Absolutely. No Deal would be one of the greatest failures of political statecraft in modern British history. Boris, and the rest of his Cabinet, would have no option but to resign.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
More importantly, the Sunday Times (which supported Leave, and is generally thought to be more the Voice of Murdoch than the daily) was calling for a deal (and future deals beyond the deal) yesterday;
Absolutely. No Deal would be one of the greatest failures of political statecraft in modern British history. Boris, and the rest of his Cabinet, would have no option but to resign.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
Presumably you think that makes France a sovereign inferior?
What else would one call a nation that came up with the slogan 'Gloria Victis', having been spanked by Germany one time too many?
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. No Deal would be one of the greatest failures of political statecraft in modern British history. Boris, and the rest of his Cabinet, would have no option but to resign.
Since it takes two to dance, do you think anyone in the EU would also have no option but to resign?
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will ban indyref2 as long as he remains PM
Him and your party will however likely go down in history as the CAUSE of the breakup of the UK.
Good job guys.
No they won't, that would only be if they allowed Scotland to go on their watch, which they won't.
As Spain has proved with Catalonia illegal independence referendums can be ignored, if Labour however win in 2024 and allow indyref2 then either the Union side wins, probably on a Federalist platform with devomax from Starmer, or the Yes side wins and it will be Labour which allowed the Union to break up
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Absolutely. No Deal would be one of the greatest failures of political statecraft in modern British history. Boris, and the rest of his Cabinet, would have no option but to resign.
Nurse!
Surely even you don't believe Boris could hang on in the event of No Deal. His entire Brexit policy would be in tatters.
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will urge a Unionist boycott of and not recognise the result of any indyref2 Sturgeon holds even if she wins a majority next year as long as he remains PM
I was astounded to read that you are in favour of devo max. Can you say when we restless natives can expect this advance in self determination, and what part you think the internal markets bill will play in our journey to just the right amount of freedom that English Tories think we should be allowed.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
Absolutely. No Deal would be one of the greatest failures of political statecraft in modern British history. Boris, and the rest of his Cabinet, would have no option but to resign.
Nurse!
Surely even you don't believe Boris could hang on in the event of No Deal. His entire Brexit policy would be in tatters.
Of course I do, it would be a triumph reclaiming our sovereignty in full.
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will urge a Unionist boycott of and not recognise the result of any indyref2 Sturgeon holds even if she wins a majority next year as long as he remains PM
I was astounded to read that you are in favour of devo max. Can you say when we restless natives can expect this advance in self determination, and what part you think the internal markets bill will play in our journey to just the right amount of freedom that English Tories think we should be allowed.
If devomax for Scotland comes it will probably be under a future UK Labour government along with regional assemblies for England, I am not personally opposed to it but it is not a priority for now
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will urge a Unionist boycott of and not recognise the result of any indyref2 Sturgeon holds even if she wins a majority next year as long as he remains PM
I was astounded to read that you are in favour of devo max. Can you say when we restless natives can expect this advance in self determination, and what part you think the internal markets bill will play in our journey to just the right amount of freedom that English Tories think we should be allowed.
If devomax for Scotland comes it will probably be under a future UK Labour government along with regional assemblies for England, I am not personally opposed to it but it is not a priority for now
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will ban indyref2 as long as he remains PM
Him and your party will however likely go down in history as the CAUSE of the breakup of the UK.
Good job guys.
Do you think they'll dangle a statue of Boris the Liberator on a string between Edinburgh Castle and Calton Hill? You know, in crash helmet on a trolley a la Millennium Dome?
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
Absolutely. No Deal would be one of the greatest failures of political statecraft in modern British history. Boris, and the rest of his Cabinet, would have no option but to resign.
Nurse!
Surely even you don't believe Boris could hang on in the event of No Deal. His entire Brexit policy would be in tatters.
Of course I do, it would be a triumph reclaiming our sovereignty in full.
If No Deal happens your and Boris's enthusiasm for it will be, shall we say, niche.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It was Giuliani's broken windows policy of tackling small crimes hard and three strikes and you are out that made the difference, under Koch and Dinkins his predecessors much of New York city was a crime ridden hellhole, particularly around the Bronx, Giuliani changed all that and enabled the much safer, more tourist friendly city that it is today
Then why was it dropping dramatically before he took office and why did other cities which did not implement it record similar falls?
The biggest fall in crime in New York city under any New York Mayor came under Giuliani
Of course, because he had eight years while Dinkins had four. But, insofar as any mayors are responsible, Dinkins laid the groundwork and Giuliani didn't screw it up and took the credit. In fact, other factors such as a break in the crack epidemic, demographic changes and Dinkins's big increase in policy numbers (which Giuliani continued) were almost certainly more important.
Incidentally, New York City did not enact a three strikes and you're out law under Giuliani, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it would have been a state, not a city, law. Secondly, New York already had a habitual offenders statute dating from the 18th century, so it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.
And you haven't answered my question about why other big American cities recorded similar falls? New York gets most attention because it is the biggest and most international US city, but San Francisco didn't implement a broken windows policy and recorded falls in crime as great as or greater than New York's in the 90s.
Crime rates had been coming down across the west, a mix of technology and demography.
