The only possible solution is, as always in NI, a very large dollop of fudge.
There was no "fudge" in the GFA. The obligations and occasionally painful compromises of all parties were clear. That's why it worked.
Is not compromise itself an example of a fudge?
Not in the context of this discussion which appears to be signing an agreement with the EU then trying to get them to do something else in practice that is to their detriment because that's more convenient for the UK.
All parties lived up the commitments they signed up to in the GFA.
AIUI the EU agreed to collaborate to find a work around. They haven’t done so at all. So the UK is coming up with its own approach.
More generally: I don’t give a flying fuck. If the protocol is endangering peace and community harmony in Northern Ireland then the only right thing to do is bin it.
No surprise you would prefer troubles kicked off again. Damn colonies.
I suspect it would take the actual troubles to kick off in style again (remember we've already seen death threats) before the EU thinks about compromising.
Only one side will be compromising , when trouble starts and Biden phones Bozo with orders.
I know people on here have reservations about Biden’s mental acuity, but I don’t think he’ll be taking orders from Johnson. Heck, even most of us aren’t.
Last night Fox had a former White House Doctor to both Obama and Trump expressing big concerns about Biden's mental state.
Every day Fox have someone expressing concerns about Biden's mental state. It is almost as predictable as Russia Today having someone criticise the West within 2 minutes of watching.
Ah I see so if someone is on Fox, they must be lying. Even if they were Obama's doctor.
No, they might be right or wrong, honest or liars. But their content is extremely biased and unreliable regardless.
So facts are variously reliable or unreliable, depending on the news service. Even if its the same fact.
The opinions of some medic are opinions, not a fact. That they are given an airing of Fox as opposed to anywhere else does indeed tell you something about them.
So the logic is that Biden must be compos mentis, because Fox is investigating whether he is or not....
Seems reasonable to me.
Yes I can see how it would.
Well that is because both you and Fox are deluded right wing conspiracy nuts.
Is he talking about Ronnie Jackson? If so @contrarian might want to investigate his background a bit more before concluding that his opinion adds very much to the “debate”.
There is almost no debate, is there? Biden is fine and lets find out what ice cream he likes. That's the standard at most places, isn't it?
Not much. But come back when you see Fox raising doubts about Trump’s mental state - somebody who it appears is being required to take regular basic cognitative tests and boasts in interviews how well he’s been doing in them because they are “pretty tough”.
I think that is unfair on Trump. Last week he finally completed the really tough jigsaw puzzle he has been working on since losing the election. He was very pleased to get it done so quickly as it said 3-5 years on the box.
I heard also that he did quite well on the colouring in and the dot-to-dot book that Biden gave him as a consolation prize.
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
By adding my three groupings and dividing by three I am a whisker under a mean of 49%, does that still make me a traitor? (Thank God for the "older Britons" category).
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
The Queen's line of questioning about Saddam Hussein was quite interesting and it's a shame Ted Heath cut her off. Essentially she asked how he could cling onto power after having been defeated militarily and morally.
Yes, amazing how Heath and Baker talk over her (especially as she was the most interesting of the three).
She puts him in his place with great grace later, "oh, but you're expendable now.."
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
Not often agreeing with Gardenwalker, I am delighted to agree that most of the above is pretty much on the ball, if you assume a point of view and accept the style is somewhat adversarial to Boris.
So just two qualifications, neither very important now; Parliament trashed May's deal. Not Boris. That doesn't matter now but it is true.
Secondly, further delay was, at the time, politically impossible. Boris privately (IMHO) made the big and fairly noble call to reject No Deal, at huge personal cost. Since the only deal on the table was one with a bad Ireland deal.
Boris is a Machiavelli politician anyway. Circumstances since getting a bad but only available Brexit through a parliament that never wanted one mean he has to act in ways which are Machiavelli squared.
I wonder how anyone else would be faring by now? Politically? Polling? Personally? It is worth thinking about. The current marmite Boris - everyone either loves him or loathes him is not quite true to the complex situation. Less uncritical support and opposition and more nuance would be a worthwhile project.
While Parliament did trash the deal, Boris had the option of turning round and making slight changes to May's scheme and going "take it or No Deal" or creating a new deal and going "new deal or no deal". The fact he took the latter option was his choice / mistake.
I remember the evening when the deal was first announced and Theresa May did her speech in the dark on the steps of Downing Street, and Boris was immediately denouncing it on all the news channels before the text had even been made public.
I am often blamed on here (as a former Remainer) for my failure to back Mrs May's deal in favour of the ultimate wet-dream of a second referendum, and as such I am responsible for Johnson's oven-ready pig-in-a-poke.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong, not least because what came next was substantially worse, although it was sold by Johnson and many on here as a fault-free, compromise- free alternative to Mrs May's far from perfect shambles.
Johnson didn't accept Mrs May's compromise, because doing so didn't give him the keys to number 10. So surely along with me, Johnson and Frost should shoulder some of the blame.
In my defence I genuinely believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, and a second referendum win for Remain, that would have been of benefit to our nation. Johnson believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, it would have been of benefit to him. Yet public perception is; I am the traitor and Johnson is the patriot.
Parliament rejected Mrs May's deal. Hundreds of Labour MPs voted against it. Boris only had the power of being a single vote among MPs. Yes, he was opportunist. Yes, the pope is a Catholic. Boris is a politician.
"Boris" as you affectionately call him, is a particular type of politician. And, no, they are not all the same, thank God. There are honest politicians on both sides of the house. There are perhaps none who are so malignantly narcissistic and dishonest as Boris Johnson, certainly this side of the Atlantic. In that unique area, he is most definitely world class.
Please, what hyperbole.
Well, hyperbole can sometimes be a useful tool for illustration, but in this case I must disagree that I have used it . Please tell me mainstream politicians with worse rep's for telling porkies?
...still no response? The silence is deafening. I rest my case.
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
Not often agreeing with Gardenwalker, I am delighted to agree that most of the above is pretty much on the ball, if you assume a point of view and accept the style is somewhat adversarial to Boris.
So just two qualifications, neither very important now; Parliament trashed May's deal. Not Boris. That doesn't matter now but it is true.
Secondly, further delay was, at the time, politically impossible. Boris privately (IMHO) made the big and fairly noble call to reject No Deal, at huge personal cost. Since the only deal on the table was one with a bad Ireland deal.
