Does anybody know why Trump has come bounding in from 3 to 2.7 today?
No idea. (Mr Ed posted an interesting, and worrying, report earlier this morning.)
I`m having to restrain myself from betting the farm on the Dems at these odds.
Is it linked to the Michigan court ruling discounting mail in votes received post Nov 3rd regardless of postmark? And also the prospect of this setting a precedent for other court cases currently in process. What a farce America is.
"And there is some evidence vessels are still discarding fish, including video and photographic evidence of illegal discards happening off the coast of Scotland gathered by campaign groups Our Fish and Open Seas.
A House of Lords report on the landing obligation policy, published in February 2019, said: "Little attempt appears to have been made to enforce the landing obligation's requirements thus far, allowing the discarding of fish to continue.""
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.
The piece is really just identifying the problem, without coming up with any policy to combat it. There is not really anything that can be done about it in my opinion.
The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.
For once we agree, there's a whole shitload of 'something must be done' around, hardly any 'this should be done'.
"And there is some evidence vessels are still discarding fish, including video and photographic evidence of illegal discards happening off the coast of Scotland gathered by campaign groups Our Fish and Open Seas.
A House of Lords report on the landing obligation policy, published in February 2019, said: "Little attempt appears to have been made to enforce the landing obligation's requirements thus far, allowing the discarding of fish to continue.""
Yep, so against EU rules, fisherman are discarding fish of their own volition. Bad fishermen.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
I've been knocked the fuck out in MTB accidents at least twice since 2016 so it's possible I'm suffering from significant cognitive impairment but does anybody remember fish being mentioned much before the referendum? It's seems like it's all about fish now. 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟
Isn't it virtually the only thing that the UK can legitimately say they retain control of post a no-deal transition exit? So the Government has been bigging it up as a major triumph for when No-Deal happens. The problem is that in order to do that they've had to elevate it as a major sticking point in trade talks as well. Even though economically it is basically irrelevant.
It would be slightly ironic if we no deal, regain control of our fish, and then find that all the fish and chip shops suffer supply shortages and prices sky rocket... And we have to beg the French to start fishing again.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
It screws the French fishing industry but protects Macron - who hasn't "sold out" to les rosbifs whose fault it is entirely.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
Macron's thinking seems to be if he compromises then the fishermen are damaged and it's his fault since he agreed to it ... If he doesn't compromise the fishermen are damaged even more but he can say it is perfidious Albion's fault.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
I've been knocked the fuck out in MTB accidents at least twice since 2016 so it's possible I'm suffering from significant cognitive impairment but does anybody remember fish being mentioned much before the referendum? It's seems like it's all about fish now. 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟
Isn't it virtually the only thing that the UK can legitimately say they retain control of post a no-deal transition exit? So the Government has been bigging it up as a major triumph for when No-Deal happens. The problem is that in order to do that they've had to elevate it as a major sticking point in trade talks as well. Even though economically it is basically irrelevant.
It would be slightly ironic if we no deal, regain control of our fish, and then find that all the fish and chip shops suffer supply shortages and prices sky rocket... And we have to beg the French to start fishing again.
Also cos Mr Farage and Ms Hoey made such a Big Thing of it. I daresay Mr Cummings has strategised the need to win over the Brexit Party voterrs on the BXP's own ground. And of course Mr Gove has his own family story/legend.
I've friends in New Zealand. They run naked around the fields: that's a metaphor by the way
Total freedom. No masks. No fear.
And for those who bleat that New Zealand has only 4.5 m people, it's just a question of scale. We're an island and so are they. We could have done it.
It's laughable that Herdson criticises Sir Keir for the very thing that so bedevils Johnson: dithering, vacillating, rudderless, incompetence on a scale not seen in this country for over a century. Jeez, Boris has made Theresa May look like Maggie.
Johnson has rightly been criticised for his rabbit-like ability to take a decision, act on impulse and own responsibility. Saying it again would be boring and add nothing by way of insight.
What I think's more interesting is to look at how Starmer is acting as LotO now that the govt's Covid goodwill period has ended, not least because that tells us more about how UK politics are likely to develop over the next few years. Starmer is and was more of an unknown quantity in that respect.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.
The piece is really just identifying the problem, without coming up with any policy to combat it. There is not really anything that can be done about it in my opinion.
The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.
For once we agree, there's a whole shitload of 'something must be done' around, hardly any 'this should be done'.
Perhaps a pause on Muslim immigration while we figure out a better way of handling things would be a good start.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
I've been knocked the fuck out in MTB accidents at least twice since 2016 so it's possible I'm suffering from significant cognitive impairment but does anybody remember fish being mentioned much before the referendum? It's seems like it's all about fish now. 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟
Isn't it virtually the only thing that the UK can legitimately say they retain control of post a no-deal transition exit? So the Government has been bigging it up as a major triumph for when No-Deal happens. The problem is that in order to do that they've had to elevate it as a major sticking point in trade talks as well. Even though economically it is basically irrelevant.
It would be slightly ironic if we no deal, regain control of our fish, and then find that all the fish and chip shops suffer supply shortages and prices sky rocket... And we have to beg the French to start fishing again.
Also cos Mr Farage and Ms Hoey made such a Big Thing of it. I daresay Mr Cummings has strategised the need to win over the Brexit Party voterrs on the BXP's own ground. And of course Mr Gove has his own family story/legend.
Island nation Britain is concerned about the seas.
In other shocking news bears care about the woods, Pope is Catholic and water is wet.
It would be quite funny if we end up with a deal and Government support goes down because Brexit supporters prefer Australia to Canada.
Not quite so funny for all those who lose their jobs and businesses as a result.