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will urge a Unionist boycott of and not recognise the result of any indyref2 Sturgeon holds even if she wins a majority next year as long as he remains PM
I was astounded to read that you are in favour of devo max. Can you say when we restless natives can expect this advance in self determination, and what part you think the internal markets bill will play in our journey to just the right amount of freedom that English Tories think we should be allowed.
If devomax for Scotland comes it will probably be under a future UK Labour government along with regional assemblies for England, I am not personally opposed to it but it is not a priority for now
It seems to be a priority for the Scots.
We have a Tory government with a majority across the UK but not a majority in Scotland, so it is not a priority for this Tory government obviously unlike the Red Wall in England and Wales where it made big gains in 2019 unlike the losses it made in Scotland.
If Starmer got in in 2024 reliant on SNP confidence and supply or Labour seats regained in Scotland then devomax would likely be a priority for him, it is not for Boris
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will urge a Unionist boycott of and not recognise the result of any indyref2 Sturgeon holds even if she wins a majority next year as long as he remains PM
I was astounded to read that you are in favour of devo max. Can you say when we restless natives can expect this advance in self determination, and what part you think the internal markets bill will play in our journey to just the right amount of freedom that English Tories think we should be allowed.
If devomax for Scotland comes it will probably be under a future UK Labour government along with regional assemblies for England, I am not personally opposed to it but it is not a priority for now
But your beloved leader has stated devolution is a disaster and the Tory government is busily pulling back powers returned from the EU to itself. Do you think trying to belittle & hollow out devolution is a smart plan for the continuing integrity of the UK in the current climate.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
Why?
You're expressing annoyance and frustration that the EU wont bend to our will. That is by definition, a moan.
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will urge a Unionist boycott of and not recognise the result of any indyref2 Sturgeon holds even if she wins a majority next year as long as he remains PM
I was astounded to read that you are in favour of devo max. Can you say when we restless natives can expect this advance in self determination, and what part you think the internal markets bill will play in our journey to just the right amount of freedom that English Tories think we should be allowed.
If devomax for Scotland comes it will probably be under a future UK Labour government along with regional assemblies for England, I am not personally opposed to it but it is not a priority for now
It seems to be a priority for the Scots.
We have a Tory government with a majority across the UK but not a majority in Scotland, so it is not a priority for this Tory government obviously unlike the Red Wall in England and Wales where it made big gains in 2019 unlike the losses it made in Scotland.
If Starmer got in in 2024 reliant on SNP confidence and supply or Labour seats regained in Scotland then devomax would likely be a priority for him, it is not for Boris
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
As is every mention of how 'unreasonable' the UK is being. How many moans on that topic can be found on this thread alone? You may even have produced a few of them yourself...
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If we're going to walk away, then we should do it now rather than waiting till the last minute. That would give business at least a little time to mitigate the damage.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
Why?
You're expressing annoyance and frustration that the EU wont bend to our will. That is by definition, a moan.
No I am not.
I'm neither annoyed nor frustrated though.
I'm a parent of two young girls. I'm used to dealing with unreasonable behaviour without losing my temper or getting either annoyed or frustrated, or moaning. With them I can put them on the naughty step as a time out but that isn't an option with grown ups acting unreasonably like Macron and Barnier et al. My preferred option for dealing with grown ups that act unreasonably is to walk away from them which is what I've advocated Boris should do. No need for a screaming match or getting down to their level, just walk away, no deal and move on.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
As is every mention of how 'unreasonable' the UK is being. How many moans on that topic can be found on this thread alone? You may even have produced a few of them yourself...
Philip is proclaiming that we hold "all the cards" whilst simultaneously moaning that the EU is being "unreasonable".
They cannot both be right and it is my duty to highlight the illogical nature of the position.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It was Giuliani's broken windows policy of tackling small crimes hard and three strikes and you are out that made the difference, under Koch and Dinkins his predecessors much of New York city was a crime ridden hellhole, particularly around the Bronx, Giuliani changed all that and enabled the much safer, more tourist friendly city that it is today
Then why was it dropping dramatically before he took office and why did other cities which did not implement it record similar falls?
The biggest fall in crime in New York city under any New York Mayor came under Giuliani
Of course, because he had eight years while Dinkins had four. But, insofar as any mayors are responsible, Dinkins laid the groundwork and Giuliani didn't screw it up and took the credit. In fact, other factors such as a break in the crack epidemic, demographic changes and Dinkins's big increase in policy numbers (which Giuliani continued) were almost certainly more important.
Incidentally, New York City did not enact a three strikes and you're out law under Giuliani, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it would have been a state, not a city, law. Secondly, New York already had a habitual offenders statute dating from the 18th century, so it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.
And you haven't answered my question about why other big American cities recorded similar falls? New York gets most attention because it is the biggest and most international US city, but San Francisco didn't implement a broken windows policy and recorded falls in crime as great as or greater than New York's in the 90s.
Crime rates had been coming down across the west, a mix of technology and demography.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
Why?
You're expressing annoyance and frustration that the EU wont bend to our will. That is by definition, a moan.
No I am not.
I'm neither annoyed nor frustrated though.
