.
There's a cash price to having independent politics and laws, but there's another type to be paid in not having them.
Mr. B, I wonder if the Russian vaccine even works.
It's a modified adenovirus vaccine (like the Chinese effort, rather than the UK one, I think, although Russia has yet to publish any scientific papers on it), so it's unsurprising that it will have produced an immune response. If it's a human adenovirus, like the Chinese one, it's quite likely that a significant number of people will have antibodies to the adenovirus carrier already, rendering it ineffective for them.
We don't know if any of the vaccines 'work' in terms of rendering those vaccinated immune, and won't until longer term trials are complete. But it's quite likely that they will do so.
The Russian vaccine will doubtless have the happy side effect of allowing their athletes to run the 100m in under 9 seconds....
Not sure how much this means but five of the eight candidates mentioned by the NYT are mentioned as speakers. I wouldn't imagine they would speak twice (as VP and a speaker).
There are three names not in the confirmed list of speakers are Rice, Demmings and Bass
Very interesting. It might mean nothing, but I'm laying Harris back to zero off of that.
FWIW, Demmings has come in shaprly on Betfair (now at 12, I think she was 30 this morning)
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Imagine a world where asylum seekers are pooled and redistributed irrespective of where they made the claim. You’d be fucked off royally to end up in Iceland!
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
Iceland is one step up from St. Helena, which was the proposal (later said to be a joke but for all the world reading like it was deadly serious) from one contributor here.
Iceland is very far from being St Helena. It's a small country but very economically developed etc.
The proposal to pool refugees and take them from camps near the conflict zones is a good one. A pity that it was not done.
The people crossing the channel are mostly economic migrants. "Mostly" because such things are not black and white (ha). Many are leaving a fucked up country, where they could stay....
Iceland is a jackpot for anyone seeking a new country. For one thing, they have enough geothermal energy to keep heating costs low and enough left over to heat the pavements in downtown Reykjavik! Lots of lovely space if you want it, stunning scenery, decent entertainment options and you can easily get by with speaking English.
Mr. B, I wonder if the Russian vaccine even works.
As every vaccine in development has reported very positive results I would think it does
Have you looked at Russia's other recent scientific behaviour/organisations?
Such as their space program....
I realise that they lie a lot but without Russia Tim Peake may have struggled to get into Space.
In regard to the vaccine I will be amazed if one is not readily available in the UK within 6 months. I think that the people creating the vaccines know that they work already.
Russia is staggering along, in space, on the remains of the Soviet program. Quality control has collapsed. Corruption has completely overwhelmed any attempt to innovate.
Mikhail Kokorich commented thus on space programs - "The US is definitely number one, then the European Union, then China,” he said. “Next, I think India is now comparable with Russia, and maybe even more advanced than Russia in a wider sense."
Celtic's Boli Bolingoli apologises over quarantine breach....
...In a statement, the Scottish government said it was aware of reports of the player having broken quarantine rules last week.
It added: "We are currently in discussion with the club and football governing bodies to establish the facts.
"If confirmed as another serious incident within Scottish football, where protocols have been breached at the risk of wider public health, then the Scottish government will have little choice but to consider whether a pause is now needed in the resumption of the game in Scotland."
This could put pretty much virtually all Scottish league clubs out of business.
You simply cannot buy this level of incompetence.
On the contrary, I would be happy to sell my services to be incompetent at far cheaper rates. My company will guarantee a level of incompetence no greater than our chief rivals, at half the cost. I expect to do very well.
On the earlier education posts, lots of interesting ideas to explore but temperature checks is not one of them, I'm afraid. There needs to be a means of finding presymptomatic/asymptomatic carriers and that can only be done by very regular testing, I think.
There is one obvious solution that gets over the nature of the spread of this virus by both droplets and aerosols and somewhat mitigates (though not fully) the mask issue.
Teach outdoors.
More difficult for some subjects, acknowledged, and in inner city areas with zero space but using the natural world is educational and healthy. Outdoor education, haircuts etc, were a regular feature of the Spanish Flu response and not having people congregate indoors is by far the most effective way to disperse the virus in air. Most classrooms are poorly ventilated in this country and (as can be seen every year) are sick buildings that promote infection. Using them is asking for trouble.