I think this is a slightly kneejerk response which didn't possibly read the source of "funny"? ie. trade deal happens and Govt support declines because people wanted no deal. The job losses "as a result" would be in the Conservative party.
Nothing is in general "funny" about the consequences of Brexit.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
The exception that proves the rule - and which actually provides the springboard for the article. To the extent that Starmer did distance himself from the government, it's revealing that he only did so under cover of the government's professional advisors.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
I can’t see how you can see that when Starmer broke the consensus on Covid and turned the political agenda upside down. Honestly hard to remember a LoO having a greater impact.
It was actually the government that broke the consensus.
Where was Starmer breaking the consensus on the 10pm closure? He didn't even go as far as a sizeable number of Tory MPs.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL. Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.
You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.
Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,
Depending on your age , you should be in 7 figures with pensions, house and other cash or will certainly end up there , and he has his near 2 grand a week pension top up in the HOL as backup long as he can take a taxi and sign in.
Speaking personally, having never been near the city and started work on £9 a week and having also squandered plenty in my time it is far far from impossible. PS: Conversely you have no evidence that he is not well off, you are merely surmising. I suggest given his location , career etc it is likely to be nearer my opinion than yours.
You are assuming that Starmer will go to the Lords. He might not a) wish to b) be offered the chance or c) the Lords might not exist in it's current form. (so b would apply, of course.) On houses, two considerations apply; house prices can go down as well as up and a house is only worth anything when you actually sell it. Yes, I know about Equity Release, and suspect its the PPI of our time.
He can sell up in London and buy a mansion elsewhere in the future.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
There was some story about most of the fish in UK waters being the sort of fish that the UK public don't like to eat. So it's a big problem for a lot of UK fisherman if they lose their markets in the EU.
It would be quite funny if we end up with a deal and Government support goes down because Brexit supporters prefer Australia to Canada.
Not quite so funny for all those who lose their jobs and businesses as a result.
I think this is a slightly kneejerk response which didn't possibly read the source of "funny"? ie. trade deal happens and Govt support declines because people wanted no deal. The job losses "as a result" would be in the Conservative party.
Nothing is in general "funny" about the consequences of Brexit.
No, I did get it. And I agree that Brexit in general is no laughing matter.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.
Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.
I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.
Bit like burning your 20 pound notes so you can save your 10p coins
Your hypocrisy with regards to Scottish independence and Brexit remains breathtaking.
At least I'm consistent in applying the same principles to (and thus supporting) both.
What you talking about , Brexit is a disaster and Independence is the natural state for Scotland , where is the hypocrisy.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.
For ordinary people? How about this. He defended the McLibel two, a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week and an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son (then aged four) completely free of charge, when the multimillion pound conglomerate sued them for libel. He took the case all the way to the ECHR, again for free, forcing the UK Government to pay them £57,000, more than offsetting the £20,000 McDonalds had been awarded, and persuaded McDonalds not to enforce a costs award. For free he fought, and effectively won, the longest civil case in British (English or Scots law) history.
There is no point in Starmer picking a fight with Johnson given the 80 seat majority and 4 years left to run in this Parliament. It won't help ordinary people to do so - it just wastes time and energy. He's picking his battles as a good litigator does. Again, he is prepared for the long fight, and that's how he is fighting. He's Ali to Johnson's Foreman. Johnson has nothing to punch againt.
One can only hope and fact he is up against an absolutely useless donkey cannot be a handicap.
Malc, If I lived in Scotland I would vote SNP for an independent state. It is obvious to me Johnson is helping your cause. However I do not have that choice and SKS seems a more honest moral person to me than Johnson.
For sure he is miles better than Johnson, no comparison. I just hope he shows leadership and gets rid of some of the dross.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
Like everyone else I can't see the politics of next week let alone the generation after next. But there is a key difference: liberal societies, including ours, put on trial and send to prison for lengthy terms those who behave in these ways.
One other small point; western Christianity only saw the merit of liberalism and non-extremism very gradually from the end of the 17th century onwards. It's actually very recent.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Starmer earned a six figure salary at the DPP, in asset terms he is a millionaire, even if he did not earn a million a year as some city firm partners and commercial QCs do
According to the 'Senior officials 'high earners' salaries 2010' website, Starmer was on just under £200,000 as DPP. Obviously there would be pension rights associated with that, but he wasn't in the job that long, so there wouldn't be a lot there. He didn't qualify as a barrister until he was 25 or so, and he probably didn't earn much in his first few years at the bar; as has been pointed. out he wasn't in a high-paying area of practice and he did a lot of pro-bono work as well. His wife doesn't appear to be a high earner, either.
Depending on which variant of the civil service pension scheme he was on, and assuming he didn't simply opt out, then that would be of the order of 5 years x 1/80 of his salary - something like 12.5K annually plus a lump sum of 37K. Of course annuity/interest rates would hgave been much better then.
So for a five year contract, he's getting £12.5k per annum for life, index linked?
Edit, plus of course now he's an MP, on the best pension scheme in the country.
p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.
Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?
The people who won't be forgiven after a pandemic are those who failed to meet the challenge, and those who enabled that.
I'm not one for wartime references as a rule but by your logic, Labour should have been supporting Chamberlain in the Norway debate. There comes a point when national unity has to play second fiddle to national effectiveness.
And as for what we both are, sure my political career fizzled out. I can't say I'm all that sorry; I'm sure I'm happier now than I would have otherwise been. But not everyone who achieves high office necessarily deserves to be there. I could equally turn your quote to say "that's why Boris is PM and Sir Keir isn't".
