"My aunt is coming to stay with us this Christmas. She lives in Indonesia."
"Juwana?"
"No but no one else will have her".
“She had to get a connecting flight.”
“Dubai?”
“No, she paid for her own tickets.”
I’m dying to get back to Orkney after lockdown.
Twatt?
What the fuck’s your problem pal etc.
What's amazing is that the village name [Scandinavian, same root as Thwaite etc in N. Eng. etc.] was used for the nearby Fleet Air Arm airfield in WW2, RNAS Twatt aka HMS Tern (in its 'stone frigate' incarnation). It's not as if they had to use the name of the railway station (there being no railways in Orkney, the odd specialist quarry or naval base equipment-shifting aside). Perhaps there was an innocent Wren delegated with the job of picking the name down in the Admiralty.
If I read the deal notes so far, it reads that the UK can get 100% of its fisheries back in 6.5 years, with no tariff consequences. That can't be right can it? Seems crazy favourable to the UK position.
The EU can apply arbitration approved tariffs to British caught fish if the UK decides to reduce EU quotas. Retaliation seems to be limited to fish which is a great result for the UK.
Edit: it's also why the UK agreed to the 25% return rather than holing the deal trying to get 35%. As soon as the EU dropped cross sector retaliation fishing stopped being an issue for the UK and the deal was clearly going to happen. In every contentious area the UK has always agreed with arbitration led solutions. It's how pretty much all major trade deals operate so I'm glad to see we've got there in the end.
Yes, that was my reading of the tea leaves too.
Am I right in that all disputes (mentioned in the text that I could find) go to arbitration?
If so, that is a very good thing. All successful international agreements which have any kind of complexity in the implementation have third party arbitration. All the one with arbitrary retaliation by the parties themselves get caught up in using that for domestic politics - see lumber, Canada and the US for example.
"My aunt is coming to stay with us this Christmas. She lives in Indonesia."
"Juwana?"
"No but no one else will have her".
“She had to get a connecting flight.”
“Dubai?”
“No, she paid for her own tickets.”
I’m dying to get back to Orkney after lockdown.
Twatt?
What the fuck’s your problem pal etc.
What's amazing is that the village name [Scandinavian, same root as Thwaite etc in N. Eng. etc.] was used for the nearby Fleet Air Arm airfield in WW2, RNAS Twatt aka HMS Tern (in its 'stone frigate' incarnation). It's not as if they had to use the name of the railway station (there being no railways in Orkney, the odd specialist quarry or naval base equipment-shifting aside). Perhaps there was an innocent Wren delegated with the job of picking the name down in the Admiralty.
You'd need to look at the details of the Turing scheme but if it is a more-or-less like-for-like replacement then Boris has lured his opponents down a rabbit hole despite the apparent contradiction of his earlier assurances.
'You'd need to look at the details' will be the epitaph of the BJ premiership. Along with 'you two faced son of a bitch' of course.
Listening to him last night it isn't equivalent. Our students go, but no-one comes. As someone whose family benefited, and who acted as a host, I think UK's withdrawal is dreadful.
That is a stupid mistake. We benefit from the brightest foreigners coming here in a sort-of reverse brain drain.
It isn't just the brightest we want; it's the 'ordinary' getting experience of similar but different cultures and ways of life, and enjoying the experience. Making us realise that whatever language we speak, whatever our skin colour, we're all humans.
Then having a scheme open to the world may represent an improvement. It was the EU who chose to triple the price of Erasmus.
I refer to my earlier comment. According to Johnson last night the Turing scheme is one way only.
That’s because these deals are usually bilateral (Chevening is an exception). Each country pays for their own students
International schemes have long existed by exchange. I had a neice on exchange in University of BC until she returned early due to lockdowns.
The best bits of the Deal are merely fragments of what we used to have. It is a strange thing to celebrate, the loss of freedoms.
Something to build on, I suppose and better than a hostile No Deal. I am sure that the EU is glad to be rid of us whingers.
Nice frosty walk with the hound, so let the feasting begin.
Leaving a club means that you don’t have access to the arrangements. In this case the associate member fee was ridiculous and the decision was taken that we could replicate the benefits, gain more from a new scheme and at a lower cost.