I'm a parent of two young girls. I'm used to dealing with unreasonable behaviour without losing my temper or getting either annoyed or frustrated, or moaning. With them I can put them on the naughty step as a time out but that isn't an option with grown ups acting unreasonably like Macron and Barnier et al. My preferred option for dealing with grown ups that act unreasonably is to walk away from them which is what I've advocated Boris should do. No need for a screaming match or getting down to their level, just walk away, no deal and move on.
If you're not annoyed or frustrated then stop moaning about their unreasonableness. It is what it is.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
As is every mention of how 'unreasonable' the UK is being. How many moans on that topic can be found on this thread alone? You may even have produced a few of them yourself...
Philip is proclaiming that we hold "all the cards" whilst simultaneously moaning that the EU is being "unreasonable".
They cannot both be right and it is my duty to highlight the illogical nature of the position.
Except that I am not moaning though.
We do hold all the cards, which is why we should play them out no deal if the EU don't fold.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Does that forecast take into account all the EU citizens who will surely go home when they realise how racist this country is, and the well-enough-off EUphiles who will want to resettle and get citizenship somewhere in the EU?
This country is one of the least racist countries on the planet, a point proved repeatedly by surveys.
Q1, How racist are you?
A. Ooo very. B. A little bit. C. Not at all!
Q2, Did you answer Q1 honestly?
A. No. B. No comment. C Yes!
Nah I think it's true that Britain is on the whole much less racist than a majority of countries in the world.
That doesn't mean there's not work still to be done.
I don't know if we are less racist than most others. It's difficult to measure for many reasons, not just the one I highlighted of self-serving subjectivity. In any case the Empire has a legacy on racism that would imo benefit from being honestly faced.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It was Giuliani's broken windows policy of tackling small crimes hard and three strikes and you are out that made the difference, under Koch and Dinkins his predecessors much of New York city was a crime ridden hellhole, particularly around the Bronx, Giuliani changed all that and enabled the much safer, more tourist friendly city that it is today
Then why was it dropping dramatically before he took office and why did other cities which did not implement it record similar falls?
The biggest fall in crime in New York city under any New York Mayor came under Giuliani
Of course, because he had eight years while Dinkins had four. But, insofar as any mayors are responsible, Dinkins laid the groundwork and Giuliani didn't screw it up and took the credit. In fact, other factors such as a break in the crack epidemic, demographic changes and Dinkins's big increase in policy numbers (which Giuliani continued) were almost certainly more important.
Incidentally, New York City did not enact a three strikes and you're out law under Giuliani, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it would have been a state, not a city, law. Secondly, New York already had a habitual offenders statute dating from the 18th century, so it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.
And you haven't answered my question about why other big American cities recorded similar falls? New York gets most attention because it is the biggest and most international US city, but San Francisco didn't implement a broken windows policy and recorded falls in crime as great as or greater than New York's in the 90s.
Crime rates had been coming down across the west, a mix of technology and demography.
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will ban indyref2 as long as he remains PM
Him and your party will however likely go down in history as the CAUSE of the breakup of the UK.
Good job guys.
Do you think they'll dangle a statue of Boris the Liberator on a string between Edinburgh Castle and Calton Hill? You know, in crash helmet on a trolley a la Millennium Dome?
I think naming one of the poles in an Edinburgh pubic triangle go-go bar Boris the Liberator would be a fitting tribute.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
Why?
You're expressing annoyance and frustration that the EU wont bend to our will. That is by definition, a moan.
No I am not.
I'm neither annoyed nor frustrated though.
I'm a parent of two young girls. I'm used to dealing with unreasonable behaviour without losing my temper or getting either annoyed or frustrated, or moaning. With them I can put them on the naughty step as a time out but that isn't an option with grown ups acting unreasonably like Macron and Barnier et al. My preferred option for dealing with grown ups that act unreasonably is to walk away from them which is what I've advocated Boris should do. No need for a screaming match or getting down to their level, just walk away, no deal and move on.
If you're not annoyed or frustrated then stop moaning about their unreasonableness. It is what it is.
Bit hard to stop doing what I'm not doing though. 🤦🏻♂️
How do you want me to non-moaningly and dispassionately point out their unreasonableness? How does that differ from what I am doing?
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
Why?
You're expressing annoyance and frustration that the EU wont bend to our will. That is by definition, a moan.
No I am not.
I'm neither annoyed nor frustrated though.
I'm a parent of two young girls. I'm used to dealing with unreasonable behaviour without losing my temper or getting either annoyed or frustrated, or moaning. With them I can put them on the naughty step as a time out but that isn't an option with grown ups acting unreasonably like Macron and Barnier et al. My preferred option for dealing with grown ups that act unreasonably is to walk away from them which is what I've advocated Boris should do. No need for a screaming match or getting down to their level, just walk away, no deal and move on.
If you're not annoyed or frustrated then stop moaning about their unreasonableness. It is what it is.
Bit hard to stop doing what I'm not doing though. 🤦🏻♂️
How do you want me to non-moaningly and dispassionately point out their unreasonableness? How does that differ from what I am doing?
Describing something as "unreasonable" is by definition a moan. If I go into a shop and loudly proclaim that their prices are unreasonable, I am moaning about their prices.
It's not unreasonable, it's just their position. If Britain doesn't like it we can walk away.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If we're going to walk away, then we should do it now rather than waiting till the last minute. That would give business at least a little time to mitigate the damage.
