Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Trump becomes betting favourite to win WH2024 – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 15,066

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Nothing pejorative about being in a minority. Personally think that ethnic minorities or minority ethnic is "othering" in a way that simply minorities is not.
    It is absolutely insulting and condescending. "A member of the minorities". "She's from the minorities." "A minority person is coming to visit". "Yes its a minority neighbourhood"

    What does it even mean? It's practically useless and it sounds like something from apartheid.

    Also it means whites are the majority, always. A MAJORITY person is here.
  • isam said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    Having one term for millions of people who have nothing in common, other than not being white, is not a good idea in my book
    You can and do have white minorities (Irish, Polish, Romany etc), you can and do have minorities made up of multiple backgrounds (Muslims, Catholics, Trans etc).
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,863
    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
  • KKR are shitting the bed spectacularly.

    Chasing 136 to win they were 123/1 after 15.5 overs.

    They now need 7 from the last over with five wickets left.

    This looks like the Indian bookies have been on the blower.
  • Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,608
    edited October 2021

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,658

    isam said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    Having one term for millions of people who have nothing in common, other than not being white, is not a good idea in my book
    You can and do have white minorities (Irish, Polish, Romany etc), you can and do have minorities made up of multiple backgrounds (Muslims, Catholics, Trans etc).
    And political minorities too, like Conservative voters..
  • Just got back from the booster vaccination plus flu jab (one in each arm), all very efficient, but apparently much delayed earlier by an anti-vaccination demo blocking the entrance. Can someone who follows anti-vaxxer social media explain to me why, if they're so fucking libertarian, they think it's right to stop people who do want it?

    Not like you to swear Nick but I understand your utter frustration
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,863

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    No actual candidates just yet.
  • KKR have lost 6 wickets for 7 runs.

    They are choking like the South Africans.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,911
    An attempt to answer the question "What is Labour actually for?"

    https://labourlist.org/2021/10/every-new-and-old-policy-announced-in-speeches-at-labour-conference-2021/

    BTW: FWIW I heard BAME used on R4 yesterday. I don't often come across it normally so have no idea if that's unusual these days or not.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,336
    I always think how would I be happy to be described if I was living in say China
    Yes yes I know it is always lau wei there but white, european, british and english would all suffice.
  • Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    The risk of having Presidential candidates nominees in their 70s/80s and a global plague out there.

    IIRC the Presidential market is one of Betfair's biggest markets, it's a bit of a no win situation.

    After the events of 2020 I really don't have confidence in Betfair.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,960
    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    Having one term for millions of people who have nothing in common, other than not being white, is not a good idea in my book
    You can and do have white minorities (Irish, Polish, Romany etc), you can and do have minorities made up of multiple backgrounds (Muslims, Catholics, Trans etc).
    And political minorities too, like Conservative voters..
    You mean Tory scum?
  • Ok KKR have done it, but this was spectacular.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,658
    Pulpstar said:

    I always think how would I be happy to be described if I was living in say China
    Yes yes I know it is always lau wei there but white, european, british and english would all suffice.

    I thought you were black, South American, Chilean, and llama?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,658
    glw said:

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    Having one term for millions of people who have nothing in common, other than not being white, is not a good idea in my book
    You can and do have white minorities (Irish, Polish, Romany etc), you can and do have minorities made up of multiple backgrounds (Muslims, Catholics, Trans etc).
    And political minorities too, like Conservative voters..
    You mean Tory scum?
    I do not
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    KKR are shitting the bed spectacularly.

    Chasing 136 to win they were 123/1 after 15.5 overs.

    They now need 7 from the last over with five wickets left.

    Dehli traded at 1000 for £617 and came all the way into 1.37... then lost!
  • The thing in the EU statement today that interested me the most was the insistence that we must build border posts between GB & NI.

    I think that we should build them, but insist that the EU staffs them and properly insures their staff
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,029

    Ok KKR have done it, but this was spectacular.

    You getting excited by Twenty 20 World Cup yet? Shame I'm gonna miss it as my only Sky sports access is via Scottish pubs
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    Me too. I gave it 10 months in July last year - so I undershot only a tad.