If it gets colder, put on another layer. If you can afford them (and we'll ignore the environmental effect for now) use outdoor heaters. If it rains have open sided tents that can accommodate this.
EDIT: Should also say that there is a massive spanner in the works potentially, which is shared school transport. I really don't know how to adapt that in any particularly safe and closely monitored way.
I see from the Grauniad covid news feed that in Scotland the EIS is threatening to strike against return to school - with Moray and, especially, Scottish Borders Councils in the firing line.
"the head of the EIS Larry Flanagan has slammed the Scottish Borders in particular for failing to discuss a phased return with staff and not giving them enough time to put in place updated risk assessments.
Flanagan concluded: “The recent EIS national survey indicated majority support from members for industrial action if required, to ensure the safety of staff and pupils in our schools. We will always seek to resolve collective grievances through dialogue but Councils such as Scottish Borders need to engage with the EIS and not seek to bypass proper discussions by claiming a ‘corporate decision’ has been made.”
Throwing numbers around here (I haven't checked them) but I think something like the following would be sustainable and fair (note we wouldn't distinguish - officially - between EU and non-EU in the policy):
Asylum: 80k Non-EU work: 100k EU work: 60k Family reunions: 20k Other: 30k
REmove students out of the figures, unless they go "dark" or change their status to working visas. Against that, you'd have 75-100k emigrating the other way each year.
I think as long as net immigration is controlled and bounces around in the 150-200k box pa it will be accepted as sustainable and fair.
Anything much higher than that and it will remain a live political issue.
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
I disagree.
Your logic only works if the the larger bloc is united and focused with a common purpose. If it's not then the smaller and more focused nation will have more power on its own.
This is true in any walk of life. A broom handle is much bigger than a dagger, but while I'd rather not be attacked with either if I am I'd rather be hit with the broom than stabbed with the dagger.
I think in combination with doing everything in our power to stop people physically crossing the channel and getting onto British terra firma via people smuggling dinghies we should put out the message that people can apply for asylum by heading to the British embassy or consulate in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France (You can add Lebanon, Syria, Iraq in there too), perhaps even Hong Kong......
Obviously it'll be overwhelmed, but we'll be able to pick out those that can best fit and so forth - crucially people will be and will be seen to be following a proper queued system. We can take up to a certain number of internationally agreed asylum seekers. Noone here likes queue jumpers and process abusers, which is what people quite frankly heading from Calais to Dover are seen as.
On the channel crossings I think the nature of public debate today is that this very rapidly polarises between “let them all in” and “keep them all out”.
I think it’s clear to most people that several things can be true at the same time: the existing asylum system is ripe for abuse and full of loopholes, there are many dangerous countries in a dire state that need our help, there are many who never make it (even to France) and it’s not feasible to let in everyone who’d qualify - which would run into the tens of millions.
I think Cameron’s solution was the closest I’d seen to a fair one on this. And, as I said yesterday, I’d prefer 80k legitimate and fair claims a year (with public support) to 40k illegitimate and unfair ones, that won’t.
Yes, but Cameron once used the word swarm and so was beyond the pale on the subject. So polarise we must.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
Approaches to clinical trials don't differ all that much, and the time required to conduct them, and data requirements for valid statistical analysis don't change just because it's a different country.
Russia have undoubtedly taken a risky shortcut by rolling out a vaccine about which they simply cannot know if it has dangerous side effects. They may consider that a reasonable risk to take in the circumstances, and they might indeed get away with it, but it is undeniably a risk.
All vaccines come with some side effects and some benefits. The balance between benefits and risks must vary by country. To give a simple theoretical example:
A vaccine for a random disease might be safe for most but particularly dangerous for over 80s. Two countries with average life expectancy of 55 and 80 might come to a different conclusion as to the risks they are willing to take with this vaccine.
Also if this virus was even more deadly we would be taking more shortcuts, and rightly so, if it was less deadly we would be taking fewer shortcuts.