If I have any use, it's perhaps that I've a good eye for reading events and hopefully can put those insights across in an interesting way. Obviously, you're free to disagree. This is, still, just about, a free country.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
There was some story about most of the fish in UK waters being the sort of fish that the UK public don't like to eat. So it's a big problem for a lot of UK fisherman if they lose their markets in the EU.
I think that applies in particular to shellfish and 'fish' such as lobsters. IIRC Scottish scallops, from the West Coast, are popular in French restaurants. Not so in many UK ones.
p.s. but scanning through David's piece it's so wide of the mark as to be risible. This is not a time for grandstanding: sorry Andy Burnham, but you're wrong. No one trying to score political points, or being seen to do so too obviously, will ever be forgiven in the midst of a deathly virus.
Which I guess is why Sir Keir Starmer is leader of the Labour Party and David Herdson is, well, what exactly?
The people who won't be forgiven after a pandemic are those who failed to meet the challenge, and those who enabled that.
I'm not one for wartime references as a rule but by your logic, Labour should have been supporting Chamberlain in the Norway debate. There comes a point when national unity has to play second fiddle to national effectiveness.
And as for what we both are, sure my political career fizzled out.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
David Herdson article is very partisan. The early days of Blair the tories called him Bambi, how wrong they were. To get Labour to level pegging after their worst result since 1935 is encouraging. Especially during a pandemic when people rightly so give the government of the day some slack. He looks like a possible PM in the way John Smith did in opposition. In comparison to Johnson and Corbyn it is a vast improvement. Hopefully the tide will turn this November with a Biden win, which will indicate a change from the alternative right.
I disagree with this. I think David would be quite happy for Labour to win the next election with Starmer as leader. If anything I'd say that this piece is more like that of a Labour supporter who wants their leader to be more aggressive.
I can't say I'd be happy with that outcome. I'm a liberal conservative who isn't taken with the offering from either party. But if the election was today, yes, I'd vote Labour.
Until recently, I had been hoping that the Tories would sort themselves out under a new leader before the next election. I'm coming round to the view now that a period of opposition would do them good.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.
The piece is really just identifying the problem, without coming up with any policy to combat it. There is not really anything that can be done about it in my opinion.
The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.
For once we agree, there's a whole shitload of 'something must be done' around, hardly any 'this should be done'.
Perhaps a pause on Muslim immigration while we figure out a better way of handling things would be a good start.
What, because of the nutter in France? Oh do stop it.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
It screws the French fishing industry but protects Macron - who hasn't "sold out" to les rosbifs whose fault it is entirely.
This comes back to one of the logic fails in government thinking. Cummings claims to be a student of game theory, and there is an idea that, if you act like a madman, others will give you more of what you actually want because of their rational fear that you are acting like a madman. It can work.
However, most game theory falls apart once the other side starts game theorising as well. Politically, Macron is not screwed by French fishermen; he blames les rosbifs for the pain, and it's a rounding error in French GDP. If the UK is allowed to act irrationally (we are allowed to, and we are found so) then we can't get too upset if the EU does (they're allowed to, but in the big picture, I'm not sure they are).
Acting mad also has diminishing returns- you have to keep upping the ante to keep the shock value going.
Finally, of course, there's the Coldiz problem. The stories of British officers who acted mad as part of escape plans who did terrible things to their grip on reality as a result.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.
The piece is really just identifying the problem, without coming up with any policy to combat it. There is not really anything that can be done about it in my opinion.
The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.
For once we agree, there's a whole shitload of 'something must be done' around, hardly any 'this should be done'.
Perhaps a pause on Muslim immigration while we figure out a better way of handling things would be a good start.
What, because of the nutter in France? Oh do stop it.
It was in response to Cyclefree's post on the rise of Islamic extremism, not because of one single nutter.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
It screws the French fishing industry but protects Macron - who hasn't "sold out" to les rosbifs whose fault it is entirely.
When Scotland are fast tracked back into EU they will get it all back , so will be very short term pain and French will just fish anyway and there will not be enough Navy ships to do anything about it.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Starmer earned a six figure salary at the DPP, in asset terms he is a millionaire, even if he did not earn a million a year as some city firm partners and commercial QCs do
According to the 'Senior officials 'high earners' salaries 2010' website, Starmer was on just under £200,000 as DPP. Obviously there would be pension rights associated with that, but he wasn't in the job that long, so there wouldn't be a lot there. He didn't qualify as a barrister until he was 25 or so, and he probably didn't earn much in his first few years at the bar; as has been pointed. out he wasn't in a high-paying area of practice and he did a lot of pro-bono work as well. His wife doesn't appear to be a high earner, either.
Depending on which variant of the civil service pension scheme he was on, and assuming he didn't simply opt out, then that would be of the order of 5 years x 1/80 of his salary - something like 12.5K annually plus a lump sum of 37K. Of course annuity/interest rates would hgave been much better then.
So for a five year contract, he's getting £12.5k per annum for life, index linked?
Edit, plus of course now he's an MP, on the best pension scheme in the country.
Almost certain he will have almost 2K a week top up from HOL as well. He will never need to worry about money.
It would be quite funny if we end up with a deal and Government support goes down because Brexit supporters prefer Australia to Canada.
Not quite so funny for all those who lose their jobs and businesses as a result.
I think this is a slightly kneejerk response which didn't possibly read the source of "funny"? ie. trade deal happens and Govt support declines because people wanted no deal. The job losses "as a result" would be in the Conservative party.
Nothing is in general "funny" about the consequences of Brexit.
That petition to name the giant lorry park in Kent after Nigel Farage is quite funny.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.
Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.
I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.
Bit like burning your 20 pound notes so you can save your 10p coins
Your hypocrisy with regards to Scottish independence and Brexit remains breathtaking.