    No-one I knew from a minority liked it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    Jonathan said:

    Whilst Westminster has suffered many people of questionable character over the years, you have to conclude that some of our current MPs are very poor indeed.

    Who would be an MP?

    (apart from you trying - once)
  • Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
  • glw said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Isn't that a bit of a crap term too? There are many ethnic minorities that aren't necessarily non-white.

    Surely the right way to talk about ethnicity/race* is either to be specific, so black, white, Asian, and say for groups being complete by saying for example, black and Asian. Or when wanting to desribe the opposite group to talk about them as non-white, non-black, non-Asian. All these attempts for polite, non-specific, euphemistic terms seem to hark back to terms we now consider offensive, or to be so vague as to be meaningless.

    * Firstly check you aren't generalising without good reason, there really needs to be a good reason to even mention ethnicity.
    In theory on first glance all good, but lets take Tiger Woods as an example.

    Is he non-Asian? Is he non-black?

    Specificity doesn't really work either.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,798
    Another French presidential candidate from the centre-right, Valérie Pécresse, has questioned the supremacy of EU law and said she was shocked by the ECJ's ruling against Poland.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2022/article/2021/10/13/election-presidentielle-2022-valerie-pecresse-conteste-egalement-la-primaute-du-droit-europeen-apres-la-decision-prise-par-la-pologne_6098192_6059010.html
  • Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    If oversight of the ECJ is threatening peace, because it is violently objected to by Unionists, then of course it can by itself justify the invokation of Article 16. Anything that threatens society can.

    The EU can be final arbiter of their own rules within their own territory, but being final arbiter of other people's rules in another nation is another matter. That's what arbitration is for.
  • sealo0sealo0 Posts: 48

    An attempt to answer the question "What is Labour actually for?"

    https://labourlist.org/2021/10/every-new-and-old-policy-announced-in-speeches-at-labour-conference-2021/

    BTW: FWIW I heard BAME used on R4 yesterday. I don't often come across it normally so have no idea if that's unusual these days or not.

    That Labourlist list is almost as long as SKS speech!!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,796
    edited October 2021
    The detail is in...the EU paper on fixes to SPS elements of the Irish Sea border comes with a bunch of caveats...nothing for wholesale, ongoing alignment of standards, full background data (as you'd expect) etc. EU has moved, but *within limits* #Brexit

    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1448345942021885954?s=20
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    There will certainly be one.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,642
    edited October 2021

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    There will certainly be one.
    BTTC.

    British thanks to colonialism
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,658
    edited October 2021

    The thing in the EU statement today that interested me the most was the insistence that we must build border posts between GB & NI.

    I think that we should build them, but insist that the EU staffs them and properly insures their staff

    Surely these already exist though. Maybe the ferry ports on the routes might not have customs facilities (but they probably do, surely all ports big enough to handle full-size ferries must have customs present for cargo ships), but I should imagine that all GB and NI airports that support domestic passenger flights would have international flights too. It'd just be a case of routing GB <-> NI pax to customs. I think that happens already for pax between the UK and the Channel Islands and Isle of Man as the Crown Dependencies are in the CTA for immigration purposes but are not in a customs union with the UK {I know @PJH has experience of travel between the UK and Guernsey, maybe he can confirm or deny that).

    Edit to add: I should also think that pax between GB and the Republic of Ireland must be in a similar situation as GB is no longer in a customs union with the RoI.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,535

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    I'd be careful what you post on here.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Nothing pejorative about being in a minority. Personally think that ethnic minorities or minority ethnic is "othering" in a way that simply minorities is not.
    It absolutely is othering to label us as such. Suddenly individuals cease to exist and every person who isn't white thinks, acts and looks the same. No one would say it about white people.

    Case in point, a working class white person is much more likely to have cultural affinity to a working class black person than they will for a middle class white person.
    On your last point, just look at the footage of the XR dickheads today:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1448240517469331460?s=20
  • Regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    If we have a new deal I would prefer a trade war rather than see it released 3.30pm on Christmas Eve.