The government explicitly said to businesses a while ago to prepare for WTO terms though.
The government's website currently explicitly says we will trade with the EU on WTO terms from next year.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If we're going to walk away, then we should do it now rather than waiting till the last minute. That would give business at least a little time to mitigate the damage.
The government explicitly said to businesses a while ago to prepare for WTO terms though.
The government's website currently explicitly says we will trade with the EU on WTO terms from next year.
@RochdalePioneers has explained to you on many occasions that simply telling businesses to prepare for "WTO terms" is not enough.
The systems are not in place, the procedures are not in place, etc, etc.
...Xlinks will be focusing mostly on PV, which founder and CEO Simon Morrish claims can now deliver electricity at around $15 per megawatt-hour in North Africa.
The second big differentiator between Xlinks and previous Sahara generation schemes is transport. While previous concepts looked to ship electricity via interconnectors to mainland Europe, Xlinks plans to run 3.6 GW of subsea cable capacity from the African coast to the U.K., following the continental shelf around Portugal, Spain and France.
The beauty of this idea is that it would massively simplify permitting, Morrish told GTM in an interview.
Even assuming a total project cost of £16 billion ($21.6 billion), half of which would go toward high-voltage direct-current cabling, Xlinks expects to be able to provide up to 7.5 percent of U.K. electricity with a contracts-for-difference bid of around £52 ($70) per megawatt-hour.
This compares to a strike price of £92.50 ($125 at today’s rates) per megawatt-hour agreed in 2012 for Hinkley Point C, the U.K.’s newest nuclear plant. ...
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
Every mention of how "unreasonable" the EU is being is a moan.
Why?
You're expressing annoyance and frustration that the EU wont bend to our will. That is by definition, a moan.
No I am not.
I'm neither annoyed nor frustrated though.
I'm a parent of two young girls. I'm used to dealing with unreasonable behaviour without losing my temper or getting either annoyed or frustrated, or moaning. With them I can put them on the naughty step as a time out but that isn't an option with grown ups acting unreasonably like Macron and Barnier et al. My preferred option for dealing with grown ups that act unreasonably is to walk away from them which is what I've advocated Boris should do. No need for a screaming match or getting down to their level, just walk away, no deal and move on.
If you're not annoyed or frustrated then stop moaning about their unreasonableness. It is what it is.
Bit hard to stop doing what I'm not doing though. 🤦🏻♂️
How do you want me to non-moaningly and dispassionately point out their unreasonableness? How does that differ from what I am doing?
Describing something as "unreasonable" is by definition a moan. If I go into a shop and loudly proclaim that their prices are unreasonable, I am moaning about their prices.
It's not unreasonable, it's just their position. If Britain doesn't like it we can walk away.
No describing something as unreasonable is not a moan, it is simply saying that something is not reasonable.
If you're on a discussion board discussing where to buy something from and someone says "I wouldn't go to PC World/Currys their prices are unreasonable, I'd buy from Amazon instead their prices are better" then is that a moan? Or simply an opinion?
Britain can walk away. I am advocating that unless the EU changes that Britain does walk away. So not a moan, it is merely a dispassionate explanation as to why we should walk away.
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
The UK may "suffer" more, but the UK will also "gain" more, which is why it would be good for the UK. You are mistakenly only looking at the cost side of the equation, to do proper accounting you need to look at both debits and credits.
The EU has practically nothing to gain from no deal. The UK has a lot to gain from it.
Mr. 679, if leaving is a lunatic project why was it specifically made a procedural possibility with Lisbon's Article 50?
I agree the mechanism is entirely designed to shaft the leaving country to the benefit of the EU, but that's simply another example of power shifting to the bloc from member states.
"Sure, you can leave. Just collect your punishment beating on the way out."
Of course, had British politicians actually gone through with the promised referendum, Lisbon would've been rejected.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If we're going to walk away, then we should do it now rather than waiting till the last minute. That would give business at least a little time to mitigate the damage.
Actually, the time to walk (if walking was the plan) was months ago.
(And if you don't trust the Grauniad, look at para 9 in the Government document linked in the article.)
OK, at that point Covid was still a looming cloud on the horizon; but Boris Johnson's government said its deadline for an outline deal was June and a final deal in September. That could be because it's really obvious that No Deal right now would be a very big deal indeed. It could be because Boris Johnson is a flabby-faced coward who needs someone to make his mind up for him. But, at the very least, he hasn't really been prepared to walk away when he said he would. That might be why the EU are confused.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It was Giuliani's broken windows policy of tackling small crimes hard and three strikes and you are out that made the difference, under Koch and Dinkins his predecessors much of New York city was a crime ridden hellhole, particularly around the Bronx, Giuliani changed all that and enabled the much safer, more tourist friendly city that it is today
Then why was it dropping dramatically before he took office and why did other cities which did not implement it record similar falls?
The biggest fall in crime in New York city under any New York Mayor came under Giuliani
Of course, because he had eight years while Dinkins had four. But, insofar as any mayors are responsible, Dinkins laid the groundwork and Giuliani didn't screw it up and took the credit. In fact, other factors such as a break in the crack epidemic, demographic changes and Dinkins's big increase in policy numbers (which Giuliani continued) were almost certainly more important.