By shortening the testing period to a few months, as we are doing, we are clearly less capable of spotting long term health impacts of a particular vaccine, that might not be observable until a couple of years after its been taken.
Of course. But Russia are rolling out a mass vaccination program before they have any clear idea of efficacy or side effects.
One of the reasons I am, on balance, in favour of running challenge trials is that they would give efficacy results much more quickly. They are potentially dangerous, but tens of thousands of people (including a number of medics and scientists, who are well aware of the risks) have volunteered for them.
This behaviour suggests to me that Vladimir Putin is more keen than ever to justify his regime to ordinary Russians.
If we really wanted to undermine him further, we would take some of the incredibly bright and well educated people who suffer under his yoke into our country. Engineers, doctors, writers, IT people.
As opposed to mainly totally uneducated and sometimes unruly young African males at present in very safe country who we have to fund at enormous expense because they are unproductive and will be so for some time.
Its our choice now, you see. That's what we voted for.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
Approaches to clinical trials don't differ all that much, and the time required to conduct them, and data requirements for valid statistical analysis don't change just because it's a different country.
Russia have undoubtedly taken a risky shortcut by rolling out a vaccine about which they simply cannot know if it has dangerous side effects. They may consider that a reasonable risk to take in the circumstances, and they might indeed get away with it, but it is undeniably a risk.
All vaccines come with some side effects and some benefits. The balance between benefits and risks must vary by country. To give a simple theoretical example:
A vaccine for a random disease might be safe for most but particularly dangerous for over 80s. Two countries with average life expectancy of 55 and 80 might come to a different conclusion as to the risks they are willing to take with this vaccine.
Also if this virus was even more deadly we would be taking more shortcuts, and rightly so, if it was less deadly we would be taking fewer shortcuts.
By shortening the testing period to a few months, as we are doing, we are clearly less capable of spotting long term health impacts of a particular vaccine, that might not be observable until a couple of years after its been taken.
Of course. But Russia are rolling out a mass vaccination program before they have any clear idea of efficacy or side effects.
One of the reasons I am, on balance, in favour of running challenge trials is that they would give efficacy results much more quickly. They are potentially dangerous, but tens of thousands of people (including a number of medics and scientists, who are well aware of the risks) have volunteered for them.
"But Russia are rolling out a mass vaccination program before they have any clear idea of efficacy or side effects."
This seems unlikely, it would be an extraordinary risk from a government that is calculating and long term in outlook. Efficacy might well be poor but rolling out a mass vaccination program with significant side effects before the rest of the world is one of the few ways they may lose power in the next few years.
Given losing power likely means death or jail for the decision makers, Id assume they have seen enough data to believe side effects are limited.
@Stocky You're one of the few posters who doesn't shout and scream when I ask a question, even if I disagree with you at least you're pleasant to talk to.
Thank you CHB. It is best to be pleasant, even though no doubt we have many things to disagree about.
You may be a tad sensitive at times - though TBF I`d be upset if someone "shouted" at me.
I`ve only had one instance of unpleasantness on PB.com. That was almost a year ago from a poster who no longer posts who I`m convinced was a bot. He/she/it popped up remarkably quickly whenever a certain issue came up (transgenderism) and spouted shite that felt like had been learned in some transgender training camp whenever questioning, even mild, was said.
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
I disagree.
Your logic only works if the the larger bloc is united and focused with a common purpose. If it's not then the smaller and more focused nation will have more power on its own.
This is true in any walk of life. A broom handle is much bigger than a dagger, but while I'd rather not be attacked with either if I am I'd rather be hit with the broom than stabbed with the dagger.
Focus matters more than brute size.
A car is bigger than a broom but I`d rather be hit by a broom.
One thing that changes outside of a block like the EU is the raw size of your economy in relation to global leverage. Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million. One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
I disagree.
Your logic only works if the the larger bloc is united and focused with a common purpose. If it's not then the smaller and more focused nation will have more power on its own.
This is true in any walk of life. A broom handle is much bigger than a dagger, but while I'd rather not be attacked with either if I am I'd rather be hit with the broom than stabbed with the dagger.