Boris is a Machiavelli politician anyway. Circumstances since getting a bad but only available Brexit through a parliament that never wanted one mean he has to act in ways which are Machiavelli squared.
I wonder how anyone else would be faring by now? Politically? Polling? Personally? It is worth thinking about. The current marmite Boris - everyone either loves him or loathes him is not quite true to the complex situation. Less uncritical support and opposition and more nuance would be a worthwhile project.
While Parliament did trash the deal, Boris had the option of turning round and making slight changes to May's scheme and going "take it or No Deal" or creating a new deal and going "new deal or no deal". The fact he took the latter option was his choice / mistake.
I remember the evening when the deal was first announced and Theresa May did her speech in the dark on the steps of Downing Street, and Boris was immediately denouncing it on all the news channels before the text had even been made public.
I am often blamed on here (as a former Remainer) for my failure to back Mrs May's deal in favour of the ultimate wet-dream of a second referendum, and as such I am responsible for Johnson's oven-ready pig-in-a-poke.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong, not least because what came next was substantially worse, although it was sold by Johnson and many on here as a fault-free, compromise- free alternative to Mrs May's far from perfect shambles.
Johnson didn't accept Mrs May's compromise, because doing so didn't give him the keys to number 10. So surely along with me, Johnson and Frost should shoulder some of the blame.
In my defence I genuinely believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, and a second referendum win for Remain, that would have been of benefit to our nation. Johnson believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, it would have been of benefit to him. Yet public perception is; I am the traitor and Johnson is the patriot.
Parliament rejected Mrs May's deal. Hundreds of Labour MPs voted against it. Boris only had the power of being a single vote among MPs. Yes, he was opportunist. Yes, the pope is a Catholic. Boris is a politician.
"Boris" as you affectionately call him, is a particular type of politician. And, no, they are not all the same, thank God. There are honest politicians on both sides of the house. There are perhaps none who are so malignantly narcissistic and dishonest as Boris Johnson, certainly this side of the Atlantic. In that unique area, he is most definitely world class.
Please, what hyperbole.
Nah! Hyperbole would be saying something on the lines of 'Boris "Mass-Murderer" Johnson'.
Despite incessant claims of schools driving this wave, and Delta disproportionately affecting children scaring parents...
Kids age 2 - 11y now lowest estimated prevalence of all ages<35, despite being totally unvaccinated, no masks anywhere and full time school for 4 months</i>
The only possible solution is, as always in NI, a very large dollop of fudge.
There was no "fudge" in the GFA. The obligations and occasionally painful compromises of all parties were clear. That's why it worked.
Is not compromise itself an example of a fudge?
Not in the context of this discussion which appears to be signing an agreement with the EU then trying to get them to do something else in practice that is to their detriment because that's more convenient for the UK.
All parties lived up the commitments they signed up to in the GFA.
AIUI the EU agreed to collaborate to find a work around. They haven’t done so at all. So the UK is coming up with its own approach.
More generally: I don’t give a flying fuck. If the protocol is endangering peace and community harmony in Northern Ireland then the only right thing to do is bin it.
No surprise you would prefer troubles kicked off again. Damn colonies.
I suspect it would take the actual troubles to kick off in style again (remember we've already seen death threats) before the EU thinks about compromising.
Only one side will be compromising , when trouble starts and Biden phones Bozo with orders.
I know people on here have reservations about Biden’s mental acuity, but I don’t think he’ll be taking orders from Johnson. Heck, even most of us aren’t.
Last night Fox had a former White House Doctor to both Obama and Trump expressing big concerns about Biden's mental state.
Every day Fox have someone expressing concerns about Biden's mental state. It is almost as predictable as Russia Today having someone criticise the West within 2 minutes of watching.
Ah I see so if someone is on Fox, they must be lying. Even if they were Obama's doctor.
No, they might be right or wrong, honest or liars. But their content is extremely biased and unreliable regardless.
So facts are variously reliable or unreliable, depending on the news service. Even if its the same fact.
The point being that was not fact it was opinion, since short of Bidens current doctor weighing in no one has the full facts. Opinions shouldn't be dismissed solely because of their source, but subject dependent its reasonable to look for corroboration, especially if the opinion has distorted facts previously on that line of subjects.
I assume you would not claim to trust all sources of news equally, so I dont see what's difficult about that.
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
Not often agreeing with Gardenwalker, I am delighted to agree that most of the above is pretty much on the ball, if you assume a point of view and accept the style is somewhat adversarial to Boris.
So just two qualifications, neither very important now; Parliament trashed May's deal. Not Boris. That doesn't matter now but it is true.
Secondly, further delay was, at the time, politically impossible. Boris privately (IMHO) made the big and fairly noble call to reject No Deal, at huge personal cost. Since the only deal on the table was one with a bad Ireland deal.
Boris is a Machiavelli politician anyway. Circumstances since getting a bad but only available Brexit through a parliament that never wanted one mean he has to act in ways which are Machiavelli squared.
I wonder how anyone else would be faring by now? Politically? Polling? Personally? It is worth thinking about. The current marmite Boris - everyone either loves him or loathes him is not quite true to the complex situation. Less uncritical support and opposition and more nuance would be a worthwhile project.
While Parliament did trash the deal, Boris had the option of turning round and making slight changes to May's scheme and going "take it or No Deal" or creating a new deal and going "new deal or no deal". The fact he took the latter option was his choice / mistake.
I remember the evening when the deal was first announced and Theresa May did her speech in the dark on the steps of Downing Street, and Boris was immediately denouncing it on all the news channels before the text had even been made public.
I am often blamed on here (as a former Remainer) for my failure to back Mrs May's deal in favour of the ultimate wet-dream of a second referendum, and as such I am responsible for Johnson's oven-ready pig-in-a-poke.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong, not least because what came next was substantially worse, although it was sold by Johnson and many on here as a fault-free, compromise- free alternative to Mrs May's far from perfect shambles.
Johnson didn't accept Mrs May's compromise, because doing so didn't give him the keys to number 10. So surely along with me, Johnson and Frost should shoulder some of the blame.
In my defence I genuinely believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, and a second referendum win for Remain, that would have been of benefit to our nation. Johnson believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, it would have been of benefit to him. Yet public perception is; I am the traitor and Johnson is the patriot.