Incidentally, New York City did not enact a three strikes and you're out law under Giuliani, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it would have been a state, not a city, law. Secondly, New York already had a habitual offenders statute dating from the 18th century, so it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.
And you haven't answered my question about why other big American cities recorded similar falls? New York gets most attention because it is the biggest and most international US city, but San Francisco didn't implement a broken windows policy and recorded falls in crime as great as or greater than New York's in the 90s.
Crime rates had been coming down across the west, a mix of technology and demography.
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will ban indyref2 as long as he remains PM
Him and your party will however likely go down in history as the CAUSE of the breakup of the UK.
Good job guys.
Do you think they'll dangle a statue of Boris the Liberator on a string between Edinburgh Castle and Calton Hill? You know, in crash helmet on a trolley a la Millennium Dome?
I think naming one of the poles in an Edinburgh pubic triangle go-go bar Boris the Liberator would be a fitting tribute.
I am actually very familiar with the outside of those pubs - the Pubic Triangle also being the biggest concentration of secondhand bookshops in Edinburgh or indeed SE Scotland that I know of.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If we're going to walk away, then we should do it now rather than waiting till the last minute. That would give business at least a little time to mitigate the damage.
Actually, the time to walk (if walking was the plan) was months ago.
(And if you don't trust the Grauniad, look at para 9 in the Government document linked in the article.)
OK, at that point Covid was still a looming cloud on the horizon; but Boris Johnson's government said its deadline for an outline deal was June and a final deal in September. That could be because it's really obvious that No Deal right now would be a very big deal indeed. It could be because Boris Johnson is a flabby-faced coward who needs someone to make his mind up for him. But, at the very least, he hasn't really been prepared to walk away when he said he would. That might be why the EU are confused.
I believe Johnson wants a deal more badly than he lets on and than people think. Deals are a sign of success. It's simplistic but that is the way he thinks,
Problem is, he's not prepared to make the necessary compromises to get the only deal that is available.
Negotiations have been paralysed for six months by his indecision. But he will have to decide within the next day or so. Only he will decide. It is crunch time.
The banks have been putting in measures for months, this from September, another profitable revenue stream lost for the UK economy, but at least we'll be sovereign.
Thousands of Britons living in the EU will have their UK bank accounts closed by the end of the year because of the UK’s failure to agree a post-Brexit trade deal.
Lloyds, Barclays and Coutts have informed retail and business customers that they will lose their accounts before or when the Brexit transition period ends on 31 December and more banks are expected to follow suit.
Lloyds Banking Group, which includes Halifax and Bank of Scotland, has contacted its 13,000 customers in the Netherlands, Slovakia, Germany, Ireland and Portugal, warning them they must make alternative arrangements as the bank is no longer allowed to offer services.
I've never understood this. Why on earth should a UK bank care a toss about EU passporting in terms of operating accounts in the UK for ex-pats? It's an entirely UK matter, surely? If the UK regulators don't mind the banks providing such services, what's the problem?
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
You mean individual members of a union can voice concerns and may be listened to? What a radical thought!
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
Probably not
The EU is currently fixated on stamping on Poland's head and humiliating Hungary. We're just a side show
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If we're going to walk away, then we should do it now rather than waiting till the last minute. That would give business at least a little time to mitigate the damage.
The government explicitly said to businesses a while ago to prepare for WTO terms though.
The government's website currently explicitly says we will trade with the EU on WTO terms from next year.
But didn't Boris say something about there being just a million to one chance of no deal? Why would a rational business manager spend time and money preparing for an eventuality that is almost certain not to happen?
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If we're going to walk away, then we should do it now rather than waiting till the last minute. That would give business at least a little time to mitigate the damage.
Actually, the time to walk (if walking was the plan) was months ago.
(And if you don't trust the Grauniad, look at para 9 in the Government document linked in the article.)
OK, at that point Covid was still a looming cloud on the horizon; but Boris Johnson's government said its deadline for an outline deal was June and a final deal in September. That could be because it's really obvious that No Deal right now would be a very big deal indeed. It could be because Boris Johnson is a flabby-faced coward who needs someone to make his mind up for him. But, at the very least, he hasn't really been prepared to walk away when he said he would. That might be why the EU are confused.
Yes, Boris simply lives minute by minute. I get the impression he was dithering around, paralysed by indecision, waiting for some magical solution to pop up that would solve all his problems for him. But the moment of reckoning is now upon him. It would do everyone a favour if he just walked away and let someone else have a go.
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
You mean individual members of a union can voice concerns and may be listened to? What a radical thought!
Yes, Boris simply lives minute by minute. I get the impression he was dithering around, paralysed by indecision, waiting for some magical solution to pop up that would solve all his problems for him. But the moment of reckoning is now upon him. It would do everyone a favour if he just walked away and let someone else have a go.
Isn't crunch time tonight, with the vote on the Internal Market Bill ? While it's not the final say, to reintroduce the clauses the Lords removed will not exactly help continued negotiations.
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
I would imagine that plans for massive assistance to Ireland in the event of a no deal are being drawn up even as we speak. It'd be a fantastic opportunity for the EU to show how it can support smaller countries.
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will ban indyref2 as long as he remains PM
Him and your party will however likely go down in history as the CAUSE of the breakup of the UK.