At least I'm consistent in applying the same principles to (and thus supporting) both.
What you talking about , Brexit is a disaster and Independence is the natural state for Scotland , where is the hypocrisy.
How is Brexit a disaster other than the same logic people use to Scottish independence is a disaster?
British independence is every bit as natural as Scottish independence is. The same logic applies to both.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
And also for many companies it's the double effect of tariffs out and tariffs IN. Something which cancels itself out to some extent with currency movements.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Problem is, Phil, most of those square kilometres are off the coast of Scotland and have different sorts of fish. I know you're not great on how logistics impacts economics, but try sailing a boat from Dorset to Aberdeen. Have you ever seek Dunkirk? Some of the vessels that made that trip still sail. They were built for the calmer waters of the Channel. They can do cross channel trips, they can't survive long in the North Atlantic - they were not built for it. Also they have to change the type of fish they fish, shellfish mostly, for that sort of fish is caught in shallower, calmer waters.
Most of the fishing EEZ it in what will, thnks to Brexit, become Scots waters in three or four years. So they will not be available when it becomes part of the EU's EEZ again shortly thereafter.
It would have been nice if you had thought all this through before leading the country on your merry but catastrophic dance.
"Coronavirus: 'Fat finger error' gives contact-tracing app users wrong alert levels A tech expert tells Sky News the error risks "losing the reputation which is all important for this app"."
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
Wouldn't worry too much about paperwork or tariffs. As things stand there's not much we are going to be legally able to export EU, even if we wanted to.
It would be quite funny if we end up with a deal and Government support goes down because Brexit supporters prefer Australia to Canada.
Not quite so funny for all those who lose their jobs and businesses as a result.
I think this is a slightly kneejerk response which didn't possibly read the source of "funny"? ie. trade deal happens and Govt support declines because people wanted no deal. The job losses "as a result" would be in the Conservative party.
Nothing is in general "funny" about the consequences of Brexit.
That petition to name the giant lorry park in Kent after Nigel Farage is quite funny.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
I've been knocked the fuck out in MTB accidents at least twice since 2016 so it's possible I'm suffering from significant cognitive impairment but does anybody remember fish being mentioned much before the referendum? It's seems like it's all about fish now. 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟
Fishing rights was one of Govey's spurious pre referendum arguments based on a semi-fictional story he created about the EU destroying his family's fish packaging business, or some such rubbish.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
There was some story about most of the fish in UK waters being the sort of fish that the UK public don't like to eat. So it's a big problem for a lot of UK fisherman if they lose their markets in the EU.
No that's just a straw clutched by Remainers.
Currently for instance the French catch 90% of the cod in the English zone of the Channel and then they export much of that to the UK. So that is categorised as a British import despite it being fished from the British zone.
If you want to claim that the British don't eat cod then I'd like to see some substantiating evidence for that claim.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
I had one of those too - two weeks after an email during their conference saying this was "my last chance" to become a member. All these missed opportunities!
But I do wonder at their social media operation if both Caroline Lucas and I are on their target list.
Didn't you attend their conference for the charity job? You're on their mailing list, even if a human review of such list might suggest you're not likely to become a member. Emails are almost free to send out, so everyone sends out millions of them.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
It screws the French fishing industry but protects Macron - who hasn't "sold out" to les rosbifs whose fault it is entirely.
When Scotland are fast tracked back into EU they will get it all back , so will be very short term pain and French will just fish anyway and there will not be enough Navy ships to do anything about it.
The RN Fisheries Protection Squadron is handsomely equipped with River Class OPVs. The MoD had to order a batch it didn't want or need in order to keep the BAE Clyde yards in business so they've got plenty. That's why they started decommissioning them less than halfway through their life and selling another to Bahrain for a fistful of dinars.
The crews are a different matter. FP is generally where they send the congenitally incapable so they can't fuck up anything important.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
It depends what is in the FTA and how frictionless it is.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
Except that Burnham, Khan and Starmer are all singing from different tactical hymn books, and clearly not talking to each other to develop a strategy.
Khan has been begging for London to be put in a higher restriction Tier all week, and he has the gall to say the government "impose" them on London, as if he were fighting with all his might to prevent it!
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Wow! Except for the North Sea we won't need trawlers. We can fish from the end of a convenient pier!
Headline in the Times is that the Queen will be called upon to "boost confidence" in the safety of the vaccine.
Now i may be overcomplicating here, but is really a good idea to rely on a 94 year old woman to demonstrate safety in the vaccine? Given that there is a not insignificant possibility that she might die, or at least become ill, in the period after taking it? (just from natural causes, not linked to the vaccine)
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
It depends what is in the FTA and how frictionless it is.
The UK is going for a Canada style FTA.
If we get that we eliminate the 3% tariffs but to the best of my knowledge do not eliminate paperwork etc.
So if thinking about the difference between Canada style and Australia style the primary difference are the tariffs. You can't claim other models like a customs union as a reason to avoid Australia style if we aren't even trying to get them even if we do get a deal.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
As someone who currently lives in a peaceful Muslim country, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Edit: It still amazes me that every newspaper and magazine in Europe didn't immediately republish the "Charlie Hebdo" cartoons.
Given the restrictions across the country in various degrees (and the tier system seemingly being a negotiation rather than a set state) does anyone even actually know what a "circuit breaker" is any more?
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.
Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.
I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.
Bit like burning your 20 pound notes so you can save your 10p coins
Your hypocrisy with regards to Scottish independence and Brexit remains breathtaking.
At least I'm consistent in applying the same principles to (and thus supporting) both.
What you talking about , Brexit is a disaster and Independence is the natural state for Scotland , where is the hypocrisy.