Parliament rejected Mrs May's deal. Hundreds of Labour MPs voted against it. Boris only had the power of being a single vote among MPs. Yes, he was opportunist. Yes, the pope is a Catholic. Boris is a politician.
"Boris" as you affectionately call him, is a particular type of politician. And, no, they are not all the same, thank God. There are honest politicians on both sides of the house. There are perhaps none who are so malignantly narcissistic and dishonest as Boris Johnson, certainly this side of the Atlantic. In that unique area, he is most definitely world class.
Please, what hyperbole.
Nah! Hyperbole would be saying something on the lines of 'Boris "Mass-Murderer" Johnson'.
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
That is quite remarkable. I liked the clip with poor old Charles going on about his lithographs, his interlocutor (Italian PM?) looked like he was desperate to escape. The Queen has such exquisite manners, though, and the little dig at boorish Heath after he talked over her is exquisite. Diana was charming and beautiful, Thatcher utterly imperious despite having recently been deposed. It's like an episode of the Crown.
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
That is quite remarkable. I liked the clip with poor old Charles going on about his lithographs, his interlocutor (Italian PM?) looked like he was desperate to escape. The Queen has such exquisite manners, though, and the little dig at boorish Heath after he talked over her is exquisite. Diana was charming and beautiful, Thatcher utterly imperious despite having recently been deposed. It's like an episode of the Crown.
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
The Queen's line of questioning about Saddam Hussein was quite interesting and it's a shame Ted Heath cut her off. Essentially she asked how he could cling onto power after having been defeated militarily and morally.
Yes, amazing how Heath and Baker talk over her (especially as she was the most interesting of the three).
Men talking over women, perennial story of history?
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
The Queen's line of questioning about Saddam Hussein was quite interesting and it's a shame Ted Heath cut her off. Essentially she asked how he could cling onto power after having been defeated militarily and morally.
Yes, amazing how Heath and Baker talk over her (especially as she was the most interesting of the three).
Men talking over women, perennial story of history?
Oh, I don't know, the Nabavi household does a lot to redress the balance.
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Perhaps include people who have worked for the world's top corporations might actually be better?
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
Devil will be in the detail, so of course there is no detail.
Also this should have been announced in Parliament which is very conveniently not meeting for the next X weeks.
Does everything have to be announced in Parliament, or just things which require its consent?
I would have thought fundamental changes in immigration policy should be announced..
But if it's a prerogative power, or one conferred on a minister by act, there is no need to announce it in Parliament.
IIRC it has been announced a number times that immigration rules would be changed, so that it would be easier for skilled individuals to come here for work, and less easy for unskilled/low paid.
This is fantastic. Real-world data out of Canada shows just ONE dose of AstraZeneca’s vaccine is highly effective against preventing hospitalization and/or death caused by SARS-CoV-2 VOCs.
Devil will be in the detail, so of course there is no detail.
Also this should have been announced in Parliament which is very conveniently not meeting for the next X weeks.
Does everything have to be announced in Parliament, or just things which require its consent?
I would have thought fundamental changes in immigration policy should be announced..
But if it's a prerogative power, or one conferred on a minister by act, there is no need to announce it in Parliament.
IIRC it has been announced a number times that immigration rules would be changed, so that it would be easier for skilled individuals to come here for work, and less easy for unskilled/low paid.
That would therefore block Gavin Williamson on two grounds.
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
Not often agreeing with Gardenwalker, I am delighted to agree that most of the above is pretty much on the ball, if you assume a point of view and accept the style is somewhat adversarial to Boris.
So just two qualifications, neither very important now; Parliament trashed May's deal. Not Boris. That doesn't matter now but it is true.
Secondly, further delay was, at the time, politically impossible. Boris privately (IMHO) made the big and fairly noble call to reject No Deal, at huge personal cost. Since the only deal on the table was one with a bad Ireland deal.
Boris is a Machiavelli politician anyway. Circumstances since getting a bad but only available Brexit through a parliament that never wanted one mean he has to act in ways which are Machiavelli squared.
I wonder how anyone else would be faring by now? Politically? Polling? Personally? It is worth thinking about. The current marmite Boris - everyone either loves him or loathes him is not quite true to the complex situation. Less uncritical support and opposition and more nuance would be a worthwhile project.
While Parliament did trash the deal, Boris had the option of turning round and making slight changes to May's scheme and going "take it or No Deal" or creating a new deal and going "new deal or no deal". The fact he took the latter option was his choice / mistake.
I remember the evening when the deal was first announced and Theresa May did her speech in the dark on the steps of Downing Street, and Boris was immediately denouncing it on all the news channels before the text had even been made public.
I am often blamed on here (as a former Remainer) for my failure to back Mrs May's deal in favour of the ultimate wet-dream of a second referendum, and as such I am responsible for Johnson's oven-ready pig-in-a-poke.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong, not least because what came next was substantially worse, although it was sold by Johnson and many on here as a fault-free, compromise- free alternative to Mrs May's far from perfect shambles.
Johnson didn't accept Mrs May's compromise, because doing so didn't give him the keys to number 10. So surely along with me, Johnson and Frost should shoulder some of the blame.
In my defence I genuinely believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, and a second referendum win for Remain, that would have been of benefit to our nation. Johnson believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, it would have been of benefit to him. Yet public perception is; I am the traitor and Johnson is the patriot.
Parliament rejected Mrs May's deal. Hundreds of Labour MPs voted against it. Boris only had the power of being a single vote among MPs. Yes, he was opportunist. Yes, the pope is a Catholic. Boris is a politician.
"Boris" as you affectionately call him, is a particular type of politician. And, no, they are not all the same, thank God. There are honest politicians on both sides of the house. There are perhaps none who are so malignantly narcissistic and dishonest as Boris Johnson, certainly this side of the Atlantic. In that unique area, he is most definitely world class.
Please, what hyperbole.
Well, hyperbole can sometimes be a useful tool for illustration, but in this case I must disagree that I have used it . Please tell me mainstream politicians with worse rep's for telling porkies?
...still no response? The silence is deafening. I rest my case.
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
That is quite remarkable. I liked the clip with poor old Charles going on about his lithographs, his interlocutor (Italian PM?) looked like he was desperate to escape. The Queen has such exquisite manners, though, and the little dig at boorish Heath after he talked over her is exquisite. Diana was charming and beautiful, Thatcher utterly imperious despite having recently been deposed. It's like an episode of the Crown.