More generally you don’t value the gains from leaving the EU so just highlight the negatives. A more balanced view says it has pros and cons
Zero benefit to me or my family, just losses.
Nice Christmas bonus from my hospital though as a surprise. They distributed the CEA monies equally this year.
You are focused on grubby personal gain. That’s not what Brexit is about. But you, as part of the collective, have gain
You'd need to look at the details of the Turing scheme but if it is a more-or-less like-for-like replacement then Boris has lured his opponents down a rabbit hole despite the apparent contradiction of his earlier assurances.
'You'd need to look at the details' will be the epitaph of the BJ premiership. Along with 'you two faced son of a bitch' of course.
Listening to him last night it isn't equivalent. Our students go, but no-one comes. As someone whose family benefited, and who acted as a host, I think UK's withdrawal is dreadful.
That is a stupid mistake. We benefit from the brightest foreigners coming here in a sort-of reverse brain drain.
It isn't just the brightest we want; it's the 'ordinary' getting experience of similar but different cultures and ways of life, and enjoying the experience. Making us realise that whatever language we speak, whatever our skin colour, we're all humans.
Then having a scheme open to the world may represent an improvement. It was the EU who chose to triple the price of Erasmus.
I refer to my earlier comment. According to Johnson last night the Turing scheme is one way only.
That’s because these deals are usually bilateral (Chevening is an exception). Each country pays for their own students
International schemes have long existed by exchange. I had a neice on exchange in University of BC until she returned early due to lockdowns.
The best bits of the Deal are merely fragments of what we used to have. It is a strange thing to celebrate, the loss of freedoms.
Something to build on, I suppose and better than a hostile No Deal. I am sure that the EU is glad to be rid of us whingers.
Nice frosty walk with the hound, so let the feasting begin.
Leaving a club means that you don’t have access to the arrangements. In this case the associate member fee was ridiculous and the decision was taken that we could replicate the benefits, gain more from a new scheme and at a lower cost.
More generally you don’t value the gains from leaving the EU so just highlight the negatives. A more balanced view says it has pros and cons
Zero benefit to me or my family, just losses.
Nice Christmas bonus from my hospital though as a surprise. They distributed the CEA monies equally this year.
You are focused on grubby personal gain. That’s not what Brexit is about. But you, as part of the collective, have gain
We’re taking away the little people’s freedom for their own good?
You'd need to look at the details of the Turing scheme but if it is a more-or-less like-for-like replacement then Boris has lured his opponents down a rabbit hole despite the apparent contradiction of his earlier assurances.
'You'd need to look at the details' will be the epitaph of the BJ premiership. Along with 'you two faced son of a bitch' of course.
Listening to him last night it isn't equivalent. Our students go, but no-one comes. As someone whose family benefited, and who acted as a host, I think UK's withdrawal is dreadful.
That is a stupid mistake. We benefit from the brightest foreigners coming here in a sort-of reverse brain drain.
It isn't just the brightest we want; it's the 'ordinary' getting experience of similar but different cultures and ways of life, and enjoying the experience. Making us realise that whatever language we speak, whatever our skin colour, we're all humans.
Then having a scheme open to the world may represent an improvement. It was the EU who chose to triple the price of Erasmus.
I refer to my earlier comment. According to Johnson last night the Turing scheme is one way only.
That’s because these deals are usually bilateral (Chevening is an exception). Each country pays for their own students
International schemes have long existed by exchange. I had a neice on exchange in University of BC until she returned early due to lockdowns.
The best bits of the Deal are merely fragments of what we used to have. It is a strange thing to celebrate, the loss of freedoms.
Something to build on, I suppose and better than a hostile No Deal. I am sure that the EU is glad to be rid of us whingers.
Nice frosty walk with the hound, so let the feasting begin.
Leaving a club means that you don’t have access to the arrangements. In this case the associate member fee was ridiculous and the decision was taken that we could replicate the benefits, gain more from a new scheme and at a lower cost.
More generally you don’t value the gains from leaving the EU so just highlight the negatives. A more balanced view says it has pros and cons
All the money we save in not paying membership fees will probably be lost by businesses with customs declarations (and lost GDP)
Serious = major. Work, it’s noted = Norma (the opera. A work with musical notes). Major after Norma = Norma Major. PM’s trouble (and strife = wife) is Norma Major.