How is Brexit a disaster other than the same logic people use to Scottish independence is a disaster?
British independence is every bit as natural as Scottish independence is. The same logic applies to both.
The difference is that Britain was already sovereign. Scotland is not.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
It depends what is in the FTA and how frictionless it is.
The UK is going for a Canada style FTA.
If we get that we eliminate the 3% tariffs but to the best of my knowledge do not eliminate paperwork etc.
So if thinking about the difference between Canada style and Australia style the primary difference are the tariffs. You can't claim other models like a customs union as a reason to avoid Australia style if we aren't even trying to get them even if we do get a deal.
"Canada style FTA" doesn't actually mean anything though.
Do you mean we want the exact same deal as Canada? Well that isn't available.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Northern Ireland's waters aren't 12 miles. Why would Shetlands be? How is it defined?
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
As someone who currently lives in a peaceful Muslim country, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Edit: It still amazes me that every newspaper and magazine in Europe didn't immediately republish the "Charlie Hebdo" cartoons.
It is really that amazing?
I'm sure the journalists who published it being machined gunned to death might have swayed the others not to do the same.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Equally to the point, the most popular fish in the UK are cod and haddock.
90% of cod consumed in the Uk is imported, mostly from Iceland, China, Denmark, Germany and Norway.
Haddock’s a bit better with about 60% imported, mostly from Iceland, China and Denmark.
The next most popular fish in the UK are Salmon, where we have our own catch and farm production, but a lot comes in from Sweden, the Faroe Islands and (surprisingly in third place) Thailand, and Tuna, which is all imported, with China, Seychelles and Mauritius the principle sources. After that, we like our shrimps and prawns, but a lot of these come from India, Vietnam, and Denmark.
Overall the Uk is a significant net importer of fish. Although our fish trade with the EU not far out of balance; we import Salmon, Tuna and Cod principally from Germany, Sweden and Denmark, and export Salmon, lobster/scampi and scallops, principally to France, Spain and Ireland.
When you’re enjoying scallops in a French or Spanish restaurant, there’s a good chance they made the journey with you.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.
The piece is really just identifying the problem, without coming up with any policy to combat it. There is not really anything that can be done about it in my opinion.
The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.
For once we agree, there's a whole shitload of 'something must be done' around, hardly any 'this should be done'.
Perhaps a pause on Muslim immigration while we figure out a better way of handling things would be a good start.
What, because of the nutter in France? Oh do stop it.
It was in response to Cyclefree's post on the rise of Islamic extremism, not because of one single nutter.
How would you like to see the problem tackled?
Well step one is to dismiss notions such as officially labeling all Muslims (25% of the world's population) as a threat to our welfare. That is paranoia. As to doing more about the problem, I think the main thing is to have equality under the law. We should not - to the extent this does happen - tolerate hate speech from reactionary Muslims, or illiberal policies from reactionary Muslim institutions, due to fear or cultural cringe.
Does anybody know why Trump has come bounding in from 3 to 2.7 today?
No idea. (Mr Ed posted an interesting, and worrying, report earlier this morning.)
I`m having to restrain myself from betting the farm on the Dems at these odds.
Is it linked to the Michigan court ruling discounting mail in votes received post Nov 3rd regardless of postmark? And also the prospect of this setting a precedent for other court cases currently in process. What a farce America is.
The Michigan court ruling the same as the way UK elections are conducted? If your postal ballot arrives before the count concludes, then it's counted. If not, then it doesn't.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Time for full independence then...followed by rejoining the UK 10 minutes later.
Headline in the Times is that the Queen will be called upon to "boost confidence" in the safety of the vaccine.
Now i may be overcomplicating here, but is really a good idea to rely on a 94 year old woman to demonstrate safety in the vaccine? Given that there is a not insignificant possibility that she might die, or at least become ill, in the period after taking it? (just from natural causes, not linked to the vaccine)
She's exactly the sort of high risk person who ought to be having it
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Time for full independence then...followed by rejoining the UK 10 minutes later.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
If Shetland decided to become an rUK enclave, its territorial limit would be 12 miles I believe, not sure if that's big enough to show up on that map. If it decided to go indy much bigger of course (unlike the chances of that actually happening).
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
I remember this being discussed a few weeks ago and never found the source for it. I completely agree that it will never happen, but interesting to think about what would happen.
You can see counter examples in the Caribbean, with sovereign states and islands of the US and European countries.
Interesting to see that ICU mortality is about half it was in the first wave. Still nasty though, and 9/10 of ICU admissions no major co morbidity. I expect that those with major co morbidity and covid don't get ICU admission. Only 1/10 of our cases in Leicester are on ICU, for example.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
It depends what is in the FTA and how frictionless it is.
The UK is going for a Canada style FTA.
If we get that we eliminate the 3% tariffs but to the best of my knowledge do not eliminate paperwork etc.
So if thinking about the difference between Canada style and Australia style the primary difference are the tariffs. You can't claim other models like a customs union as a reason to avoid Australia style if we aren't even trying to get them even if we do get a deal.
"Canada style FTA" doesn't actually mean anything though.
Do you mean we want the exact same deal as Canada? Well that isn't available.
It does mean something. Whether is available or not doesn't change what it means. The only reason it's not available is EU politics in which case Australia style is default not EEA or customs union style so that is fine with us.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
It depends what is in the FTA and how frictionless it is.
The UK is going for a Canada style FTA.
If we get that we eliminate the 3% tariffs but to the best of my knowledge do not eliminate paperwork etc.
So if thinking about the difference between Canada style and Australia style the primary difference are the tariffs. You can't claim other models like a customs union as a reason to avoid Australia style if we aren't even trying to get them even if we do get a deal.