Thatcher talks about her recent chat with the Japanese PM, and suggests to his wife that she is looking forward to her forthcoming visit to Japan.
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Perhaps include people who have worked for the world's top corporations might actually be better?
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
Look, having degree from The Soviet Fenland Polytechnic isn't *that* bad.....
As to more restrictions, AAUI the nation says "bring it on".
I have noticed that if anything mask wearing has increased this week.
That's just the way the UK rolls right now. We are frit and won't be unfrit by the winter.
Eh? Both my pub visits – zero masks. Sainsbury's 50% masks. The notion that mask wearing has increased simply doesn't fit the reality... although you are probably just trolling?
Not at all. Sainsburys and the Co op more masks than previously.
Down to about 60% in Sainsbugs and 40% in Co-op around here....
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
That is quite remarkable. I liked the clip with poor old Charles going on about his lithographs, his interlocutor (Italian PM?) looked like he was desperate to escape. The Queen has such exquisite manners, though, and the little dig at boorish Heath after he talked over her is exquisite. Diana was charming and beautiful, Thatcher utterly imperious despite having recently been deposed. It's like an episode of the Crown.
Thatcher talks about her recent chat with the Japanese PM, and suggests to his wife that she is looking forward to her forthcoming visit to Japan.
Yet she was already 9 months no longer PM!
A quick google suggests she gave a speech in Tokyo in September 1991.
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
Not often agreeing with Gardenwalker, I am delighted to agree that most of the above is pretty much on the ball, if you assume a point of view and accept the style is somewhat adversarial to Boris.
So just two qualifications, neither very important now; Parliament trashed May's deal. Not Boris. That doesn't matter now but it is true.
Secondly, further delay was, at the time, politically impossible. Boris privately (IMHO) made the big and fairly noble call to reject No Deal, at huge personal cost. Since the only deal on the table was one with a bad Ireland deal.
Boris is a Machiavelli politician anyway. Circumstances since getting a bad but only available Brexit through a parliament that never wanted one mean he has to act in ways which are Machiavelli squared.
I wonder how anyone else would be faring by now? Politically? Polling? Personally? It is worth thinking about. The current marmite Boris - everyone either loves him or loathes him is not quite true to the complex situation. Less uncritical support and opposition and more nuance would be a worthwhile project.
While Parliament did trash the deal, Boris had the option of turning round and making slight changes to May's scheme and going "take it or No Deal" or creating a new deal and going "new deal or no deal". The fact he took the latter option was his choice / mistake.
I remember the evening when the deal was first announced and Theresa May did her speech in the dark on the steps of Downing Street, and Boris was immediately denouncing it on all the news channels before the text had even been made public.
I am often blamed on here (as a former Remainer) for my failure to back Mrs May's deal in favour of the ultimate wet-dream of a second referendum, and as such I am responsible for Johnson's oven-ready pig-in-a-poke.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong, not least because what came next was substantially worse, although it was sold by Johnson and many on here as a fault-free, compromise- free alternative to Mrs May's far from perfect shambles.
Johnson didn't accept Mrs May's compromise, because doing so didn't give him the keys to number 10. So surely along with me, Johnson and Frost should shoulder some of the blame.
In my defence I genuinely believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, and a second referendum win for Remain, that would have been of benefit to our nation. Johnson believed in the event of Mrs May's deal falling, it would have been of benefit to him. Yet public perception is; I am the traitor and Johnson is the patriot.
Parliament rejected Mrs May's deal. Hundreds of Labour MPs voted against it. Boris only had the power of being a single vote among MPs. Yes, he was opportunist. Yes, the pope is a Catholic. Boris is a politician.
"Boris" as you affectionately call him, is a particular type of politician. And, no, they are not all the same, thank God. There are honest politicians on both sides of the house. There are perhaps none who are so malignantly narcissistic and dishonest as Boris Johnson, certainly this side of the Atlantic. In that unique area, he is most definitely world class.
Please, what hyperbole.
Well, hyperbole can sometimes be a useful tool for illustration, but in this case I must disagree that I have used it . Please tell me mainstream politicians with worse rep's for telling porkies?
...still no response? The silence is deafening. I rest my case.
Not really. I had other stuff to do.
Reasonable excuse, but I am trying hard to think of any other people in the UK that might out "world class" Mr Johnson in the fibbing department, certainly by reputation. Any suggestions? Recommendations for The Bullshit Prize?
Mr. Pioneers, that gap was always going to close. The error was purely Hamilton's. The pain was entirely Verstappen's.
Backing out of it when ahead is not only contrary to a driver's nature and job, it's very dangerous. The corner was Verstappen's. Hamilton screwed up and got lucky, not for the first time this season (his gravel expedition at one race, and the magic paddle failing when Verstappen also DNFed that race).....
Actually it is not as simple as that - that note Hamilton was in a similar position ahead of Verstappen when the roles were reversed at Imola, and actually ran off track, allowing Verstappen past, to avoid a collision.
There's a good discussion of who has claim to a corner here: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-details-at-the-heart-of-the-hamilton-verstappen-debate/6634406/ ...what's crucial to understand when it comes to defining the right of corners, is that a driver on the inside does not necessarily need to be fully alongside. For, when it comes to attempting a pass down the inside, a driver is believed to only need to be 'significantly' alongside ahead of the corner to lay claim to be given room...
Note also that Verstappen had squeezed Hamilton to the extreme right of the track just before the corner, somewhat compromising his line.
Bottom line is that it's not at all easy to decide exactly at what point the claim to the corner swings from one driver to another - there's a grey area in between where both have a claim to it - and the drivers themselves have the merest fractions of a second to make the kind of assessment the obsessives have spent the last few days debating at great length.
I'm happy to agree with the verdict of Alonso that this was a racing incident.
Devil will be in the detail, so of course there is no detail.
Also this should have been announced in Parliament which is very conveniently not meeting for the next X weeks.
Does everything have to be announced in Parliament, or just things which require its consent?
I would have thought fundamental changes in immigration policy should be announced..
But if it's a prerogative power, or one conferred on a minister by act, there is no need to announce it in Parliament.
IIRC it has been announced a number times that immigration rules would be changed, so that it would be easier for skilled individuals to come here for work, and less easy for unskilled/low paid.