22 down. Barack. Yes.
Support = Back. Republican = R. Arresting = capturing. Back capturing or surrounding “a R” = B (a R) ack. President = Barack (Obama).
I think the biggest issue for the survival of civilization is climate change. So here's a question: will the fragmentation of Europe, and in particular the UK, help or hinder mankind's chances?
If I read the deal notes so far, it reads that the UK can get 100% of its fisheries back in 6.5 years, with no tariff consequences. That can't be right can it? Seems crazy favourable to the UK position.
The EU can apply arbitration approved tariffs to British caught fish if the UK decides to reduce EU quotas. Retaliation seems to be limited to fish which is a great result for the UK.
Edit: it's also why the UK agreed to the 25% return rather than holing the deal trying to get 35%. As soon as the EU dropped cross sector retaliation fishing stopped being an issue for the UK and the deal was clearly going to happen. In every contentious area the UK has always agreed with arbitration led solutions. It's how pretty much all major trade deals operate so I'm glad to see we've got there in the end.
Yes, that was my reading of the tea leaves too.
Am I right in that all disputes (mentioned in the text that I could find) go to arbitration?
If so, that is a very good thing. All successful international agreements which have any kind of complexity in the implementation have third party arbitration. All the one with arbitrary retaliation by the parties themselves get caught up in using that for domestic politics - see lumber, Canada and the US for example.
Yes, all disputes are subject to arbitration and all tariffs are arbitration set. It's a proper trade agreement where neither side really has much control over the other.
If the current EU share of fish caught in UK waters is 50% and they lose 25% of that 50%, then their overall share declines from 50% to 37.5%, which is just over one third.
Closed = To. As in the door was “to”, as opposed to ajar. Reagan = Ron. To, (from closed) then to supporting Ron =To + Ron + to. Where G 20 summit was = Toronto, (in 2010).
Closed = To. As in the door was “to”, as opposed to ajar. Reagan = Ron. To, (from closed) then to supporting Ron =To + Ron + to. Where G 20 summit was = Toronto, (in 2010).
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
As an aside, when I did Psychology at university (psychology being a fun subject which ranges from scientific biology to sociological daftness) almost everyone else had a Psych A-level as their qualifying subject. I had Maths (not a great grade...) which proved surprisingly useful. Easy to make errors, though.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
If I read the deal notes so far, it reads that the UK can get 100% of its fisheries back in 6.5 years, with no tariff consequences. That can't be right can it? Seems crazy favourable to the UK position.
The EU can apply arbitration approved tariffs to British caught fish if the UK decides to reduce EU quotas. Retaliation seems to be limited to fish which is a great result for the UK.
Edit: it's also why the UK agreed to the 25% return rather than holing the deal trying to get 35%. As soon as the EU dropped cross sector retaliation fishing stopped being an issue for the UK and the deal was clearly going to happen. In every contentious area the UK has always agreed with arbitration led solutions. It's how pretty much all major trade deals operate so I'm glad to see we've got there in the end.
Yes, that was my reading of the tea leaves too.
Am I right in that all disputes (mentioned in the text that I could find) go to arbitration?
If so, that is a very good thing. All successful international agreements which have any kind of complexity in the implementation have third party arbitration. All the one with arbitrary retaliation by the parties themselves get caught up in using that for domestic politics - see lumber, Canada and the US for example.
Yes, all disputes are subject to arbitration and all tariffs are arbitration set. It's a proper trade agreement where neither side really has much control over the other.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
In fairness the original text is ambiguous and could be read as percentage points - which is actually the usual default option for journos.
And a fall from a half to a third is 16.66 (recurring) percentage points. The error between your (perfectly correct) option and 33.33 is almost 4.2 percentage points - quite large in relation to the drop. "A fall from half to three-eighths" would be just as clear and more accurate.
Edit: I speak as a science graduate in biological sciences who ended up using his maths with mecvhanics A level in many ways, from host-parasite population dynamics to structural analysis, in his biological work.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
In fairness the original text is ambiguous and could be read as percentage points - which is actually the usual default option for journos.