    I still have nightmares
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,907
    "Official data shows that construction wage inflation in the three months to July was 11pc. For building materials, the jump was 15pc."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/supply-chain-crisis-destroying-britains-home-renovation-boom/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    and

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/13/food-costs-will-soar-10pc-great-reset-warns-britains-biggest/

    And a bod on r4 this morning saying the cost of shipping one teu container from China has gone up in less than a year from £2,000 to £16,000.

    Double digit inflation nailed on.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,725
    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    There will certainly be one.
    Do we really need one??
  • LeonLeon Posts: 15,066

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
    It’s definitely en route to cancellation

    ‘So the term BAME has had its day. But what should replace it?’

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/08/bame-britain-ethnic-minorities-acronym?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    And you can find plenty of non-white people on Twitter who REALLY object to it. I don’t see how it survives
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    glw said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Isn't that a bit of a crap term too? There are many ethnic minorities that aren't necessarily non-white.

    Surely the right way to talk about ethnicity/race* is either to be specific, so black, white, Asian, and say for groups being complete by saying for example, black and Asian. Or when wanting to desribe the opposite group to talk about them as non-white, non-black, non-Asian. All these attempts for polite, non-specific, euphemistic terms seem to hark back to terms we now consider offensive, or to be so vague as to be meaningless.

    * Firstly check you aren't generalising without good reason, there really needs to be a good reason to even mention ethnicity.
    It's not even about causing offence - it's quite literally political correctness: using the current politically accepted term so you don't stand out as non-conformist from the crowd.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,898
    Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:

    https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783
    Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.

    What happened to Argentina?

    I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.

    I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    IshmaelZ said:

    "Official data shows that construction wage inflation in the three months to July was 11pc. For building materials, the jump was 15pc."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/supply-chain-crisis-destroying-britains-home-renovation-boom/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    and

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/13/food-costs-will-soar-10pc-great-reset-warns-britains-biggest/

    And a bod on r4 this morning saying the cost of shipping one teu container from China has gone up in less than a year from £2,000 to £16,000.

    Double digit inflation nailed on.

    I spoke to a builder yesterday who said 4x2 had gone from £3 to £11 this year. Pretty incredible
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,796
    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20
  • Bad news for anyone backing Robert Webb in Strictly.

    He's done the right thing.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/strictlycomedancing/entries/32d3940e-4e81-4c62-889e-8b5d73744bfe
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,883
    Pro_Rata said:

    maaarsh said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    @Pulpstar. Replying to your earlier point in the schools immunisation. Daughter got the call this week. My understanding of it is that the entire school of 750 or so (excluding the younger year 7s, who have not reached 12) will be done in a single day at the start of next term.

    Once started, I think this will be turned around rapidly. It's just later than it could have been.

    Most schools seem to be requesting parental consent rather than entering in to a minefield of arguments, and I know of at least 1 where take up is way below 50%.
    I'll be honest, if my kid had tested positive previously, I'd be asking what does this add either in terms of personal protection or herd immunity and why take the outside risk.

    So 50% on first call may not be as bad as it sounds.
    It takes it from around 20% chance of reinfection to about 5%.
    Similarly with transmission.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    There will certainly be one.
    Do we really need one??
    I don't think so, but it doesn't mean we won't be getting one!
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,658

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Nothing pejorative about being in a minority. Personally think that ethnic minorities or minority ethnic is "othering" in a way that simply minorities is not.
    It absolutely is othering to label us as such. Suddenly individuals cease to exist and every person who isn't white thinks, acts and looks the same. No one would say it about white people.

    Case in point, a working class white person is much more likely to have cultural affinity to a working class black person than they will for a middle class white person.
    On your last point, just look at the footage of the XR dickheads today:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1448240517469331460?s=20
    Is it assault to pull someone by their backpack? The puller did not actually lay hands on the er, pullee.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,029

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    isam said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "Official data shows that construction wage inflation in the three months to July was 11pc. For building materials, the jump was 15pc."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/supply-chain-crisis-destroying-britains-home-renovation-boom/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    and

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/13/food-costs-will-soar-10pc-great-reset-warns-britains-biggest/

    And a bod on r4 this morning saying the cost of shipping one teu container from China has gone up in less than a year from £2,000 to £16,000.

    Double digit inflation nailed on.