Good job guys.
Do you think they'll dangle a statue of Boris the Liberator on a string between Edinburgh Castle and Calton Hill? You know, in crash helmet on a trolley a la Millennium Dome?
I think naming one of the poles in an Edinburgh pubic triangle go-go bar Boris the Liberator would be a fitting tribute.
I am actually very familiar with the outside of those pubs - the Pubic Triangle also being the biggest concentration of secondhand bookshops in Edinburgh or indeed SE Scotland that I know of.
There must be many punters in that locale who are familiar with the outside of those bookshops.
Self-regard is the sun around which all thoughts, words, and deeds of Boris Johnson revolve.
He'd be perfect as a caliph with a competent Grand Vizier, or a king with a wise son. As someone actually expected to make executive decisions he's an utter failure.
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
I would imagine that plans for massive assistance to Ireland in the event of a no deal are being drawn up even as we speak. It'd be a fantastic opportunity for the EU to show how it can support smaller countries.
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
I would imagine that plans for massive assistance to Ireland in the event of a no deal are being drawn up even as we speak. It'd be a fantastic opportunity for the EU to show how it can support smaller countries.
They did such a great job with Greece just a few years ago......
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will ban indyref2 as long as he remains PM
Him and your party will however likely go down in history as the CAUSE of the breakup of the UK.
Good job guys.
Do you think they'll dangle a statue of Boris the Liberator on a string between Edinburgh Castle and Calton Hill? You know, in crash helmet on a trolley a la Millennium Dome?
I think naming one of the poles in an Edinburgh pubic triangle go-go bar Boris the Liberator would be a fitting tribute.
I am actually very familiar with the outside of those pubs - the Pubic Triangle also being the biggest concentration of secondhand bookshops in Edinburgh or indeed SE Scotland that I know of.
There must be many punters in that locale who are familiar with the outside of those bookshops.
Those pubs, and one or two similar-looking establishments on Lothian Road, happen to be very conveniently close to the Haymarket area - ie the main financial quarter, business meetings etc.
"There needs to be something in place that protects people of faith as well as those who think the other way. It is an issue of conscience. It is like people having a choice who for reasons of conscience cannot participate in conducting an abortion.”
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
You mean individual members of a union can voice concerns and may be listened to? What a radical thought!
I doubt it is very amicable
Do you imagine the conversation goes something like this?
Ireland: Give the Brits what they want! France: Non! Ireland: If you don't give them what they want, we'll be next!
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
I would imagine that plans for massive assistance to Ireland in the event of a no deal are being drawn up even as we speak. It'd be a fantastic opportunity for the EU to show how it can support smaller countries.
State aid is supposed to be a no no
State aid to business isn't permitted, but aid to member countries in difficulty is part of the raison d'etre of the EU and, in this case, would no doubt be very popular. Call it the Dublin Airlift.
You’d normally announce no deal when the markets are closed to give the BOE time to step in and save the pound from completely collapsing .
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
I don't think it's possible to say for sure that "no deal" will be catastrophic or a disaster but it certainly doesn't look rosy.
I suspect all is not unity between Ireland and France at present, indeed I would imagine voices are being raised between individual EU countries over the nightmare for everyone in a no deal outcome
I would imagine that plans for massive assistance to Ireland in the event of a no deal are being drawn up even as we speak. It'd be a fantastic opportunity for the EU to show how it can support smaller countries.
They did such a great job with Greece just a few years ago......
Indeed they did, despite the fact the Greece's problems were largely self-inflicted. The Greek economy is now operating on a much more sustainable basis.
How much would it cost to get a sloth from London Zoo and a drip feed of whisky and install both in No 10?
Would it actually be any worse than the current situation?
We could get it to make a decision.
Put out 2 bowls of food, with Deal or No Deal labels on them.
Whichever it picks...
Have you heard the story about the NASA monkeys?
Back in the days when animals were being sent up on rockets, NASA needed a way of allowing the monkeys to be volunteers. Because American values. So- they had a bowl of apples and a bowl of bananas. And it was calmly explained to the monkeys that, if they wanted to go into space on the shiny rocket, they should take a banana. If they didn't, they should take an apple.
[Source: a cartoon in a Giles annual I once read at my grandmother's]
...Xlinks will be focusing mostly on PV, which founder and CEO Simon Morrish claims can now deliver electricity at around $15 per megawatt-hour in North Africa.
The second big differentiator between Xlinks and previous Sahara generation schemes is transport. While previous concepts looked to ship electricity via interconnectors to mainland Europe, Xlinks plans to run 3.6 GW of subsea cable capacity from the African coast to the U.K., following the continental shelf around Portugal, Spain and France.
The beauty of this idea is that it would massively simplify permitting, Morrish told GTM in an interview.
Even assuming a total project cost of £16 billion ($21.6 billion), half of which would go toward high-voltage direct-current cabling, Xlinks expects to be able to provide up to 7.5 percent of U.K. electricity with a contracts-for-difference bid of around £52 ($70) per megawatt-hour.
This compares to a strike price of £92.50 ($125 at today’s rates) per megawatt-hour agreed in 2012 for Hinkley Point C, the U.K.’s newest nuclear plant. ...