Focus matters more than brute size.
A car is bigger than a broom but I`d rather be hit by a broom.
Comments
What kind of bridges do you have in stock?
The next ONS release on the economy is tomorrow (12th August) I believe.
UK horrible weather, cramped Island, but a way away from the middle east.
Turkey The opposite.
If you send back to the country of origin, you're sending back to an unsafe place.
If you send back to the country of transit, they will say "where's your proof?" and may well physically prevent it.
If you criminalise the asylum seeker, where does it get you? You still have the issue of what to do with them.
It is true any of there MIGHT reduce the risk of people crossing the Channel unsafely, and I agree that's a good thing. But it might not as there are still reasons a person may take their chances, and you do rely on international cooperation to limit these attempts as they do leave from a location outside your jurisdiction.
And here we go again.
TAKE MORE REFUGEES.
You seek to still be not understanding the whole point of all this.
However, understand that millions of people are truly delighted that we have left the EU. It is an emotional thing, a matter of psychological utility linked to national pride.
I don`t agree with them, but I understand it.
Just for a few examples, the (typically) mild weather means we don't need to spend that much on heating and air conditioning; the moderate moisture means we have fertile land without a particularly high risk of extreme weather; the location means we're hard to invade (or indeed get to as a refugee in relative terms) whilst close enough to the continent for trade; the geology is diverse so we have quite a lot of natural resources to extract.
The list just goes on and on. And as to "cramped" really? We have large areas of great natural beauty. Yes we also have some crowded cities but that's because cities are popular places to be for various reasons and are designed in various different ways, some better than others - New York is far more crowded than any UK city even though it's in a country with far lower population density overall.
The problem about making agreements is that to define a 'fair share', you first have to define what you are sharing.
There are refugees all over the planet, some whom have a much higher claim on the UK being somewhat responsible for their plight.
And even if you agree to a 'share', there will still be some migrants who don't like the country they've been 'allocated' to and will want to move anyway.
There's also the problem of encouraging economic migration, which, whilst understandable only makes the problems in the source countries worse.
This Channel thing has to stop though. And realistically the French are the only ones that can do anything about it. Whether they want to is another question...
I have every right to ask, the reason I ask is that a responsible Government would - in my view - be seeking to negotiate an agreement taking account of the fact we are in an economic blackhole and to try and reduce the damage. EEA is the best outcome for that, at least on a short term basis.
Holding a "Westminster" cabinet meeting in Edinburgh is a PR stunt.
Presumably the idea behind the stunt is to show Scots what a valued part of the Union they are. That would have been demonstrated by inviting the First Minister along.
Instead BoZo has completely fucked it (again) and the purpose of the stunt is now to explicitly show Scots what disdain Westminster holds for Holyrood.
Nippy couldn't have designed it better.
And if she thought she could get PR mileage out of inviting BoZo to Holyrood, draped in Saltires, she would jump at the chance.
Or ask @MarqueeMark to post some pics local to him.
Cramped is not how I would describe it.
There are a range of important issues - trade, environmental, asylum and so on - where there are no sensible answers that don't involve multinational agreement. Simply spouting the slogan "control over our laws" - whilst it may have merits in some areas - is simply moronic in others.
That way anybody that makes a dangerous crossing across the Channel knows they will end up in Turkey not the UK and we take genuine refugees who need our help the other way.
That is far more humane.
The proposal to pool refugees and take them from camps near the conflict zones is a good one. A pity that it was not done.
The people crossing the channel are mostly economic migrants. "Mostly" because such things are not black and white (ha). Many are leaving a fucked up country, where they could stay....
An interesting way to see this is to look at the Strava heatmap. I know this only works for places where people have time to indulge in such nonsense, but still...
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#5.28/3.95257/51.59484/hot/all
Look at France compared to England. Yes, Paris, but...
Some individuals are just natural pedagogues, and others aren't; that doesn't correlate with being good at a subject (one of the best mathematicians at Imperial is also one of the best teachers, I am reliably informed.)