    I spoke to a builder yesterday who said 4x2 had gone from £3 to £11 this year. Pretty incredible
    What I can't (yet) work out is how much of this inflation spike is structural as opposed to cyclical.

    I'm inclined to think it's cyclical and related to the Covid rebound, and will work through over 2-3 years, but it could be structural if the world de-globalises to a degree, which I also expect.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,042
    MaxPB said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I guess if it makes white people happy us minorities should just accept being othered with some insulting term that lumps us all together.
    You mean you’re surprised that such language is more about rich white liberals feeling guilty, than it is about people who aren’t rich white liberals?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,181
    algarkirk said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

    I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,248

    Regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    If we have a new deal I would prefer a trade war rather than see it released 3.30pm on Christmas Eve.

    I still have nightmares

    You didn't enjoy Boris' Christmas Miracle?
    rpjs said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Nothing pejorative about being in a minority. Personally think that ethnic minorities or minority ethnic is "othering" in a way that simply minorities is not.
    It absolutely is othering to label us as such. Suddenly individuals cease to exist and every person who isn't white thinks, acts and looks the same. No one would say it about white people.

    Case in point, a working class white person is much more likely to have cultural affinity to a working class black person than they will for a middle class white person.
    On your last point, just look at the footage of the XR dickheads today:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1448240517469331460?s=20
    Is it assault to pull someone by their backpack? The puller did not actually lay hands on the er, pullee.
    You don't even need to hit someone for it to be assault of course.

    It is, peversely, a good thing the protestors don't seem to struggle when dragged out of the way, as it would then develop into an actual fight.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,091

    isam said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "Official data shows that construction wage inflation in the three months to July was 11pc. For building materials, the jump was 15pc."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/supply-chain-crisis-destroying-britains-home-renovation-boom/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    and

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/13/food-costs-will-soar-10pc-great-reset-warns-britains-biggest/

    And a bod on r4 this morning saying the cost of shipping one teu container from China has gone up in less than a year from £2,000 to £16,000.

    Double digit inflation nailed on.

    I spoke to a builder yesterday who said 4x2 had gone from £3 to £11 this year. Pretty incredible
    What I can't (yet) work out is how much of this inflation spike is structural as opposed to cyclical.

    I'm inclined to think it's cyclical and related to the Covid rebound, and will work through over 2-3 years, but it could be structural if the world de-globalises to a degree, which I also expect.
    Inflation is concerning.
  • isam said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "Official data shows that construction wage inflation in the three months to July was 11pc. For building materials, the jump was 15pc."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/supply-chain-crisis-destroying-britains-home-renovation-boom/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    and

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/13/food-costs-will-soar-10pc-great-reset-warns-britains-biggest/

    And a bod on r4 this morning saying the cost of shipping one teu container from China has gone up in less than a year from £2,000 to £16,000.

    Double digit inflation nailed on.

    I spoke to a builder yesterday who said 4x2 had gone from £3 to £11 this year. Pretty incredible
    I always thought it was 8?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,011

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
    The thing is who are you trying to describe and why.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,658
    IshmaelZ said:

    "Official data shows that construction wage inflation in the three months to July was 11pc. For building materials, the jump was 15pc."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/supply-chain-crisis-destroying-britains-home-renovation-boom/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    and

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/13/food-costs-will-soar-10pc-great-reset-warns-britains-biggest/

    And a bod on r4 this morning saying the cost of shipping one teu container from China has gone up in less than a year from £2,000 to £16,000.

    Double digit inflation nailed on.

    AIUI shipping by sea was regarded as super-cheap once spread across all the goods shipped in a given cargo, so while an 8x increase ostensibly is a lot, will it make a lot of difference to the unit price of most shipped goods?
  • Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    The EU chose to add Article 50 to its Treaties post-GFA. Ireland ratified that by referendum and the UK ratified and exercised it.

    So Article 50 trumps the GFA. If the GFA and Article 50 aren't compatible, then its the GFA needs to change not the other way around.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,059
    JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,725
    edited October 2021
    JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Isn't that what I just said?

    You believe Brexit and the GFA are incompatible and it is the fault of the GFA.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,042

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    If your bet is “Biden to be re-nominated by the Dems, Yes/No”, then it will likely be void if he dies in office.