That would therefore block Gavin Williamson on two grounds.
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
That is quite remarkable. I liked the clip with poor old Charles going on about his lithographs, his interlocutor (Italian PM?) looked like he was desperate to escape. The Queen has such exquisite manners, though, and the little dig at boorish Heath after he talked over her is exquisite. Diana was charming and beautiful, Thatcher utterly imperious despite having recently been deposed. It's like an episode of the Crown.
Thatcher talks about her recent chat with the Japanese PM, and suggests to his wife that she is looking forward to her forthcoming visit to Japan.
Yet she was already 9 months no longer PM!
Yes, I wonder if that is an early hint of her later sad dementia
As everyone has said, the Queen is brilliant at handling them all. Polite and charming yet skilfully deflating of the pompous Heath, you can just see him crumple at the end
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Perhaps include people who have worked for the world's top corporations might actually be better?
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
Look, having degree from The Soviet Fenland Polytechnic isn't *that* bad.....
Shhh! I will be claiming I have a doctorate from Cambridge next!
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Perhaps include people who have worked for the world's top corporations might actually be better?
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
Look, having degree from The Soviet Fenland Polytechnic isn't *that* bad.....
Shhh! I will be claiming I have a doctorate from Cambridge next!
Don't they spell it "докторская степень" at Fenland Poly?
Reasonable excuse, but I am trying hard to think of any other people in the UK that might out "world class" Mr Johnson in the fibbing department, certainly by reputation. Any suggestions? Recommendations for The Bullshit Prize?
I think Nicola Sturgeon, although not in the lead yet, is coming up fast from behind.
Reasonable excuse, but I am trying hard to think of any other people in the UK that might out "world class" Mr Johnson in the fibbing department, certainly by reputation. Any suggestions? Recommendations for The Bullshit Prize?
I think Nicola Sturgeon, although not in the lead yet, is coming up fast from behind.
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
That is quite remarkable. I liked the clip with poor old Charles going on about his lithographs, his interlocutor (Italian PM?) looked like he was desperate to escape. The Queen has such exquisite manners, though, and the little dig at boorish Heath after he talked over her is exquisite. Diana was charming and beautiful, Thatcher utterly imperious despite having recently been deposed. It's like an episode of the Crown.
Thatcher talks about her recent chat with the Japanese PM, and suggests to his wife that she is looking forward to her forthcoming visit to Japan.
Yet she was already 9 months no longer PM!
Yes, I wonder if that is an early hint of her later sad dementia
As everyone has said, the Queen is brilliant at handling them all. Polite and charming yet skilfully deflating of the pompous Heath, you can just see him crumple at the end
No, she is totally on it.
I actually feel a bit sad watching this. A by-gone age and one can’t help but feel, a better one.
All dead: Bush x 2 Diana Andreotti Mitterrand Kohl Thatcher Heath
Still surviving: Baker Major Queen Charles That Japanese PM
Devil will be in the detail, so of course there is no detail.
Also this should have been announced in Parliament which is very conveniently not meeting for the next X weeks.
Perhaps one of Boris Johnson's latest love interests has got a degree from Harvard or Yale perhaps? Just wondering.
Are you suggesting the policy will be full of Eros?
I LOVE your puns
Can we have (a)more of them please
It’s getting harder, but I’ll try.
Speaking of silly innuendos and puns, I was wondering why Laura Kuenssberg didn't ask Cummings "are you still a Con.Dom? " There is probably another one associated with his surname there too!
This is fantastic. Real-world data out of Canada shows just ONE dose of AstraZeneca’s vaccine is highly effective against preventing hospitalization and/or death caused by SARS-CoV-2 VOCs.
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Perhaps include people who have worked for the world's top corporations might actually be better?
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
The world's most elite corporations are full of people who write bias for biased. De rigueur at Goldman Sachs.
Would anyone in the real world write "the world's most elite corporations" anyway? It sounds like the blurb off an airport novel about a secret agent with a big schlong.
Devil will be in the detail, so of course there is no detail.
Also this should have been announced in Parliament which is very conveniently not meeting for the next X weeks.
Perhaps one of Boris Johnson's latest love interests has got a degree from Harvard or Yale perhaps? Just wondering.
Are you suggesting the policy will be full of Eros?
I LOVE your puns
Can we have (a)more of them please
It’s getting harder, but I’ll try.
Speaking of silly innuendos and puns, I was wondering why Laura Kuenssberg didn't ask Cummings "are you still a Con.Dom? " There is probably another one associated with his surname there too!
Reasonable excuse, but I am trying hard to think of any other people in the UK that might out "world class" Mr Johnson in the fibbing department, certainly by reputation. Any suggestions? Recommendations for The Bullshit Prize?
I think Nicola Sturgeon, although not in the lead yet, is coming up fast from behind.
Is Peter Murrell a politician?
No, I believe he is a children's TV presenter known better as Ian Krankie.
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
That is quite remarkable. I liked the clip with poor old Charles going on about his lithographs, his interlocutor (Italian PM?) looked like he was desperate to escape. The Queen has such exquisite manners, though, and the little dig at boorish Heath after he talked over her is exquisite. Diana was charming and beautiful, Thatcher utterly imperious despite having recently been deposed. It's like an episode of the Crown.
Charles does an absolutely brilliant impression of Charles.
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Perhaps include people who have worked for the world's top corporations might actually be better?
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
The world's most elite corporations are full of people who write bias for biased. De rigueur at Goldman Sachs.
Would anyone in the real world write "the world's most elite corporations" anyway? It sounds like the blurb off an airport novel about a secret agent with a big schlong.
Oh dear, Walter Mitty has crawled out again. Or should I say hi, Dr. IshmaelZ PhD (Oxon)? Or how was the lastest alumni of Oxford Brookes reunion?
I really would think you would have learned your lesson! Or should I say your tutorial?
Everyone does negotiate international treaties in that way. Look at the Swiss, they've been renegotiating and in dispute as to how treaties operate for decades.
Johnson is acting to represent the UK's best interest not the EU's. That's how every country operates around the globe.
Putting a border down the Irish Sea is acting to represent "the UK's best interest" how exactly?
It is doing precisely the opposite. It is undermining the UK.
