Just on Mrs Merkel, the one thing she has in her favour is that the German economic situation continued to improve. Q1 saw wages grow 3.4% y-o-y, against inflation of 0.5%. The 2.9% real wage increase is the highest in the developed world by a comfortable margin (the US - in second place - in just 1.2%), and with unemployment at just 4.2%, it would not be unreasonable to expect wage increases to accelerate this year.
Rising wages and rising house prices (as Mrs Thatcher would attest) can trump terrorist incidents.
Mrs T was never regarded as soft on terrorism. I doubt she would have reacted to the Syrian issue in the soft-headed way Mrs Merkel has.
There is a difference between being a leader trying to deal with terrorist attacks in your country - where people accept that such stuff may happen and that you are doing your best - and being seen as responsible for actively inviting into your country actual/potential terrorists.
I'm not sure that's correct. The Anglo-Irish agreement was seen by many as a complete sell-out to the IRA, giving the Republic a say in the government of the North.
Edit to add: Mrs Thatcher also kept the Common Travel Area - on the basis that the economic benefits outweighed the security costs, which is a direct analog
Together with the Single Market, an unending supply of cheap foreign labour powers the German economy (and by consequence much of the northern European economy). If you turn off that supply (as many in the UK seem to want), the consequence will be an economic slowdown and the return of inflation as labour shortages bite (remember the late 1980s ?).
It comes to the central question - what price prosperity ? If the price of prosperity is immigration to supply cheap labour, are you happy to pay that price ? Merkel has made a judgement the Germans will be happy. May is going to have to fudge and mudge between the globalisers like yourself and the voters of Barking. You might prefer continued economic growth and all that flows from it, they might prefer an end to immigration and all that flows from it.
Would it be rude to ask what happens when that surge of immigrants get old and needs pensions and health care for the usual chronic and expensive conditions associated with the elderly ? This approach is either a ponzi scheme where we need to increase the number of new immigrants year on year ad infinitum to both help the economy and pay for those immigrants that are retiring and simultaneously becoming more expensive and moving out the workforce, or its assuming that they all reach 67 and move somewhere else.
Yes it would be rude and waycist too. Wash your mouth out with soap and water and don't make any more inappropriate and crass comments.
I suspect Hamilton may win the next race, and the odds will lengthen more. However, Hamilton's likely to take some penalties later in the year which could cost him significant points. The title race isn't over yet.
I'm not sure that's correct. The Anglo-Irish agreement was seen by many as a complete sell-out to the IRA, giving the Republic a say in the government of the North.
NI politicians threaten legal challenge to Brexit Group demands Belfast Agreement be legally protected before UK move to trigger EU exit
I'm not sure that's correct. The Anglo-Irish agreement was seen by many as a complete sell-out to the IRA, giving the Republic a say in the government of the North.
NI politicians threaten legal challenge to Brexit Group demands Belfast Agreement be legally protected before UK move to trigger EU exit
I'm not sure that's correct. The Anglo-Irish agreement was seen by many as a complete sell-out to the IRA, giving the Republic a say in the government of the North.
NI politicians threaten legal challenge to Brexit Group demands Belfast Agreement be legally protected before UK move to trigger EU exit
These remainers are getting quite pythonesque. Even if they win, a commons majority in may 2017 and the parliament act in June 2017 is enough to overturn it.
Just on Mrs Merkel, the one thing she has in her favour is that the German economic situation continued to improve. Q1 saw wages grow 3.4% y-o-y, against inflation of 0.5%. The 2.9% real wage increase is the highest in the developed world by a comfortable margin (the US - in second place - in just 1.2%), and with unemployment at just 4.2%, it would not be unreasonable to expect wage increases to accelerate this year.
Rising wages and rising house prices (as Mrs Thatcher would attest) can trump terrorist incidents.
Mrs T was never regarded as soft on terrorism. I doubt she would have reacted to the Syrian issue in the soft-headed way Mrs Merkel has.
There is a difference between being a leader trying to deal with terrorist attacks in your country - where people accept that such stuff may happen and that you are doing your best - and being seen as responsible for actively inviting into your country actual/potential terrorists.