    If the bet is “Dem Nomination 2024”, then it pays out on whatever happens at the Dem Convention in 2024, irrespective of what happens in the meantime. There could be hundreds of names on that list at some point, and they can’t void the whole market on the death of one of them.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,811
    TimT said:

    algarkirk said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

    I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
    Well, if they agreed to it, instead of sorting it out years before, they certainly can't reasonably complain.

    In any case, it was always a simultaneous UK and EU problem, given the nature of NI as partaking of both GB&NI, and Ireland.
  • TimT said:

    algarkirk said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

    I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
    Particularly when they held all the cards.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,248
    algarkirk said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

    I agree for the most part, except that I think the DUP very much do want to be treated differently, in fact they (and others in NI) would get mad if they were treated like every other political party and not treated with kid gloves because of the history of the place. They also want a grievance to argue against.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 12,637
    edited October 2021
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    If your bet is “Biden to be re-nominated by the Dems, Yes/No”, then it will likely be void if he dies in office.

    If the bet is “Dem Nomination 2024”, then it pays out on whatever happens at the Dem Convention in 2024, irrespective of what happens in the meantime. There could be hundreds of names on that list at some point, and they can’t void the whole market on the death of one of them.
    Agreed, but I would not be 100% surprised if Betfair did void on the death of Biden or Trump, particularly if close to the election date, despite their rules saying they won't. Caveat emptor. If its an outsider at the time of death then I would be confident they will follow their rules.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,137
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
    It’s definitely en route to cancellation

    ‘So the term BAME has had its day. But what should replace it?’

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/08/bame-britain-ethnic-minorities-acronym?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    And you can find plenty of non-white people on Twitter who REALLY object to it. I don’t see how it survives
    I obect to it for linguistic reasons. 'Black and Minority Ethnic' - surely this is a tautology, like Cheshire West and Chester or Bath and North East Somerset? And why 'minority ethnic' - surely this is putting the noun and adjective the wrong way around? Why is 'ethnic minority' dodgy but 'minority ethnic' fine?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,907

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    There will certainly be one.
    BTTC.

    British thanks to colonialism
    AGC, for All God's Chillun. Or GTC from the Cher song. Why do we need this incredibly crude classificatory system at all? Find out how people want to identify racially (and identifying is not a joke concept here like it is in gender related issues) and let them identify as that. For instance if I were a Punjabi I'd want to say Punjabi, probably.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,927
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Hopefully we'll ask people what they would like to be called and use that.
  • TimT said:

    algarkirk said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

    I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
    Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.

    Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,248

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Hopefully we'll ask people what they would like to be called and use that.
    And thus you won't get an umbrella term that satisfies everyone, and you end up having the same debate all over again eventually.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,029

    JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Isn't that what I just said?

    You believe Brexit and the GFA are incompatible and it is the fault of the GFA.
    Having thought about it a bit and I think that's right. GFA is faulty. Just another Blair fuck up.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,907
    rpjs said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "Official data shows that construction wage inflation in the three months to July was 11pc. For building materials, the jump was 15pc."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/supply-chain-crisis-destroying-britains-home-renovation-boom/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    and

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/13/food-costs-will-soar-10pc-great-reset-warns-britains-biggest/

    And a bod on r4 this morning saying the cost of shipping one teu container from China has gone up in less than a year from £2,000 to £16,000.

    Double digit inflation nailed on.

    AIUI shipping by sea was regarded as super-cheap once spread across all the goods shipped in a given cargo, so while an 8x increase ostensibly is a lot, will it make a lot of difference to the unit price of most shipped goods?
    The guy said you get 100 washing machines/fridges/whatev in a container, so it adds £140 to a washing machine.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,248
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
    It’s definitely en route to cancellation

    ‘So the term BAME has had its day. But what should replace it?’

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/08/bame-britain-ethnic-minorities-acronym?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    And you can find plenty of non-white people on Twitter who REALLY object to it. I don’t see how it survives
    I obect to it for linguistic reasons. 'Black and Minority Ethnic'

    That's BME, not BAME.