Perhaps it may not be the best for NI but I would say that it was the best for England and since England is 84% of the UK, while NI is 3% of the UK, that made the best deal for England the best deal for the UK.
Now that England has what it wants (trade deal, out of the EU, paralysis over) now its time to sort out the EU.
Its a bit like the Pareto Principle in action. NI is 3% of the UK but was causing 80% of the dispute, while England is over 80% of the UK but was causing minimal dispute. So get what you want for England first, then tackle NI afterwards.
It'd be interesting to see that replicated in other countries. I suspect the US and France would be up at 80%, some of the smaller countries more like 35-40%. I wonder about Germany.
I'd have been a no - not because I can think of another country I'd prefer (though America might have been fun), but the underlying bombast feels off-puttingly un-British...
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I think what you call "Millwall diplomacy" is the only thing the EU will listen to. Which makes it regrettably optional.
If they won't move without Frosty pissing on their leg, then Frosty pissing on their leg may not be elegant or pretty, but it works.
Devil will be in the detail, so of course there is no detail.
Also this should have been announced in Parliament which is very conveniently not meeting for the next X weeks.
Perhaps one of Boris Johnson's latest love interests has got a degree from Harvard or Yale perhaps? Just wondering.
Are you suggesting the policy will be full of Eros?
I LOVE your puns
Can we have (a)more of them please
It’s getting harder, but I’ll try.
Speaking of silly innuendos and puns, I was wondering why Laura Kuenssberg didn't ask Cummings "are you still a Con.Dom? " There is probably another one associated with his surname there too!
Condoms? No, only Tories use Condoms, baby! Those dirty buggers, they go from conference to conference!
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I think what you call "Millwall diplomacy" is the only thing the EU will listen to. Which makes it regrettably optional.
If they won't move without Frosty pissing on their leg, then Frosty pissing on their leg may not be elegant or pretty, but it works.
Oh, I had forgotten, because Brexit seems so long ago. We hold all the cards, don't we?
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Perhaps include people who have worked for the world's top corporations might actually be better?
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
The world's most elite corporations are full of people who write bias for biased. De rigueur at Goldman Sachs.
Would anyone in the real world write "the world's most elite corporations" anyway? It sounds like the blurb off an airport novel about a secret agent with a big schlong.
PS. Sorry Walt, but I really must go. I hope your humour classes for beginners are going well, and do remember that emotional intelligence can be improved, so this is some hope for you getting some friends one day.
Have a lovely weekend and keep inventing the qualifications, but try not to be rude to people all the time, it can really backfire.
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I think what you call "Millwall diplomacy" is the only thing the EU will listen to. Which makes it regrettably optional.
If they won't move without Frosty pissing on their leg, then Frosty pissing on their leg may not be elegant or pretty, but it works.
Have the EU moved, as otherwise all Frosty has done is pee them off.
Apologies if this has already been flagged, but if you haven't watched this clip of a 1991 G7 drinks reception, with HM the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, John Major, James Baker, Princess Di, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, do so. It's quite remarkable:
As an exercise in mordant irony, "Stop the Steal" takes some beating.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/trump-save-america-leadership-pac-keeping-usd75-million.html ...The Washington Post reports that Trump’s Save America leadership PAC, which raised some $75 million in the first half of 2021 on the back of his barrage of lies about the 2020 election, has yet to spend any of that money in support the recounts, ballot reviews, and other shenanigans he inspired in Republican-run statehouses across the country. Ahead of the July 31 filing date for how the organization has spent its money, Trump confidantes explained to the Post that Trump was “uninterested in personally bankrolling the efforts, relying on other entities and supporters to fund the endeavors.” ...
As to more restrictions, AAUI the nation says "bring it on".
I have noticed that if anything mask wearing has increased this week.
That's just the way the UK rolls right now. We are frit and won't be unfrit by the winter.
Eh? Both my pub visits – zero masks. Sainsbury's 50% masks. The notion that mask wearing has increased simply doesn't fit the reality... although you are probably just trolling?
Not at all. Sainsburys and the Co op more masks than previously.
Down to about 60% in Sainsbugs and 40% in Co-op around here....
Oh, I had forgotten, because Brexit seems so long ago. We hold all the cards, don't we?
BoZo and Frost signed a shit deal, that they said was brilliant.
Everybody else said it was shit.
Now that even BoZo and Frost admit it was shit, the fanbois who cheered when BoZo and Frost fucked it up the first time are now cheering them on to do it again...
‘It’s a great deal, a wonderful deal. All 653 Tory candidates back me & the deal, the UK & the EU agree on the deal. The whole country comes out together, perfectly. England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland’ https://twitter.com/AndrejNkv/status/1303211937992507392/video/1
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I think what you call "Millwall diplomacy" is the only thing the EU will listen to. Which makes it regrettably optional.
If they won't move without Frosty pissing on their leg, then Frosty pissing on their leg may not be elegant or pretty, but it works.
Have the EU moved, as otherwise all Frosty has done is pee them off.
Don't forget that Frosty battered the EU into agreeing to Johnson's "oven-ready" deal, so Phil must be right.
Up in the Cotswolds for a dog event tomorrow; Clarkson’s farm shop has become such an attraction that there is a very long queue to get in even on a weekday afternoon.
I never understand the public fascination with stuff like this.
He can get David Cameron in serving hot dogs and millionaire shortbread from his Gypsy Caravan
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Now we clearly don't give EU immigrants the same rights as UK citizens, which means we would no longer need to give them equal access to free health care and benefits, we could implement it across all ages.
The fact we could have done that with a minor slight of hand back in 2004-6 is something that Blair needs to take a lot of blame for.
As an exercise in mordant irony, "Stop the Steal" takes some beating.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/trump-save-america-leadership-pac-keeping-usd75-million.html ...The Washington Post reports that Trump’s Save America leadership PAC, which raised some $75 million in the first half of 2021 on the back of his barrage of lies about the 2020 election, has yet to spend any of that money in support the recounts, ballot reviews, and other shenanigans he inspired in Republican-run statehouses across the country. Ahead of the July 31 filing date for how the organization has spent its money, Trump confidantes explained to the Post that Trump was “uninterested in personally bankrolling the efforts, relying on other entities and supporters to fund the endeavors.” ...
In fairness i dont know enough our own political and lobbying funding to know how bad it is, but anything involving elections and money in america always depresses me.