I'm not sure that's correct. The Anglo-Irish agreement was seen by many as a complete sell-out to the IRA, giving the Republic a say in the government of the North.
Yes it certainly was - and Mrs T herself regretted signing it later.
I have no idea about whether this latest German attack is terrorism or not. But the chances are that if you let in a lot of people from a violent warzone, some of them are going to have severe mental health issues. In fact, if you let in two million people from anywhere, some of them will have severe mental health issues. But that is not necessarily a good enough reason not to let the two million in.
This was definitely a suicide bomb attack by an Islamic terrorist. He had a backpack which blew up and it contained nails and other shrapnel to injure and kill as many people as possible. He also tried to enter the local festival but was denied entry. Good work by the security guards. It looks like he then went to the nearest populated area and blew himself up.
The thing is what do we consider to be a terrorist? We always used to think of it as guerilla armies targeting civilian soft targets when they can't beat a stronger army. Hamas is an obvious example. If someone doesn't have a clear link to an organisation are they a terrorist? Of course the harm done is the same but when we hear the term 'terrorist' I still think we're inclined to think of a shadowy group conspiracy rather than a deranged nutter. Were Breivik and Anthony McVeigh terrorists.
Also from what you say there's no evidence that this is Islamic/Islamist. It's what we'd all be inclined to believe but to assume that because someone comes from a certain part of the world, may have been bought up as a Muslim that therefore the motive must be Islam is to play the fundamentalists game.
'SWINGERS PARTY SHOOTING' Murder investigation launched after a man is found dead and several others injured at ‘sex party murder’ at £1m bungalow in Surrey
Just on Mrs Merkel, the one thing she has in her favour is that the German economic situation continued to improve. Q1 saw wages grow 3.4% y-o-y, against inflation of 0.5%. The 2.9% real wage increase is the highest in the developed world by a comfortable margin (the US - in second place - in just 1.2%), and with unemployment at just 4.2%, it would not be unreasonable to expect wage increases to accelerate this year.
Rising wages and rising house prices (as Mrs Thatcher would attest) can trump terrorist incidents.
Indeed - her policy on admitting large numbers of migrants has to be seen in that light. It wasn't some kind of misplaced compassion - it was purely and simply to ensure the continuation of the pool of cheap labour needed to power the German economy. Just as the British economy has prospered on the back of cheap imported labour (and that explains Blair's decision in 2004), so has the German.
Together with the Single Market, an unending supply of cheap foreign labour powers the German economy (and by consequence much of the northern European economy). If you turn off that supply (as many in the UK seem to want), the consequence will be an economic slowdown and the return of inflation as labour shortages bite (remember the late 1980s ?).
It comes to the central question - what price prosperity ? If the price of prosperity is immigration to supply cheap labour, are you happy to pay that price ? Merkel has made a judgement the Germans will be happy. May is going to have to fudge and mudge between the globalisers like yourself and the voters of Barking. You might prefer continued economic growth and all that flows from it, they might prefer an end to immigration and all that flows from it.
There are your two sides going forward - those willing to accept the social, cultural and political consequences of migration with the trade off of continued prosperity and those willing to accept the economic consequences of ending migration while believing there will be social, cultural and political benefits.
Too simplistic a choice. The choice is between ending migration of people who are or may be a threat to social cohesion and those who are not. Economic costs and benefits are not the only measure of an immigration policy. Migration of skilled Poles into Germany is fine whereas migration of unskilled Afghans is not. A state can and should make a distinction. Some migrants make a contribution and bring few or no disadvantages. Others make little contribution and their disadvantages outweigh any benefits.
On topic, the value's in Trump if these "incidents" continue. He's the one offering a solution. It maybe a crap, badly thought out and unworkable solution, but he's the only one saying it to a lot of pissed off voters.
I have no idea about whether this latest German attack is terrorism or not. But the chances are that if you let in a lot of people from a violent warzone, some of them are going to have severe mental health issues. In fact, if you let in two million people from anywhere, some of them will have severe mental health issues. But that is not necessarily a good enough reason not to let the two million in.