    Never knew why the A wasn't in there from the start, given the numbers.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,011
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
    It’s definitely en route to cancellation

    ‘So the term BAME has had its day. But what should replace it?’

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/08/bame-britain-ethnic-minorities-acronym?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    And you can find plenty of non-white people on Twitter who REALLY object to it. I don’t see how it survives
    I obect to it for linguistic reasons. 'Black and Minority Ethnic' - surely this is a tautology, like Cheshire West and Chester or Bath and North East Somerset? And why 'minority ethnic' - surely this is putting the noun and adjective the wrong way around? Why is 'ethnic minority' dodgy but 'minority ethnic' fine?

    It's the Benedict Cumberbatch faux pas.
  • JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Isn't that what I just said?

    You believe Brexit and the GFA are incompatible and it is the fault of the GFA.
    But if the GFA and Brexit aren't compatible then the GFA is the bit that needs to change.

    Brexit is more important than the GFA. The GFA is a means to an end (peace and democracy), if the GFA no longer serves that purpose then something else needs to replace it that does.
  • Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Hopefully we'll ask people what they would like to be called and use that.
    And when they inevitably have very different views? That doesn't just apply to race but also things like calling Scots British. Some would be offended if you do and others if you don't.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,248
    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Isn't that what I just said?

    You believe Brexit and the GFA are incompatible and it is the fault of the GFA.
    Having thought about it a bit and I think that's right. GFA is faulty. Just another Blair fuck up.
    It's seem to have done the job it needed to for 20 years. Whether it is still what is needed or not wouldn't change that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,042
    JBriskin3 said:

    Ok KKR have done it, but this was spectacular.

    You getting excited by Twenty 20 World Cup yet? Shame I'm gonna miss it as my only Sky sports access is via Scottish pubs
    Hell yeah, I’ve got tickets to a load of matches! :smiley:
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,658

    JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
    Ultimate the NI Protocol dispute is going to boil down to what does the British government value the most. Brexit or peace in Northern Ireland (with the risk of violence overspilling into GB). I suspect it will be the former.

    Of course, we shouldn't rule out a border poll that results in Irish re-unification, which seems to be getting more likely if not very probable if one were to be held tomorrow. Of course, that itself would likely result in violence in NI overspilling into the rest of Ireland.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,029

    JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
    Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,162
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Nothing pejorative about being in a minority. Personally think that ethnic minorities or minority ethnic is "othering" in a way that simply minorities is not.
    It absolutely is othering to label us as such. Suddenly individuals cease to exist and every person who isn't white thinks, acts and looks the same. No one would say it about white people.

    Case in point, a working class white person is much more likely to have cultural affinity to a working class black person than they will for a middle class white person.
    It is generally not a very useful term (whatever the term). Even when looking at ethnic group differences - as I do a fair bit on modelling as it captures variations in health that give better estimates for other things that can be changed - you want ethnic groups as fine as possible. Indian ethnic group and Chinese ethnic group are generally similar (or better outcomes) compared to White on many of the things I'm looking at. Other South Asian groups and black groups worse outcomes. So 'minority ethnic groups' or the like is pretty meaningless.

    Beyond health, where there are some appreciable differences in things that affect different ethnic groups to different extents, I'm not even sure it's that useful at all. A lot of outcomes in life correlate with ethnic groups, but if you look closer you find that really it's just a proxy for deprivation, which is more likely the causal factor (even in my work, deprivation is often stronger and more informative than ethnic group).
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,091

    TimT said:

    algarkirk said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

    I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
    Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.

    Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
    Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,866
    Hurray, Liz Truss's price has come in so much i can finally cashout of Con next leader market without loss digging me oit of my Sunak shaped hole.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    If your bet is “Biden to be re-nominated by the Dems, Yes/No”, then it will likely be void if he dies in office.

    If the bet is “Dem Nomination 2024”, then it pays out on whatever happens at the Dem Convention in 2024, irrespective of what happens in the meantime. There could be hundreds of names on that list at some point, and they can’t void the whole market on the death of one of them.
    Indeed but they could void all bets on a candidate if the candidate died.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    Jonathan said:

    TimT said:

    algarkirk said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

    I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
    Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.

    Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
    Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
    Yes I honestly believe that. And this deal was signed up more than two years ago, its not the TCA. The TCA stands.