And a fall from a half to a third is 16.66 (recurring) percentage points. The error between your (perfectly correct) option and 33.33 is almost 4.2 percentage points - quite large in relation to the drop. "A fall from half to three-eighths" would be just as clear and more accurate.
Edit: I speak as a science graduate in biological sciences who ended up using his maths with mecvhanics A level in many ways, from host-parasite population dynamics to structural analysis, in his biological work.
I think that @Carnyx has put the details more clearly than I did.
Thanks for the vigour of your reply.
Were I wording that sentence I would not have mixed percentages and fractions, or the quantum I were taking as denominator, across the two halves of the sentence, and I would have specified one or both explicitly to prevent any ambiguity eg
"During a five-and-a-half year transition period, the amount that EU fishermen and women can catch in British waters will fall by a quarter of their existing catch - from current levels of around half to one third of total catch."
The ambiguity in the numbers alongside the fussiness of "fishermen and women" is interesting. I would just have let "fishermen" be inclusive or used a different term.
I guess the Arts/Science-Engineering divide is highlighted there.
6 Cut government without delay. Stat fits, and is what they shout in House and other American medical shows to mean "without delay". What it's got to do with the first half of the clue is anyone's guess. Stat is state with the e cut off but state does not mean government so that's no help.
Cambridge dictionary defines state as a country or its government. And stat(e) cut is stat. Which as you say means without delay, (statim), when used by medics.
Thanks to everyone for the positive comments. Apologies if any of the clues were not entirely accurate or fair. Many thanks to everyone who had a go. Especially SandraMc and andypetuk for keeping things ticking along. And to OGH for indulging me once again.
You'd need to look at the details of the Turing scheme but if it is a more-or-less like-for-like replacement then Boris has lured his opponents down a rabbit hole despite the apparent contradiction of his earlier assurances.
'You'd need to look at the details' will be the epitaph of the BJ premiership. Along with 'you two faced son of a bitch' of course.
Listening to him last night it isn't equivalent. Our students go, but no-one comes. As someone whose family benefited, and who acted as a host, I think UK's withdrawal is dreadful.
That is a stupid mistake. We benefit from the brightest foreigners coming here in a sort-of reverse brain drain.
It isn't just the brightest we want; it's the 'ordinary' getting experience of similar but different cultures and ways of life, and enjoying the experience. Making us realise that whatever language we speak, whatever our skin colour, we're all humans.
Then having a scheme open to the world may represent an improvement. It was the EU who chose to triple the price of Erasmus.
I refer to my earlier comment. According to Johnson last night the Turing scheme is one way only.
That’s because these deals are usually bilateral (Chevening is an exception). Each country pays for their own students
International schemes have long existed by exchange. I had a neice on exchange in University of BC until she returned early due to lockdowns.
The best bits of the Deal are merely fragments of what we used to have. It is a strange thing to celebrate, the loss of freedoms.
Something to build on, I suppose and better than a hostile No Deal. I am sure that the EU is glad to be rid of us whingers.
Nice frosty walk with the hound, so let the feasting begin.
Leaving a club means that you don’t have access to the arrangements. In this case the associate member fee was ridiculous and the decision was taken that we could replicate the benefits, gain more from a new scheme and at a lower cost.
More generally you don’t value the gains from leaving the EU so just highlight the negatives. A more balanced view says it has pros and cons
Zero benefit to me or my family, just losses.
Nice Christmas bonus from my hospital though as a surprise. They distributed the CEA monies equally this year.
You are focused on grubby personal gain. That’s not what Brexit is about. But you, as part of the collective, have gain
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
I think the negotiations will be far easier when they aren't tied to securing a FTA. And they do have an inherent right to it, it's guaranteed by the deal just signed. Afterwards it is annual negotiations.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
They kept 75% while using that as a bargaining chip in negotiations for an FTA. Going forwards that will no longer apply anymore, that chip is gone.
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
In fairness the original text is ambiguous and could be read as percentage points - which is actually the usual default option for journos.
And a fall from a half to a third is 16.66 (recurring) percentage points. The error between your (perfectly correct) option and 33.33 is almost 4.2 percentage points - quite large in relation to the drop. "A fall from half to three-eighths" would be just as clear and more accurate.