This was definitely a suicide bomb attack by an Islamic terrorist. He had a backpack which blew up and it contained nails and other shrapnel to injure and kill as many people as possible. He also tried to enter the local festival but was denied entry. Good work by the security guards. It looks like he then went to the nearest populated area and blew himself up.
The thing is what do we consider to be a terrorist? We always used to think of it as guerilla armies targeting civilian soft targets when they can't beat a stronger army. Hamas is an obvious example. If someone doesn't have a clear link to an organisation are they a terrorist? Of course the harm done is the same but when we hear the term 'terrorist' I still think we're inclined to think of a shadowy group conspiracy rather than a deranged nutter. Were Breivik and Anthony McVeigh terrorists.
Also from what you say there's no evidence that this is Islamic/Islamist. It's what we'd all be inclined to believe but to assume that because someone comes from a certain part of the world, may have been bought up as a Muslim that therefore the motive must be Islam is to play the fundamentalists game.
Quite right. He was probably blowing himself and others to bits in protest at Bavarian parking regulations.
I have no idea about whether this latest German attack is terrorism or not. But the chances are that if you let in a lot of people from a violent warzone, some of them are going to have severe mental health issues. In fact, if you let in two million people from anywhere, some of them will have severe mental health issues. But that is not necessarily a good enough reason not to let the two million in.
This was definitely a suicide bomb attack by an Islamic terrorist. He had a backpack which blew up and it contained nails and other shrapnel to injure and kill as many people as possible. He also tried to enter the local festival but was denied entry. Good work by the security guards. It looks like he then went to the nearest populated area and blew himself up.
The thing is what do we consider to be a terrorist? We always used to think of it as guerilla armies targeting civilian soft targets when they can't beat a stronger army. Hamas is an obvious example. If someone doesn't have a clear link to an organisation are they a terrorist? Of course the harm done is the same but when we hear the term 'terrorist' I still think we're inclined to think of a shadowy group conspiracy rather than a deranged nutter. Were Breivik and Anthony McVeigh terrorists.
Also from what you say there's no evidence that this is Islamic/Islamist. It's what we'd all be inclined to believe but to assume that because someone comes from a certain part of the world, may have been bought up as a Muslim that therefore the motive must be Islam is to play the fundamentalists game.
The killing of the pregnant woman seems to have been a crime of passion, the shootings in Munich the revenge of a bullied teenager. I shouldn't think either are anything to do with ISIS, and the latter wasn't even a recent immigrant (or an immigrant at all?) so can't be blamed on Merkel.
Just on Mrs Merkel, the one thing she has in her favour is that the German economic situation continued to improve. Q1 saw wages grow 3.4% y-o-y, against inflation of 0.5%. The 2.9% real wage increase is the highest in the developed world by a comfortable margin (the US - in second place - in just 1.2%), and with unemployment at just 4.2%, it would not be unreasonable to expect wage increases to accelerate this year.
Rising wages and rising house prices (as Mrs Thatcher would attest) can trump terrorist incidents.
Mrs T was never regarded as soft on terrorism. I doubt she would have reacted to the Syrian issue in the soft-headed way Mrs Merkel has.
There is a difference between being a leader trying to deal with terrorist attacks in your country - where people accept that such stuff may happen and that you are doing your best - and being seen as responsible for actively inviting into your country actual/potential terrorists.
I'm not sure that's correct. The Anglo-Irish agreement was seen by many as a complete sell-out to the IRA, giving the Republic a say in the government of the North.
Edit to add: Mrs Thatcher also kept the Common Travel Area - on the basis that the economic benefits outweighed the security costs, which is a direct analog
I don't think this invalidates my point which is that being soft on terrorists is not what most people think of in relation to Mrs T, though I accept that many in the Protestant community in NI saw any concession to Catholics as appeasement of terrorists. Says more about them than about Mrs T, IMO.