    It is completely reasonable for the Protocol to be rewritten post-TCA, it should never have been sequenced to deal with NI before the future of the EU/UK relationship was determined.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,725
    .

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    The EU chose to add Article 50 to its Treaties post-GFA. Ireland ratified that by referendum and the UK ratified and exercised it.

    So Article 50 trumps the GFA. If the GFA and Article 50 aren't compatible, then its the GFA needs to change not the other way around.
    ... meanwhile back on Planet Earth...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,907
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    "Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"

    That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!

    Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
    Hopefully we'll ask people what they would like to be called and use that.
    And thus you won't get an umbrella term that satisfies everyone, and you end up having the same debate all over again eventually.
    But why an umbrella term? And why umbrellise non-whites but not whites, as if I have more in common with a monoglot Estonian than an anglophone Sri Lankan? Forms are online these days, not paper, so you can list as many identities as you like in a dropdown and let people pick one. If you then want to group identities for one reason or another you can do that on an ad hoc basis later on.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021

    .

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    The EU chose to add Article 50 to its Treaties post-GFA. Ireland ratified that by referendum and the UK ratified and exercised it.

    So Article 50 trumps the GFA. If the GFA and Article 50 aren't compatible, then its the GFA needs to change not the other way around.
    ... meanwhile back on Planet Earth...
    ... everything I've been predicting is coming to pass ...
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    If your bet is “Biden to be re-nominated by the Dems, Yes/No”, then it will likely be void if he dies in office.

    If the bet is “Dem Nomination 2024”, then it pays out on whatever happens at the Dem Convention in 2024, irrespective of what happens in the meantime. There could be hundreds of names on that list at some point, and they can’t void the whole market on the death of one of them.
    Indeed but they could void all bets on a candidate if the candidate died.
    Would be horrendous for pure layers! And cause serious potential credit liability issues as if your book is balanced you dont need the funds on deposit for each individual selection, as the assumption is the market is paid out in full with 1 winner (or voided).
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,181
    MattW said:

    Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:

    https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783
    Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.

    What happened to Argentina?

    I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.

    I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.

    In my understanding:

    Military coup, leading to import substitution instead of investing in agriculture (where it had a comparative advantage and which had made it rich in the first place). Coupled with political instability and poor macroeconomic management, the result was hyperinflation and underinvestment.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,866

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    Something basically identical was in their 2020 market too yet they still suspended when Trump got Covid.

    Betfair cannot be trusted.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    These really do look like significant concessions by the EU. Lord Frost is truly a terrible negotiator:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-58871221
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,042

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Betting question. If you were to lay Trump for the WH today, and he died tomorrow, what happens to the bet?
    Would they partially settle? Would my money be tied up until I decide to back him at 1000 to cash out? Would I even be able to back him or would I be stuck waiting 37 months to collect?

    The market would be suspended. Smarkets and Betdaq would reopen in a few days and Trump would head out to 1000, or possibly just instantly settle as a loser.
    Betfair would probably suspend the market for 4 years. Betfair are useless at stuff like that.
    Wouldn't bets on Trump be voided if he died?
    Bets that mention Trump by name in the header, most likely yes.

    Bets on, for example, next President or Republican nominee, no.
    Oh wow this line now appears in Betfair rules.

    If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.

    I thought betting on death was not acceptable. At least theoretically someone could lay a politician and then shoot them. 😕
    If your bet is “Biden to be re-nominated by the Dems, Yes/No”, then it will likely be void if he dies in office.

    If the bet is “Dem Nomination 2024”, then it pays out on whatever happens at the Dem Convention in 2024, irrespective of what happens in the meantime. There could be hundreds of names on that list at some point, and they can’t void the whole market on the death of one of them.
    Agreed, but I would not be 100% surprised if Betfair did void on the death of Biden or Trump, particularly if close to the election date, despite their rules saying they won't. Caveat emptor. If its an outsider at the time of death then I would be confident they will follow their rules.
    If the market explicitly says that it will keep running in the event of death of a candidate, then they’ll have their arses sued by losing punters.