Edit: I speak as a science graduate in biological sciences who ended up using his maths with mecvhanics A level in many ways, from host-parasite population dynamics to structural analysis, in his biological work.
You're demonstrating brilliantly that you'd never be admitted to do Greats, even if your Greek were as flawless as Demosthenes'. And will NEVER win a Nobel prize.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
They kept 75% while using that as a bargaining chip in negotiations for an FTA. Going forwards that will no longer apply anymore, that chip is gone.
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
The UK clearly won overall on fish once the transition is over. It also kept out of dynamic alignment and even a ratchet clause. State aid being distortionary will be decided by a UK domestic body. That is every point of contention decided in the UK's favour. Plus the rules of origin decisions allow the UK to keep its EU supply chains. David Frost has played a blinder.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
They kept 75% while using that as a bargaining chip in negotiations for an FTA. Going forwards that will no longer apply anymore, that chip is gone.
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
The UK clearly won overall on fish once the transition is over. It also kept out of dynamic alignment and even a ratchet clause. State aid being distortionary will be decided by a UK domestic body. That is every point of contention decided in the UK's favour. Plus the rules of origin decisions allow the UK to keep its EU supply chains. David Frost has played a blinder.
I don't think I've seen the word capitulation once.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
If the current EU share of fish caught in UK waters is 50% and they lose 25% of that 50%, then their overall share declines from 50% to 37.5%, which is just over one third.
or next to F all if you look at it objectively rather than through the end of the telescope the Tories use.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
They kept 75% while using that as a bargaining chip in negotiations for an FTA. Going forwards that will no longer apply anymore, that chip is gone.
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
The UK clearly won overall on fish once the transition is over. It also kept out of dynamic alignment and even a ratchet clause. State aid being distortionary will be decided by a UK domestic body. That is every point of contention decided in the UK's favour. Plus the rules of origin decisions allow the UK to keep its EU supply chains. David Frost has played a blinder.
I don't think I've seen the word capitulation once.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
They kept 75% while using that as a bargaining chip in negotiations for an FTA. Going forwards that will no longer apply anymore, that chip is gone.
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
The UK clearly won overall on fish once the transition is over. It also kept out of dynamic alignment and even a ratchet clause. State aid being distortionary will be decided by a UK domestic body. That is every point of contention decided in the UK's favour. Plus the rules of origin decisions allow the UK to keep its EU supply chains. David Frost has played a blinder.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
They kept 75% while using that as a bargaining chip in negotiations for an FTA. Going forwards that will no longer apply anymore, that chip is gone.
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
The UK clearly won overall on fish once the transition is over. It also kept out of dynamic alignment and even a ratchet clause. State aid being distortionary will be decided by a UK domestic body. That is every point of contention decided in the UK's favour. Plus the rules of origin decisions allow the UK to keep its EU supply chains. David Frost has played a blinder.
Very well said.
Shows what happens when a country that holds the cards is prepared to walk away without a deal if need be . . .
Getting rid of May/Robbins and replacing them with Boris/Frost was the best intraparty change of PM since Chamberlain was replaced with Churchill.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
In fairness the original text is ambiguous and could be read as percentage points - which is actually the usual default option for journos.
And a fall from a half to a third is 16.66 (recurring) percentage points. The error between your (perfectly correct) option and 33.33 is almost 4.2 percentage points - quite large in relation to the drop. "A fall from half to three-eighths" would be just as clear and more accurate.
Edit: I speak as a science graduate in biological sciences who ended up using his maths with mecvhanics A level in many ways, from host-parasite population dynamics to structural analysis, in his biological work.
I think that @Carnyx has put the details more clearly than I did.
Thanks for the vigour of your reply.
Were I wording that sentence I would not have mixed percentages and fractions, or the quantum I were taking as denominator, across the two halves of the sentence, and I would have specified one or both explicitly to prevent any ambiguity eg
"During a five-and-a-half year transition period, the amount that EU fishermen and women can catch in British waters will fall by a quarter of their existing catch - from current levels of around half to one third of total catch."