A few days ago I watched a series on Netflix which showed the current vast solar complex in Morocco, The expert commenting said that total energy needs of the world for a year were equivalent to what is produced by the sun in an hour. There are of course a range of technical issues to solve but if true it puts things into perspective.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
The EU can do whatever it damn pleases: good, bad or indifferent. Just as the US can.
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
We hold all the cards so there's no need to whinge.
Absolutely. We hold all the cards so we can just time out talks, walk away and win by default.
Then why are you constantly moaning that it's so unfair that the EU won't give us exactly what we want?
I'm not. It isn't a moan as I've said to you more times than I should need to since you should have reading comprehension. So hopefully you won't be so ignorant as to say it again.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If we're going to walk away, then we should do it now rather than waiting till the last minute. That would give business at least a little time to mitigate the damage.
The government explicitly said to businesses a while ago to prepare for WTO terms though.
The government's website currently explicitly says we will trade with the EU on WTO terms from next year.
But didn't Boris say something about there being just a million to one chance of no deal? Why would a rational business manager spend time and money preparing for an eventuality that is almost certain not to happen?
No deal as discussed then didn't happen, we did get a deal and its already been implemented.
The question now is whether we get a further follow on agreement or not - and this is what Boris has to say about that. He officially said to businesses they need to prepare for "Australia style" WTO trade - and that is what gov.uk officially says too. This "prepare for WTO" instruction has never been reversed, WTO is our official policy currently.
...Xlinks will be focusing mostly on PV, which founder and CEO Simon Morrish claims can now deliver electricity at around $15 per megawatt-hour in North Africa.
The second big differentiator between Xlinks and previous Sahara generation schemes is transport. While previous concepts looked to ship electricity via interconnectors to mainland Europe, Xlinks plans to run 3.6 GW of subsea cable capacity from the African coast to the U.K., following the continental shelf around Portugal, Spain and France.
The beauty of this idea is that it would massively simplify permitting, Morrish told GTM in an interview.
Even assuming a total project cost of £16 billion ($21.6 billion), half of which would go toward high-voltage direct-current cabling, Xlinks expects to be able to provide up to 7.5 percent of U.K. electricity with a contracts-for-difference bid of around £52 ($70) per megawatt-hour.
This compares to a strike price of £92.50 ($125 at today’s rates) per megawatt-hour agreed in 2012 for Hinkley Point C, the U.K.’s newest nuclear plant. ...
A few days ago I watched a series on Netflix which showed the current vast solar complex in Morocco, The expert commenting said that total energy needs of the world for a year were equivalent to what is produced by the sun in an hour. There are of course a range of technical issues to solve but if true it puts things into perspective.
Yes, Boris simply lives minute by minute. I get the impression he was dithering around, paralysed by indecision, waiting for some magical solution to pop up that would solve all his problems for him. But the moment of reckoning is now upon him. It would do everyone a favour if he just walked away and let someone else have a go.
Isn't crunch time tonight, with the vote on the Internal Market Bill ? While it's not the final say, to reintroduce the clauses the Lords removed will not exactly help continued negotiations.
Of course they will. If the EU wants to clauses removed they need to reach a deal to get them removed, not rely on the Lords to do that for them.
"There needs to be something in place that protects people of faith as well as those who think the other way. It is an issue of conscience. It is like people having a choice who for reasons of conscience cannot participate in conducting an abortion.”
It is a sign of how extreme wokeness has become in some circles that anyone should be criticised to the point of resignation for such comments.
Comments
Do you object to me saying Trump is doing the wrong thing? Do you think I whinge about Trump too much? Was I wrong to be pleased Biden won the Presidential election because I thought Trump was going in the wrong direction and doing the wrong things?
I recognise both Europe and America's right to do as they please, without us being a part of either United States of America or the European Union. I can still have opinions on what they do though.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cool-heads-must-prevail-for-the-deal-we-all-need-5mk07n8c6
As Spain has proved with Catalonia illegal independence referendums can be ignored, if Labour however win in 2024 and allow indyref2 then either the Union side wins, probably on a Federalist platform with devomax from Starmer, or the Yes side wins and it will be Labour which allowed the Union to break up
Can you say when we restless natives can expect this advance in self determination, and what part you think the internal markets bill will play in our journey to just the right amount of freedom that English Tories think we should be allowed.
A bad deal may be worse than no deal.
But I am no longer satisfied that any deal currently on the table is worse than no deal.
The EU are acting unreasonably, so we can and should walk away, unless they change course and compromise. End of story.
If Starmer got in in 2024 reliant on SNP confidence and supply or Labour seats regained in Scotland then devomax would likely be a priority for him, it is not for Boris
I'm neither annoyed nor frustrated though.
I'm a parent of two young girls. I'm used to dealing with unreasonable behaviour without losing my temper or getting either annoyed or frustrated, or moaning. With them I can put them on the naughty step as a time out but that isn't an option with grown ups acting unreasonably like Macron and Barnier et al. My preferred option for dealing with grown ups that act unreasonably is to walk away from them which is what I've advocated Boris should do. No need for a screaming match or getting down to their level, just walk away, no deal and move on.
They cannot both be right and it is my duty to highlight the illogical nature of the position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615
We do hold all the cards, which is why we should play them out no deal if the EU don't fold.