The hospitals continue to empty of Covid patients (2 weeks ago 50% of ICU pateints were Covid patients, now that is down to 37%, overall they've went from 2078 Covid patients down to 1353) but yesterday an astonishing 18% of Covid patients who left the hospital did so by dying.
You're rather disturbingly obsessed with Putin. A backwards leader of a backwards country that is nowhere near as good or as powerful as our own. What's your problem?
Priti Trumpian of her.
It is possible that as all who have the swivelly eyes naively trust in, that Britain is magically transformed by Brexit into a global economic superpower that is "world class" in everything . Most non-swivelly-eyed folk know that the world is not as cooperative as that, so while it is possible in a utopian sort of way, it is not very likely.
Britain being made better off in any way by Brexit is for the fairies and those that believe in those magical creatures are more grounded and realistic than those that still think Brexit is a good idea.
I thought the figure for those who were intubated was 50% earlier on in this process so is 18% overall of those who've been admitted to ICU that shocking?
Britain always has been world class.
The incompetence of Johnson and May is cause for serious concern. That doesn't wash away the duplicitous behaviour of the EU, however.
Interesting times in which we live.
Fox has a list out of the 2020 DNC speakers.
https://www.fox6now.com/news/democrats-announce-additional-speakers-schedule-updates-for-2020-dnc
Not sure how much this means but five of the eight candidates mentioned by the NYT are mentioned as speakers. I wouldn't imagine they would speak twice (as VP and a speaker).
There are three names not in the confirmed list of speakers are Rice, Demmings and Bass
Russia have undoubtedly taken a risky shortcut by rolling out a vaccine about which they simply cannot know if it has dangerous side effects. They may consider that a reasonable risk to take in the circumstances, and they might indeed get away with it, but it is undeniably a risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Convention#List_of_speakers
Headline - 6
7 days - 4
Yesterday - 0
Or indeed an opposition activist?
Such as their space program....
A vaccine for a random disease might be safe for most but particularly dangerous for over 80s. Two countries with average life expectancy of 55 and 80 might come to a different conclusion as to the risks they are willing to take with this vaccine.
Also if this virus was even more deadly we would be taking more shortcuts, and rightly so, if it was less deadly we would be taking fewer shortcuts.
By shortening the testing period to a few months, as we are doing, we are clearly less capable of spotting long term health impacts of a particular vaccine, that might not be observable until a couple of years after its been taken.
Inside it doesn't matter so much, a small nation like Slovenia or Ireland has the same relationship with China that Germany or France does. Outside, well an economy of a hundred million people has (ceteris paribus) more clout than that of 50 million.
One of the reasons I voted to remain in.
(first time I have worn a tie in what feels like forever. Too sticky warm for a tie...)
Personally my view is that the “West” (worldwide) will mash itself together increasingly more over the next 10-20 years.
There is one obvious solution that gets over the nature of the spread of this virus by both droplets and aerosols and somewhat mitigates (though not fully) the mask issue.
Teach outdoors.
More difficult for some subjects, acknowledged, and in inner city areas with zero space but using the natural world is educational and healthy. Outdoor education, haircuts etc, were a regular feature of the Spanish Flu response and not having people congregate indoors is by far the most effective way to disperse the virus in air. Most classrooms are poorly ventilated in this country and (as can be seen every year) are sick buildings that promote infection. Using them is asking for trouble.
If it gets colder, put on another layer. If you can afford them (and we'll ignore the environmental effect for now) use outdoor heaters. If it rains have open sided tents that can accommodate this.
EDIT: Should also say that there is a massive spanner in the works potentially, which is shared school transport. I really don't know how to adapt that in any particularly safe and closely monitored way.
We don't know if any of the vaccines 'work' in terms of rendering those vaccinated immune, and won't until longer term trials are complete. But it's quite likely that they will do so.
I think it’s clear to most people that several things can be true at the same time: the existing asylum system is ripe for abuse and full of loopholes, there are many dangerous countries in a dire state that need our help, there are many who never make it (even to France) and it’s not feasible to let in everyone who’d qualify - which would run into the tens of millions.