The ambiguity in the numbers alongside the fussiness of "fishermen and women" is interesting. I would just have let "fishermen" be inclusive or used a different term.
I guess the Arts/Science-Engineering divide is highlighted there.
Thanks to everyone for the positive comments. Apologies if any of the clues were not entirely accurate or fair. Many thanks to everyone who had a go. Especially SandraMc and andypetuk for keeping things ticking along. And to OGH for indulging me once again.
So, until next year, hopefully.
That's all folks!
Thanks for the crossword. I found it harder than usual this year.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
They kept 75% while using that as a bargaining chip in negotiations for an FTA. Going forwards that will no longer apply anymore, that chip is gone.
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
The UK clearly won overall on fish once the transition is over. It also kept out of dynamic alignment and even a ratchet clause. State aid being distortionary will be decided by a UK domestic body. That is every point of contention decided in the UK's favour. Plus the rules of origin decisions allow the UK to keep its EU supply chains. David Frost has played a blinder.
another brain dead moron pops up
You should be celebrating Malcolm.
Shows that the smaller party that is prepared to walk away can get what it needs regardless of what the larger party says . . . can you think of a time that might be relevant in the near future? 🤔
As an aside, I played a Formula 1 board game from the 1980s, and rather liked it.
You choose how fast to move, taking tyre/brake penalties for decelerating too hard, and if you round corners at unsafe speeds the dice are used to determine if any woe befalls you. Pretty good, actually, and much more entertaining than the Monaco Grand Prix.
Thanks to everyone for the positive comments. Apologies if any of the clues were not entirely accurate or fair. Many thanks to everyone who had a go. Especially SandraMc and andypetuk for keeping things ticking along. And to OGH for indulging me once again.
So, until next year, hopefully.
That's all folks!
Thanks for the crossword. I found it harder than usual this year.
This is the only crossword I attempt all year, so the first couple of hours are spent reading other people's solutions while trying to remember how to read clues. At first I rely on looking for any word in the clue that has the same number of letters as the answer, and assuming it is an anagram.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Now you make yourself look even dumber, they negotiate after the 5.5 years when they still have most of their current quota and if EU unhappy they can apply tariffs, what bit of that is not clear to you.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
In fairness the original text is ambiguous and could be read as percentage points - which is actually the usual default option for journos.
And a fall from a half to a third is 16.66 (recurring) percentage points. The error between your (perfectly correct) option and 33.33 is almost 4.2 percentage points - quite large in relation to the drop. "A fall from half to three-eighths" would be just as clear and more accurate.
Edit: I speak as a science graduate in biological sciences who ended up using his maths with mecvhanics A level in many ways, from host-parasite population dynamics to structural analysis, in his biological work.
You're demonstrating brilliantly that you'd never be admitted to do Greats, even if your Greek were as flawless as Demosthenes'. And will NEVER win a Nobel prize.
Just not numerate enough
I beg to differ, not least because a third is impossible to represent geometrically anyway, so would not have been a polite part of Greek mathematical discourse, no? Whereas 3/8 is a doddle to represent by [edit] three successive sections of a line in two. And, as any fule kno, ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω.
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
On Baby Jesus Day, it's always heartwarming to see the spirit of the season being embraced
Hope you are having a wonderful Christmas as well. Saw my daughter and grandsons , first for a long time, wonderful given the year we have had. However that does not excuse idiots, halfwits and morons posting absolute drivel, Christmas or not.
Comments
If so, that is a very good thing. All successful international agreements which have any kind of complexity in the implementation have third party arbitration. All the one with arbitrary retaliation by the parties themselves get caught up in using that for domestic politics - see lumber, Canada and the US for example.
22d Barack
Serious = major. Work, it’s noted = Norma (the opera. A work with musical notes). Major after Norma = Norma Major. PM’s trouble (and strife = wife) is Norma Major.
22 down. Barack. Yes.
Support = Back. Republican = R. Arresting = capturing. Back capturing or surrounding “a R” = B (a R) ack. President = Barack (Obama).
So here's a question: will the fragmentation of Europe, and in particular the UK, help or hinder mankind's chances?
Across 6 and 13. Down 7 and 17.
Edit: Talk of the devil - it has just turned up at the back door!