Everyone does negotiate international treaties in that way. Look at the Swiss, they've been renegotiating and in dispute as to how treaties operate for decades.
Johnson is acting to represent the UK's best interest not the EU's. That's how every country operates around the globe.
Putting a border down the Irish Sea is acting to represent "the UK's best interest" how exactly?
It is doing precisely the opposite. It is undermining the UK.
Perhaps it may not be the best for NI but I would say that it was the best for England and since England is 84% of the UK, while NI is 3% of the UK, that made the best deal for England the best deal for the UK.
Now that England has what it wants (trade deal, out of the EU, paralysis over) now its time to sort out the EU.
Its a bit like the Pareto Principle in action. NI is 3% of the UK but was causing 80% of the dispute, while England is over 80% of the UK but was causing minimal dispute. So get what you want for England first, then tackle NI afterwards.
Might be the best for England? Were the English asked whether they wanted the entity that they have been a part of for some time so recklessly torn apart? Best for England in your mind but not objectively "best for England".
1. Is the agreement itself. It clearly doesn’t work, was never likely to work, and is punitive to GB-NI trade which from memory is the great a majority of trade relating to NI.
It urgently needs to replaced, and given that the U.K. has conceded a regulatory border in its own territory I have much sympathy with @Charles and @Philip_Thompson’s solutions which is effectively to leave it to the U.K. to police by exception.
2. Is the brazen bad faith of Johnson to: a) agree an unworkable deal b) ignore predictable warnings on said deal c) sell it to the country as “oven-ready” d) lie that it would avoid any kind of border between GB and NI e) u-turn on all of the above and blame the remainer parliament for making him do it.*
The EU are not innocent in this affair. They will need to move, if they care about the people on the island of Ireland.
But it is hard for them to do so as well when Boris and “Frosty” are pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.
Remainers need to be more acute in their criticisms of the NIP. Leavers need to be more aware that Boris’s “Millwall diplomacy” is likely to be sub-optimal.
*Boris created his own trap by trashing May’s (better) deal; and refusing to concede any further delays. He therefore left new deal or no deal on the table, and Parliament was naturally keen to avoid a ruinous and democratically obscene “no deal”.
I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I think what you call "Millwall diplomacy" is the only thing the EU will listen to. Which makes it regrettably optional.
If they won't move without Frosty pissing on their leg, then Frosty pissing on their leg may not be elegant or pretty, but it works.
Have the EU moved, as otherwise all Frosty has done is pee them off.
Don't forget that Frosty battered the EU into agreeing to Johnson's "oven-ready" deal, so Phil must be right.
You know that deal I negotiated with you, well I know it's working perfectly for you but it's not working for us, can we change it?
When put like that it highlights exactly what the problem is and why it's going to be so hard to fix.
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
That's largely true. But does it matter in practical terms for the UK?
Three main groups: 1. Rich and smart - seems fine to let them in 2. Poor and smart - likewise, they'll likely get a decent job and contribute. These in fact probably the most impressive/most potential individuals as they overcame obstacles to do well 3. Rich and stupid - well, they'll blend in well enough and might as well spend their money stupidly here as anywhere (Group 4, poor and stupid are pretty much excluded by the went to top university thing)
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
I'm not sure it needs refining. The easy and universal nature of it is part of the appeal. It's a big Welcome To Global Britain sign, hovering right above Heathrow
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
Perhaps include people who have worked for the world's top corporations might actually be better?
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
The world's most elite corporations are full of people who write bias for biased. De rigueur at Goldman Sachs.
Would anyone in the real world write "the world's most elite corporations" anyway? It sounds like the blurb off an airport novel about a secret agent with a big schlong.
Oh dear, Walter Mitty has crawled out again. Or should I say hi, Dr. IshmaelZ PhD (Oxon)? Or how was the lastest alumni of Oxford Brookes reunion?
I really would think you would have learned your lesson! Or should I say your tutorial?
Planck-length penis Nigie Wigie frit of betty wetty? Awwww!
Oxford doesn't award PhDs, it awards DPhils.
More to the point, PhDs aren't really about the university (provided it isn't a mid West theological correspondence course college). They are about your individual supervisor and your external examiner (who by definition is at another university anyway). You say your supervisor was Snodgrass at Durham and your ea was Lederhosen at von Humboldt.
Another good test of a PhD, is, was the candidate invited to beef up his thesis and publish it with a mainstream academic publishing house? [Whistles innocently].
Now, those are facts which really, really, really wouldn't need explaining to anyone who had interviewed PhDs for jobs at elite corporations. It would be like explaining to Lewis Hamilton that the brakes are for slowing the car down. It's most odd. A real conundrum. Very, very, very, very difficult to understand. Colour me puzzled. What can possibly be going on here? My head hurts.
If you have graduated from a top global university then you will be free to move to the UK without a job offer under the new 'High Potential Individual Visa'.
It is a good idea in general, but probably needs refining. There are better ways to test high potential than just where someone went to University, which in most parts of the world is largely a function of how well off your parents are.
That's largely true. But does it matter in practical terms for the UK?
Three main groups: 1. Rich and smart - seems fine to let them in 2. Poor and smart - likewise, they'll likely get a decent job and contribute. These in fact probably the most impressive/most potential individuals as they overcame obstacles to do well 3. Rich and stupid - well, they'll blend in well enough and might as well spend their money stupidly here as anywhere (Group 4, poor and stupid are pretty much excluded by the went to top university thing)
I don’t think we can take your last point as a given. Richard Burgon keeps parading his humble origins and was at Cambridge.
Now, those are facts which really, really, really wouldn't need explaining to anyone who had interviewed PhDs for jobs at elite corporations. It would be like explaining to Lewis Hamilton that the brakes are for slowing the car down.
Nobody asked me, but I think the scrapping of district councils (in North Yorkshire, Cumbria, and Somerset) is a mistake.
However I think the districts should concentrate on town management, local plans and planning consent, and most everything else (education, skills, police, health, transport, housing) left to the county.
Cumbria also missed a trick by not splitting along the old Cumberland / Westmorland / Furness lines.
Now, those are facts which really, really, really wouldn't need explaining to anyone who had interviewed PhDs for jobs at elite corporations. It would be like explaining to Lewis Hamilton that the brakes are for slowing the car down.
Comments
Edit, although to be fair to you there would have been significant churn since then.