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/
How do you want me to non-moaningly and dispassionately point out their unreasonableness? How does that differ from what I am doing?
It's not unreasonable, it's just their position. If Britain doesn't like it we can walk away.
The government's website currently explicitly says we will trade with the EU on WTO terms from next year.
The systems are not in place, the procedures are not in place, etc, etc.
And it's no deal Brexit ready.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/xlinks-revives-desertecs-dream-with-a-few-twists
...the concept is to install 10 gigawatts of PV and wind generation capacity along with 25 gigawatt-hours of battery storage near Tantan in southern Morocco and then pipe the electricity production all the way to Britain....
...Xlinks will be focusing mostly on PV, which founder and CEO Simon Morrish claims can now deliver electricity at around $15 per megawatt-hour in North Africa.
The second big differentiator between Xlinks and previous Sahara generation schemes is transport. While previous concepts looked to ship electricity via interconnectors to mainland Europe, Xlinks plans to run 3.6 GW of subsea cable capacity from the African coast to the U.K., following the continental shelf around Portugal, Spain and France.
The beauty of this idea is that it would massively simplify permitting, Morrish told GTM in an interview.
Even assuming a total project cost of £16 billion ($21.6 billion), half of which would go toward high-voltage direct-current cabling, Xlinks expects to be able to provide up to 7.5 percent of U.K. electricity with a contracts-for-difference bid of around £52 ($70) per megawatt-hour.
This compares to a strike price of £92.50 ($125 at today’s rates) per megawatt-hour agreed in 2012 for Hinkley Point C, the U.K.’s newest nuclear plant. ...
If you're on a discussion board discussing where to buy something from and someone says "I wouldn't go to PC World/Currys their prices are unreasonable, I'd buy from Amazon instead their prices are better" then is that a moan? Or simply an opinion?
Britain can walk away. I am advocating that unless the EU changes that Britain does walk away. So not a moan, it is merely a dispassionate explanation as to why we should walk away.
If it is a no deal then it’s a very bad outcome for both sides but you’d have to be in total denial to think that the EU will suffer more . It’s absolutely catastrophic for the UK .
And the EU have remained largely united throughout the last 4 years and no other EU country will think about leaving which is what the Brexit cult were hoping for to give some validation for their lunatic project .
The EU has practically nothing to gain from no deal. The UK has a lot to gain from it.
Thus, "a bad deal is better than no deal" is the accurate formulation. The very opposite of the toxic fatuous soundbite.
I agree the mechanism is entirely designed to shaft the leaving country to the benefit of the EU, but that's simply another example of power shifting to the bloc from member states.
"Sure, you can leave. Just collect your punishment beating on the way out."
Of course, had British politicians actually gone through with the promised referendum, Lisbon would've been rejected.
hhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/27/uk-says-it-will-consider-walking-away-from-brexit-talks-in-june
(And if you don't trust the Grauniad, look at para 9 in the Government document linked in the article.)
OK, at that point Covid was still a looming cloud on the horizon; but Boris Johnson's government said its deadline for an outline deal was June and a final deal in September. That could be because it's really obvious that No Deal right now would be a very big deal indeed. It could be because Boris Johnson is a flabby-faced coward who needs someone to make his mind up for him. But, at the very least, he hasn't really been prepared to walk away when he said he would. That might be why the EU are confused.
Problem is, he's not prepared to make the necessary compromises to get the only deal that is available.
Negotiations have been paralysed for six months by his indecision. But he will have to decide within the next day or so. Only he will decide. It is crunch time.
The EU is currently fixated on stamping on Poland's head and humiliating Hungary. We're just a side show
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article221919790/Streit-mit-Polen-und-Ungarn-Europas-Plan-gegen-die-Blockade.html
While it's not the final say, to reintroduce the clauses the Lords removed will not exactly help continued negotiations.
Would it actually be any worse than the current situation?
Self-regard is the sun around which all thoughts, words, and deeds of Boris Johnson revolve.
He'd be perfect as a caliph with a competent Grand Vizier, or a king with a wise son. As someone actually expected to make executive decisions he's an utter failure.
The PCP should axe him as soon as practicable.
Put out 2 bowls of food, with Deal or No Deal labels on them.
Whichever it picks...
(allegedly)
This is what she said:
"There needs to be something in place that protects people of faith as well as those who think the other way. It is an issue of conscience. It is like people having a choice who for reasons of conscience cannot participate in conducting an abortion.”
Ireland: Give the Brits what they want!
France: Non!
Ireland: If you don't give them what they want, we'll be next!
Back in the days when animals were being sent up on rockets, NASA needed a way of allowing the monkeys to be volunteers. Because American values. So- they had a bowl of apples and a bowl of bananas. And it was calmly explained to the monkeys that, if they wanted to go into space on the shiny rocket, they should take a banana. If they didn't, they should take an apple.
[Source: a cartoon in a Giles annual I once read at my grandmother's]
The question now is whether we get a further follow on agreement or not - and this is what Boris has to say about that. He officially said to businesses they need to prepare for "Australia style" WTO trade - and that is what gov.uk officially says too. This "prepare for WTO" instruction has never been reversed, WTO is our official policy currently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzbNC0crPBo
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/uks-first-all-electric-forecourt-opens-in-essex/