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1342471011875356672
Closed = To. As in the door was “to”, as opposed to ajar. Reagan = Ron. To, (from closed) then to supporting Ron =To + Ron + to.
Where G 20 summit was = Toronto, (in 2010).
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
I'm completely stumped by the last two - 6 & 13
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
Who does the arbitration?
And a fall from a half to a third is 16.66 (recurring) percentage points. The error between your (perfectly correct) option and 33.33 is almost 4.2 percentage points - quite large in relation to the drop. "A fall from half to three-eighths" would be just as clear and more accurate.
Edit: I speak as a science graduate in biological sciences who ended up using his maths with mecvhanics A level in many ways, from host-parasite population dynamics to structural analysis, in his biological work.
We might as well say that annual GDP growth and inflation are usually 'about zero'.
Papers = ID (identity papers). Papers reflected = DI. State = Israel. DI over or around Israel = D(Israel)I. Prime Minister = Disraeli.
Thank you again to everyone who gave advice, I got one today under the tree this morning.
I've long used HP for my Laptops, this one is an ASUS Tuf Gaming model.
Thanks for the vigour of your reply.
Were I wording that sentence I would not have mixed percentages and fractions, or the quantum I were taking as denominator, across the two halves of the sentence, and I would have specified one or both explicitly to prevent any ambiguity eg
"During a five-and-a-half year transition period, the amount that EU fishermen and women can catch in British waters will fall by a quarter of their existing catch - from current levels of around half to one third of total catch."
The ambiguity in the numbers alongside the fussiness of "fishermen and women" is interesting. I would just have let "fishermen" be inclusive or used a different term.
I guess the Arts/Science-Engineering divide is highlighted there.
6 across. -T-T. It is a Latin abbreviation and not a commonly used word. But it is defined in, amongst others, Collins dictionary.
13 across. N-S. Think slightly laterally.
"In which city is Die Hard set?"
Though I'd say that I would not call 37.5 "about a third" as it rounds to 40%.
Cambridge dictionary defines state as a country or its government. And stat(e) cut is stat. Which as you say means without delay, (statim), when used by medics.
Tender = one who cares, looks after, treats. Large government carer = NHS.
So that must make the other term of the equation exact as well.
The issues are ambiguity and inconsistency.
And now for that constitutional.
https://twitter.com/Caiwilsh/status/1342433527699267586?s=20
So, until next year, hopefully.
That's all folks!
Not sure I'd call 44.44% "around half".
Laters...
At 4am, one of our cats (Diego) vomited on my wife and my bed. We cleaned that up and opened the door to our bedroom to let him leave.
By about 445am, we were back to sleep.
At around 5am, another of our cats (Lashers) jumped on the bed (she's normally banned). Our dog (Chica) went crazy, walking my wife and I.
We calmed all the animals down.
At 530am, Lashers decided she wanted to be fed. She started pawing my face. When I didn't move, went from gentle pawing to pawing with claws extended.
I get up. Kick her out the bedroom.
Try and get some more sleep.
I'm not a happy bunny this morning.
We have five animals (three cats and two dogs). If anyone wants any of them, I'm happy to FedEx them free of charge.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
https://twitter.com/john_lichfield/status/1337406498398498816
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
Just not numerate enough
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Minus 12% (25% of 47%)
Equals 35% (about 1/3)
Shows what happens when a country that holds the cards is prepared to walk away without a deal if need be . . .
Getting rid of May/Robbins and replacing them with Boris/Frost was the best intraparty change of PM since Chamberlain was replaced with Churchill.
Shows that the smaller party that is prepared to walk away can get what it needs regardless of what the larger party says . . . can you think of a time that might be relevant in the near future? 🤔
Peace and goodwill to all. (Normal hostilities can resume tomorrow..)
Edit: Although I see they've resumed already!
You choose how fast to move, taking tyre/brake penalties for decelerating too hard, and if you round corners at unsafe speeds the dice are used to determine if any woe befalls you. Pretty good, actually, and much more entertaining than the Monaco Grand Prix.
Dinner calls, I believe, so good night everyone.
However that does not excuse idiots, halfwits and morons posting absolute drivel, Christmas or not.