Note how utterly charming and diplomatic HMQ is at handling them.
Superb. Absolutely first class.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9817863/Jeff-Bezos-NOT-astronaut-FAA-changes-rules-awards-astronaut-wings.html
Brilliant. We are so so lucky to have her.
I assume you would not claim to trust all sources of news equally, so I dont see what's difficult about that.
Britain likes smart people. Britain wants hard working talent. You can walk right in if you've got the brains
Shouldn't be too hard to define the top universities. The top 100 from the most cited lists - THES, QS, etc?
I'm no monarchist but fair play.
It’s one thing bowing down to PC culture but another thing naming yourselves after a woke newspaper.
Shame they didn’t go with Cleveland Steamers.
(as I wrote that I realised it is complete bias because I went to a second rate uni but blagged my way into one of the world's most elite corporations a few years later lol!)
"Real world data - bad"
Oh bugger, he’s not an immigrant.
Yet she was already 9 months no longer PM!
There's a good discussion of who has claim to a corner here:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-details-at-the-heart-of-the-hamilton-verstappen-debate/6634406/
...what's crucial to understand when it comes to defining the right of corners, is that a driver on the inside does not necessarily need to be fully alongside.
For, when it comes to attempting a pass down the inside, a driver is believed to only need to be 'significantly' alongside ahead of the corner to lay claim to be given room...
Note also that Verstappen had squeezed Hamilton to the extreme right of the track just before the corner, somewhat compromising his line.
Bottom line is that it's not at all easy to decide exactly at what point the claim to the corner swings from one driver to another - there's a grey area in between where both have a claim to it - and the drivers themselves have the merest fractions of a second to make the kind of assessment the obsessives have spent the last few days debating at great length.
I'm happy to agree with the verdict of Alonso that this was a racing incident.
- Theramenes
- Roster of citizens
- pen
As everyone has said, the Queen is brilliant at handling them all. Polite and charming yet skilfully deflating of the pompous Heath, you can just see him crumple at the end
Fridays tend to be broadly similar to thursdays.
I actually feel a bit sad watching this.
A by-gone age and one can’t help but feel, a better one.
All dead:
Bush x 2
Diana
Andreotti
Mitterrand
Kohl
Thatcher
Heath
Still surviving:
Baker
Major
Queen
Charles
That Japanese PM
Would anyone in the real world write "the world's most elite corporations" anyway? It sounds like the blurb off an airport novel about a secret agent with a big schlong.
Remainers and LibDems form a Eulerian circle. Does that work better for you?
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/23/alabama-governor-covid-vaccinations-500638
I really would think you would have learned your lesson! Or should I say your tutorial?
Now that England has what it wants (trade deal, out of the EU, paralysis over) now its time to sort out the EU.
Its a bit like the Pareto Principle in action. NI is 3% of the UK but was causing 80% of the dispute, while England is over 80% of the UK but was causing minimal dispute. So get what you want for England first, then tackle NI afterwards.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/22/mississippi-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-500618
I'd have been a no - not because I can think of another country I'd prefer (though America might have been fun), but the underlying bombast feels off-puttingly un-British...
If they won't move without Frosty pissing on their leg, then Frosty pissing on their leg may not be elegant or pretty, but it works.
Have a lovely weekend and keep inventing the qualifications, but try not to be rude to people all the time, it can really backfire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPqKzB-kZc&t=6s
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/trump-save-america-leadership-pac-keeping-usd75-million.html
...The Washington Post reports that Trump’s Save America leadership PAC, which raised some $75 million in the first half of 2021 on the back of his barrage of lies about the 2020 election, has yet to spend any of that money in support the recounts, ballot reviews, and other shenanigans he inspired in Republican-run statehouses across the country. Ahead of the July 31 filing date for how the organization has spent its money, Trump confidantes explained to the Post that Trump was “uninterested in personally bankrolling the efforts, relying on other entities and supporters to fund the endeavors.”
...
Everybody else said it was shit.
Now that even BoZo and Frost admit it was shit, the fanbois who cheered when BoZo and Frost fucked it up the first time are now cheering them on to do it again...
Never let @BorisJohnson & the Tories forget.
‘It’s a great deal, a wonderful deal. All 653 Tory candidates back me & the deal, the UK & the EU agree on the deal. The whole country comes out together, perfectly. England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland’
https://twitter.com/AndrejNkv/status/1303211937992507392/video/1
https://twitter.com/theosanderson/status/1418224366291013652?s=20
The fact we could have done that with a minor slight of hand back in 2004-6 is something that Blair needs to take a lot of blame for.
When put like that it highlights exactly what the problem is and why it's going to be so hard to fix.
Three main groups:
1. Rich and smart - seems fine to let them in
2. Poor and smart - likewise, they'll likely get a decent job and contribute. These in fact probably the most impressive/most potential individuals as they overcame obstacles to do well
3. Rich and stupid - well, they'll blend in well enough and might as well spend their money stupidly here as anywhere
(Group 4, poor and stupid are pretty much excluded by the went to top university thing)
Oxford doesn't award PhDs, it awards DPhils.
More to the point, PhDs aren't really about the university (provided it isn't a mid West theological correspondence course college). They are about your individual supervisor and your external examiner (who by definition is at another university anyway). You say your supervisor was Snodgrass at Durham and your ea was Lederhosen at von Humboldt.
Another good test of a PhD, is, was the candidate invited to beef up his thesis and publish it with a mainstream academic publishing house? [Whistles innocently].
Now, those are facts which really, really, really wouldn't need explaining to anyone who had interviewed PhDs for jobs at elite corporations. It would be like explaining to Lewis Hamilton that the brakes are for slowing the car down. It's most odd. A real conundrum. Very, very, very, very difficult to understand. Colour me puzzled. What can possibly be going on here? My head hurts.
43k cases.....Edit - i've done a woopshie again, like naming 10 man england team....36k cases
Daily 36,389
Last 7 days 309,742 up 31,747 (11.4%)
Not out of the woods yet....but not going deeper into them either.....so far....
However I think the districts should concentrate on town management, local plans and planning consent, and most everything else (education, skills, police, health, transport, housing) left to the county.
Cumbria also missed a trick by not splitting along the old Cumberland / Westmorland / Furness lines.
It’s done, you won, get over it x
https://twitter.com/BenKellyTweets/status/1418292762382901249