Yes, a Canada deal is no tarrifs, more forms than we're used to. Where are the forms? Where are the form fillers? Where are the form checkers? Where are their little booths? The giant lorry parks are being planned, sure, but the government doesn't look ready for its desired outcome on the date it chose.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
There was some story about most of the fish in UK waters being the sort of fish that the UK public don't like to eat. So it's a big problem for a lot of UK fisherman if they lose their markets in the EU.
I think that applies in particular to shellfish and 'fish' such as lobsters. IIRC Scottish scallops, from the West Coast, are popular in French restaurants. Not so in many UK ones.
Great, so we can fish them ourselves and sell them to the French.
Interesting to see that ICU mortality is about half it was in the first wave. Still nasty though, and 9/10 of ICU admissions no major co morbidity. I expect that those with major co morbidity and covid don't get ICU admission. Only 1/10 of our cases in Leicester are on ICU, for example.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Time for full independence then...followed by rejoining the UK 10 minutes later.
Why would the Shetlands want to join Brexit England?
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Time for full independence then...followed by rejoining the UK 10 minutes later.
Why would the Shetlands want to join Brexit England?
Without Scotland and Northern Ireland we would surely be having a laugh calling it “UK” anyway?
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.
The piece is really just identifying the problem, without coming up with any policy to combat it. There is not really anything that can be done about it in my opinion.
The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.
For once we agree, there's a whole shitload of 'something must be done' around, hardly any 'this should be done'.
Perhaps a pause on Muslim immigration while we figure out a better way of handling things would be a good start.
What, because of the nutter in France? Oh do stop it.
It was in response to Cyclefree's post on the rise of Islamic extremism, not because of one single nutter.
How would you like to see the problem tackled?
Well step one is to dismiss notions such as officially labeling all Muslims (25% of the world's population) as a threat to our welfare. That is paranoia. As to doing more about the problem, I think the main thing is to have equality under the law. We should not - to the extent this does happen - tolerate hate speech from reactionary Muslims, or illiberal policies from reactionary Muslim institutions, due to fear or cultural cringe.
Who has labelled all Muslims as a threat? I even said the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists.
There's a small, but significant minority who are extreme and there's currently no way of knowing which ones they are. More Muslims means more extremists and it makes sense to pause immigration until we can tackle the problem effectively.
As far as I can see a lot of the terrorists were never actually involved in public hate speech. Just clamping down on that isn't going to do much.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
There was some story about most of the fish in UK waters being the sort of fish that the UK public don't like to eat. So it's a big problem for a lot of UK fisherman if they lose their markets in the EU.
I think that applies in particular to shellfish and 'fish' such as lobsters. IIRC Scottish scallops, from the West Coast, are popular in French restaurants. Not so in many UK ones.
Great, so we can fish them ourselves and sell them to the French.
Like wot we do already, with added journey times and queues in the Farage Garage? Hooray, a work of genius, trebles all round lads!
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
It depends what is in the FTA and how frictionless it is.
The UK is going for a Canada style FTA.
If we get that we eliminate the 3% tariffs but to the best of my knowledge do not eliminate paperwork etc.
So if thinking about the difference between Canada style and Australia style the primary difference are the tariffs. You can't claim other models like a customs union as a reason to avoid Australia style if we aren't even trying to get them even if we do get a deal.
"Canada style FTA" doesn't actually mean anything though.
Do you mean we want the exact same deal as Canada? Well that isn't available.
It does mean something. Whether is available or not doesn't change what it means. The only reason it's not available is EU politics in which case Australia style is default not EEA or customs union style so that is fine with us.
You say “Australia style”, but you might equally say “Afghanistan style” or “Somalia style”. “Australia style” is an attempt at a PR con trick.
Perhaps we can see the first signs of the post-election GOP scenario. A lot depends on whether the Democrats capture the Senate as well as that will be a shut-out of the GOP from all three branches for the first time in a decade.
The Party will then have two options - either to double-down on Trumpism or to repudiate it and head in a new direction (or rather back to an old direction). As we often see with party activists, many GOP supporters will be able to move seamlessly away from Trump back to a more traditional conservative stance - others will not. For those who can't live without Trump, the door will be available but they will then be politically homeless and the GOP leadership will take the not unreasonable risk those Trump activists they lose will be more than offset by ex-Republicans returning to the fold.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Time for full independence then...followed by rejoining the UK 10 minutes later.
Why would the Shetlands want to join Brexit England?
Probably the same reason the majority in England voted to be Brexit England.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.
Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.
I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.
Bit like burning your 20 pound notes so you can save your 10p coins
Your hypocrisy with regards to Scottish independence and Brexit remains breathtaking.
At least I'm consistent in applying the same principles to (and thus supporting) both.
What you talking about , Brexit is a disaster and Independence is the natural state for Scotland , where is the hypocrisy.
How is Brexit a disaster other than the same logic people use to Scottish independence is a disaster?
British independence is every bit as natural as Scottish independence is. The same logic applies to both.
Scotland as a part of the EU is hardly the same as England and Wales in Palookaville.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
It's the paperwork and delays that are the problem - not the 3%.
The paperwork and delays will happen even with an FTA will they not?
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
It depends what is in the FTA and how frictionless it is.
The UK is going for a Canada style FTA.
If we get that we eliminate the 3% tariffs but to the best of my knowledge do not eliminate paperwork etc.
So if thinking about the difference between Canada style and Australia style the primary difference are the tariffs. You can't claim other models like a customs union as a reason to avoid Australia style if we aren't even trying to get them even if we do get a deal.
"Canada style FTA" doesn't actually mean anything though.
Do you mean we want the exact same deal as Canada? Well that isn't available.