I think Cameron’s solution was the closest I’d seen to a fair one on this. And, as I said yesterday, I’d prefer 80k legitimate and fair claims a year (with public support) to 40k illegitimate and unfair ones, that won’t.
Afterall case fatality rate in this country is about 6% last I checked, that's because we weren't testing everyone when people were dying the most but still ... You'd expect by definition those at hospital are the sickest axiomatically so I'm not sure where 18% falls in the grand scheme of things.
Surely preventing people from needing hospital in the first place is the best tactic?
In regard to the vaccine I will be amazed if one is not readily available in the UK within 6 months. I think that the people creating the vaccines know that they work already.
But Russia are rolling out a mass vaccination program before they have any clear idea of efficacy or side effects.
One of the reasons I am, on balance, in favour of running challenge trials is that they would give efficacy results much more quickly. They are potentially dangerous, but tens of thousands of people (including a number of medics and scientists, who are well aware of the risks) have volunteered for them.
It's far from far-fetched.
There's a cash price to having independent politics and laws, but there's another type to be paid in not having them.
Mikhail Kokorich commented thus on space programs - "The US is definitely number one, then the European Union, then China,” he said. “Next, I think India is now comparable with Russia, and maybe even more advanced than Russia in a wider sense."
"the head of the EIS Larry Flanagan has slammed the Scottish Borders in particular for failing to discuss a phased return with staff and not giving them enough time to put in place updated risk assessments.
Flanagan concluded: “The recent EIS national survey indicated majority support from members for industrial action if required, to ensure the safety of staff and pupils in our schools. We will always seek to resolve collective grievances through dialogue but Councils such as Scottish Borders need to engage with the EIS and not seek to bypass proper discussions by claiming a ‘corporate decision’ has been made.”
https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/1293082941791313920?s=20
Throwing numbers around here (I haven't checked them) but I think something like the following would be sustainable and fair (note we wouldn't distinguish - officially - between EU and non-EU in the policy):
Asylum: 80k
Non-EU work: 100k
EU work: 60k
Family reunions: 20k
Other: 30k
REmove students out of the figures, unless they go "dark" or change their status to working visas. Against that, you'd have 75-100k emigrating the other way each year.
I think as long as net immigration is controlled and bounces around in the 150-200k box pa it will be accepted as sustainable and fair.
Anything much higher than that and it will remain a live political issue.
Your logic only works if the the larger bloc is united and focused with a common purpose. If it's not then the smaller and more focused nation will have more power on its own.
This is true in any walk of life. A broom handle is much bigger than a dagger, but while I'd rather not be attacked with either if I am I'd rather be hit with the broom than stabbed with the dagger.
Focus matters more than brute size.
Obviously it'll be overwhelmed, but we'll be able to pick out those that can best fit and so forth - crucially people will be and will be seen to be following a proper queued system. We can take up to a certain number of internationally agreed asylum seekers.
Noone here likes queue jumpers and process abusers, which is what people quite frankly heading from Calais to Dover are seen as.
If we really wanted to undermine him further, we would take some of the incredibly bright and well educated people who suffer under his yoke into our country. Engineers, doctors, writers, IT people.
As opposed to mainly totally uneducated and sometimes unruly young African males at present in very safe country who we have to fund at enormous expense because they are unproductive and will be so for some time.
Its our choice now, you see. That's what we voted for.
https://www.scottishparliament.tv
This seems unlikely, it would be an extraordinary risk from a government that is calculating and long term in outlook. Efficacy might well be poor but rolling out a mass vaccination program with significant side effects before the rest of the world is one of the few ways they may lose power in the next few years.
Given losing power likely means death or jail for the decision makers, Id assume they have seen enough data to believe side effects are limited.
You may be a tad sensitive at times - though TBF I`d be upset if someone "shouted" at me.
I`ve only had one instance of unpleasantness on PB.com. That was almost a year ago from a poster who no longer posts who I`m convinced was a bot. He/she/it popped up remarkably quickly whenever a certain issue came up (transgenderism) and spouted shite that felt like had been learned in some transgender training camp whenever questioning, even mild, was said.
We could go on like this for ages.
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1293174062219513857?s=20