    The one possible exception, would be if the death of a leading candidate was a political assassination.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,091

    Jonathan said:

    TimT said:

    algarkirk said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    How does that solve matters for the EU though?

    Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.

    I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
    Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
    A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.

    (BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)

    I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
    Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.

    Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
    Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
    Yes I honestly believe that. And this deal was signed up more than two years ago, its not the TCA. The TCA stands.

    It is completely reasonable for the Protocol to be rewritten post-TCA, it should never have been sequenced to deal with NI before the future of the EU/UK relationship was determined.
    I can’t remember Boris saying there were these problems when he promoted the Brexit settlement.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,979
    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
    Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
    He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.

    It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,725

    .

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    The EU chose to add Article 50 to its Treaties post-GFA. Ireland ratified that by referendum and the UK ratified and exercised it.

    So Article 50 trumps the GFA. If the GFA and Article 50 aren't compatible, then its the GFA needs to change not the other way around.
    ... meanwhile back on Planet Earth...
    ... everything I've been predicting is coming to pass ...
    No, everything I have been predicting is coming to pass, although not as quickly and to the extent (yet) I had anticipated. Sectarian problems in NI, trading issues between the EU and the UK. Labour shortages, food and fuel supplies compromised. And in unrelated news inflation and interest rate increases.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,927

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
    If you have to, just use non-white - it's the clearest description of what you're trying to say.

    Understandably there are many people who don't like being referred to as not being something else, with a negative definition, rather than a positive identification that they can relate to. So you should find a better way altogether to construct your statement to avoid referring to a heterogeneous group of people in such a clumsy way, or avoid referring to a heterogeneous group at all where referring to a more specific group would be better.

    There's no point in searching for a synonym that means exactly the same thing. It's the meaning that is problematic, not the sounds used to represent it.
  • @jeremycorbyn uses the @socialistcam rally tonight to show his solidarity with @ClaudiaWebbe. Solidarity Claudia! #twt21
    https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1442940020935983105
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,608

    JBriskin3 said:

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
    Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
    That would have been an interesting Remain campaigning tactic. And it is interesting that remain never campaigned on the basis that "We can't" or even on the basis "On moral grounds we shouldn't".

    Having said that, the thought that the GFA should have stopped Brexit is not worthier than the thought that, following Brexit, the RoI also leave the EU to preserve the GFA.

    No, already done deals will ever stop the world rolling on and stuff changing. Nothing in reality preserves the special status of the Warsaw Pact, NATO, the UN, the GFA, the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, or the EU.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,248

    .

    Omnium said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    eek said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.

    Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.

    Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.

    I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
    The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
    The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
    I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.

    The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
    What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
    Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
    Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
    Off topic

    I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.

    The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
    The EU chose to add Article 50 to its Treaties post-GFA. Ireland ratified that by referendum and the UK ratified and exercised it.

    So Article 50 trumps the GFA. If the GFA and Article 50 aren't compatible, then its the GFA needs to change not the other way around.
    ... meanwhile back on Planet Earth...
    ... everything I've been predicting is coming to pass ...
    No, everything I have been predicting is coming to pass, although not as quickly and to the extent (yet) I had anticipated. Sectarian problems in NI, trading issues between the EU and the UK. Labour shortages, food and fuel supplies compromised. And in unrelated news inflation and interest rate increases.
    No no, you want to be all 'Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen', proper Emperor Palpatine style.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 255
    rpjs said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "Official data shows that construction wage inflation in the three months to July was 11pc. For building materials, the jump was 15pc."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/supply-chain-crisis-destroying-britains-home-renovation-boom/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    and

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/13/food-costs-will-soar-10pc-great-reset-warns-britains-biggest/

    And a bod on r4 this morning saying the cost of shipping one teu container from China has gone up in less than a year from £2,000 to £16,000.

    Double digit inflation nailed on.

    AIUI shipping by sea was regarded as super-cheap once spread across all the goods shipped in a given cargo, so while an 8x increase ostensibly is a lot, will it make a lot of difference to the unit price of most shipped goods?
    From what I’ve read, it’s bulky items like furniture, garden furniture, big childrens toys etc. On the cost of an LED lightbulb, at 2 million lightbulbs per container, it’s only a few pence more.
This discussion has been closed.