It does mean something. Whether is available or not doesn't change what it means. The only reason it's not available is EU politics in which case Australia style is default not EEA or customs union style so that is fine with us.
What elements of Canada’s deal do we want? What elements don’t we want?
Australia “style” is not default - stop lying - the default is “no deal”.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Time for full independence then...followed by rejoining the UK 10 minutes later.
Why would the Shetlands want to join Brexit England?
Probably the same reason the majority in England voted to be Brexit England.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
Well, I have set out what I would like to do pretty extensively on here back in 2015 when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened.
But three things we should do:-
1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.) 2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime. 3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.
Thanks for this comment. Some responses:
1) I believe in free speech, but personally I prefer to respect the religious sensibilities of others, on the 'do unto others' principle - and I strongly object to some forms of mocking and distortion of my own religious beliefs even though people are free to do so, I prefer it if they refrain. Media editors may feel the same.
2) In a liberal society you can't tell the media what to do. It is a self evident contradiction.
3) You are of course right about the Scottish Hate Crime Bill
4) Incitement. Easier to say than to define. Freedom of belief is what it is. I am not entitled to murder someone but I am entitled to stand for parliament on a manifesto saying that murder should be made lawful. It would not be difficult for illiberal people (as well as many liberals) to see that as incitement. Which would be the thin end of that Scottish wedge.
I agree on point (1) in the sense that I don’t go around insulting other people’s beliefs just for the hell of it. That is impolite. But there is a huge difference between doing it voluntarily out of politeness and courtesy and doing it because you are scared or because you are threatened. When somebody says that I can’t poke fun at someone’s religion because otherwise they will kill me I am bloody well going to be as provocative as possible. I am not - and nor should any free liberal society - going to be bullied into politeness or respect for something which I don’t respect.
Media editors did not refrain out of politeness; they refrained out of fear.
Does anybody know why Trump has come bounding in from 3 to 2.7 today?
No idea. (Mr Ed posted an interesting, and worrying, report earlier this morning.)
I`m having to restrain myself from betting the farm on the Dems at these odds.
Is it linked to the Michigan court ruling discounting mail in votes received post Nov 3rd regardless of postmark? And also the prospect of this setting a precedent for other court cases currently in process. What a farce America is.
The Michigan court ruling the same as the way UK elections are conducted? If your postal ballot arrives before the count concludes, then it's counted. If not, then it doesn't.
That they are the same rules as the UK isn't the point. The "farce" is that they change the rules during the election, and on the basis of partisan judgements. Of course traditionally mail in ballots are dominated by older voters who tend to favour Republicans...
Do i think UK rules are better? Yes. Do i think that rules should be changed during the course of an election campaign? Absolutely not.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
No Deal stops fisherman from the South of England fishing, especially for shellfish, in French waters, as they have done for many years. There was quite a row about it 18 months or so ago.
If that happens they'll have to console themselves with 6.8 million square kilometres of exclusive fishing zones.
Often the wrong sort of fish, apparently. OK in NE Scotland and perhaps in East Anglia.
Is there a version of the map if the Shetlands decide to stay with the UK?
Yes, draw a black line at 12 miles around the Shetlands, that's the extra waters the rUK would get as it would be an island enclave at that point
Time for full independence then...followed by rejoining the UK 10 minutes later.
Why would the Shetlands want to join Brexit England?
Probably the same reason the majority in England voted to be Brexit England.
Would surely beat Brexit and Ukxit Scotland.
Why would it?
If leaving a larger political union is a bad idea then doing it twice in quick succession has to be a very bad idea I would have thought.
On Topic - Sir Keir looks boring, sounds boring when he talks, and says boring things. The more the pollsters ask people whether they think he has any personality, the more people reply "no", and the undecided's are breaking to negatives in his approval ratings, possibly as a consequence
He may be better than Corbyn and Boris, but I fancy he will never better Jezza's vote tally at a GE or defeat Boris at the ballot box, and the only way he will be thought of as better than either will be subjectively in the mind of someone who hates the other two.
Comments
"And there is some evidence vessels are still discarding fish, including video and photographic evidence of illegal discards happening off the coast of Scotland gathered by campaign groups Our Fish and Open Seas.
A House of Lords report on the landing obligation policy, published in February 2019, said: "Little attempt appears to have been made to enforce the landing obligation's requirements thus far, allowing the discarding of fish to continue.""
It would be slightly ironic if we no deal, regain control of our fish, and then find that all the fish and chip shops suffer supply shortages and prices sky rocket... And we have to beg the French to start fishing again.
What I think's more interesting is to look at how Starmer is acting as LotO now that the govt's Covid goodwill period has ended, not least because that tells us more about how UK politics are likely to develop over the next few years. Starmer is and was more of an unknown quantity in that respect.
In other shocking news bears care about the woods, Pope is Catholic and water is wet.
Nothing is in general "funny" about the consequences of Brexit.
Where was Starmer breaking the consensus on the 10pm closure? He didn't even go as far as a sizeable number of Tory MPs.
One other small point; western Christianity only saw the merit of liberalism and non-extremism very gradually from the end of the 17th century onwards. It's actually very recent.
Edit, plus of course now he's an MP, on the best pension scheme in the country.
I'm not one for wartime references as a rule but by your logic, Labour should have been supporting Chamberlain in the Norway debate. There comes a point when national unity has to play second fiddle to national effectiveness.
And as for what we both are, sure my political career fizzled out. I can't say I'm all that sorry; I'm sure I'm happier now than I would have otherwise been. But not everyone who achieves high office necessarily deserves to be there. I could equally turn your quote to say "that's why Boris is PM and Sir Keir isn't".
If I have any use, it's perhaps that I've a good eye for reading events and hopefully can put those insights across in an interesting way. Obviously, you're free to disagree. This is, still, just about, a free country.
Until recently, I had been hoping that the Tories would sort themselves out under a new leader before the next election. I'm coming round to the view now that a period of opposition would do them good.
Cummings claims to be a student of game theory, and there is an idea that, if you act like a madman, others will give you more of what you actually want because of their rational fear that you are acting like a madman. It can work.
However, most game theory falls apart once the other side starts game theorising as well. Politically, Macron is not screwed by French fishermen; he blames les rosbifs for the pain, and it's a rounding error in French GDP. If the UK is allowed to act irrationally (we are allowed to, and we are found so) then we can't get too upset if the EU does (they're allowed to, but in the big picture, I'm not sure they are).
Acting mad also has diminishing returns- you have to keep upping the ante to keep the shock value going.
Finally, of course, there's the Coldiz problem. The stories of British officers who acted mad as part of escape plans who did terrible things to their grip on reality as a result.
How would you like to see the problem tackled?
I can't see anything in the polls or media to explain the movement.
Fake Amazon calls are now citing even larger sums of money!
British independence is every bit as natural as Scottish independence is. The same logic applies to both.
Most of the fishing EEZ it in what will, thnks to Brexit, become Scots waters in three or four years. So they will not be available when it becomes part of the EU's EEZ again shortly thereafter.
It would have been nice if you had thought all this through before leading the country on your merry but catastrophic dance.
A tech expert tells Sky News the error risks "losing the reputation which is all important for this app"."
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-contact-tracing-app-users-given-wrong-alert-levels-after-fat-finger-error-12106113
So that's not a reason to make a deal is it?
https://twitter.com/t0m_deSilv4/status/1317215446953754629?s=20
https://www.change.org/p/kent-county-council-kent-lorry-park-to-be-named-after-nigel-farage/
Currently for instance the French catch 90% of the cod in the English zone of the Channel and then they export much of that to the UK. So that is categorised as a British import despite it being fished from the British zone.
If you want to claim that the British don't eat cod then I'd like to see some substantiating evidence for that claim.
The crews are a different matter. FP is generally where they send the congenitally incapable so they can't fuck up anything important.
The fightback starts here!
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/1317186257487888384?s=20
Now i may be overcomplicating here, but is really a good idea to rely on a 94 year old woman to demonstrate safety in the vaccine? Given that there is a not insignificant possibility that she might die, or at least become ill, in the period after taking it? (just from natural causes, not linked to the vaccine)
If we get that we eliminate the 3% tariffs but to the best of my knowledge do not eliminate paperwork etc.
So if thinking about the difference between Canada style and Australia style the primary difference are the tariffs. You can't claim other models like a customs union as a reason to avoid Australia style if we aren't even trying to get them even if we do get a deal.
Edit: It still amazes me that every newspaper and magazine in Europe didn't immediately republish the "Charlie Hebdo" cartoons.
Do you mean we want the exact same deal as Canada? Well that isn't available.
I'm sure the journalists who published it being machined gunned to death might have swayed the others not to do the same.
90% of cod consumed in the Uk is imported, mostly from Iceland, China, Denmark, Germany and Norway.
Haddock’s a bit better with about 60% imported, mostly from Iceland, China and Denmark.
The next most popular fish in the UK are Salmon, where we have our own catch and farm production, but a lot comes in from Sweden, the Faroe Islands and (surprisingly in third place) Thailand, and Tuna, which is all imported, with China, Seychelles and Mauritius the principle sources. After that, we like our shrimps and prawns, but a lot of these come from India, Vietnam, and Denmark.
Overall the Uk is a significant net importer of fish. Although our fish trade with the EU not far out of balance; we import Salmon, Tuna and Cod principally from Germany, Sweden and Denmark, and export Salmon, lobster/scampi and scallops, principally to France, Spain and Ireland.
When you’re enjoying scallops in a French or Spanish restaurant, there’s a good chance they made the journey with you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/us/politics/republican-senators-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I'm reminded of this tweet, as GOP rats start to leave the ship...
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1151669588808986624
You can see counter examples in the Caribbean, with sovereign states and islands of the US and European countries.
https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1317391480126869505?s=19
Where are the forms? Where are the form fillers? Where are the form checkers? Where are their little booths? The giant lorry parks are being planned, sure, but the government doesn't look ready for its desired outcome on the date it chose.
Or am I missing something?
There's a small, but significant minority who are extreme and there's currently no way of knowing which ones they are. More Muslims means more extremists and it makes sense to pause immigration until we can tackle the problem effectively.
As far as I can see a lot of the terrorists were never actually involved in public hate speech. Just clamping down on that isn't going to do much.
The Party will then have two options - either to double-down on Trumpism or to repudiate it and head in a new direction (or rather back to an old direction). As we often see with party activists, many GOP supporters will be able to move seamlessly away from Trump back to a more traditional conservative stance - others will not. For those who can't live without Trump, the door will be available but they will then be politically homeless and the GOP leadership will take the not unreasonable risk those Trump activists they lose will be more than offset by ex-Republicans returning to the fold.
Would surely beat Brexit and Ukxit Scotland.
Australia “style” is not default - stop lying - the default is “no deal”.
Media editors did not refrain out of politeness; they refrained out of fear.
Do i think UK rules are better? Yes. Do i think that rules should be changed during the course of an election campaign? Absolutely not.
He may be better than Corbyn and Boris, but I fancy he will never better Jezza's vote tally at a GE or defeat Boris at the ballot box, and the only way he will be thought of as better than either will be subjectively in the mind of someone who hates the other two.