I have no idea about whether this latest German attack is terrorism or not. But the chances are that if you let in a lot of people from a violent warzone, some of them are going to have severe mental health issues. In fact, if you let in two million people from anywhere, some of them will have severe mental health issues. But that is not necessarily a good enough reason not to let the two million in.
This was definitely a suicide bomb attack by an Islamic terrorist. He had a backpack which blew up and it contained nails and other shrapnel to injure and kill as many people as possible. He also tried to enter the local festival but was denied entry. Good work by the security guards. It looks like he then went to the nearest populated area and blew himself up.
The thing is what do we consider to be a terrorist? We always used to think of it as guerilla armies targeting civilian soft targets when they can't beat a stronger army. Hamas is an obvious example. If someone doesn't have a clear link to an organisation are they a terrorist? Of course the harm done is the same but when we hear the term 'terrorist' I still think we're inclined to think of a shadowy group conspiracy rather than a deranged nutter. Were Breivik and Anthony McVeigh terrorists.
Also from what you say there's no evidence that this is Islamic/Islamist. It's what we'd all be inclined to believe but to assume that because someone comes from a certain part of the world, may have been bought up as a Muslim that therefore the motive must be Islam is to play the fundamentalists game.
It's an irregular verb apparently. “I am a freedom fighter, you are a guerilla, he is a terrorist”.
I still feel a lot of liberal inclined people are being excessively sanguine, possibly through being able to view the situation at arms length. A Conservative is a liberal that has been mugged by reality
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Too simplistic a choice. The choice is between ending migration of people who are or may be a threat to social cohesion and those who are not. Economic costs and benefits are not the only measure of an immigration policy. Migration of skilled Poles into Germany is fine whereas migration of unskilled Afghans is not. A state can and should make a distinction. Some migrants make a contribution and bring few or no disadvantages. Others make little contribution and their disadvantages outweigh any benefits.
Is there not also an issue that basing an economy on an increasing supply of cheap labour actually leads to under investment and lower productivity? Such a plan may work in the short term for those that have and but also leads to lower GDP per capita, that is to say those that do end up poorer as does the country in the longer term.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Time to move on. There is no point trying to convince people of the merits of remain any more, the vote has happened.
Mr. Sandpit, you're probably right, although my Betfair account is a shade anaemic. I'll give it a look.
Edited extra bit: I'll wait and see how things stand after Germany, I think.
An idea for a hedge - Lewis is currently 25 for Sports Personality, small stakes available. If he wins three in a row and our Olympians fail to meet the massive expectations, I'd expect him to come in sharply from that price. Andy Murray still justified favourite, but the last GP is only about a fortnight before the awards this year (and I've got tickets, to the race that is!)
Also, someone please nominate Paddy Lowe for an honour in the New Year. What a car.
Security folk have a simple definition of risk. It's a combination of the value of the asset we wish to protect, the capability of the threat actor and the residual vulnerabilities in our own system. It's a useful model for IT security. For people, I like a simpler method.
We all run risks everyday. We manage those risks consciously or subconsciously, whether that's by defensive driving, or not walking through that dimly lit subway at midnight or not drinking a bottle of wine a night.
If we look at England & Wales, 529k people died last year. That's over 10k per week, 1.4k per day. While risk of death isn't flat in practice, but the annual male mortality rate is around 116 per 10k p.a. with women at 86.
Generally we manage these implicit risks quite well; some may have an irrational fear of flying, or decide to live entirely on beansprouts, but by and large we just get on with our lives.
Threat is based on malice, and that interferes with our cognition. Water can kill you; we all accept that (and 400 UKians drown every year), but it's a passive thing. The sea isn't actively out to kill you dear reader.
We find it very hard to act rationally in the face of threats, even if the probability of that threat is low. Islamic terrorism and pedophiles are two good examples of this phenomenon. These low-level threats have a chilling effect across society, whether that's our willingness to accept further Muslim immigration or our reluctance to employ male nannies/primary school teachers.
* Note. I am not equating Muslims with pedophiles, before someone jumps on the outrage bus.
How we deal with this is not easy - it's an open question in the security field. People feel unsafe, even if that is not a rational response. Sadly the likely response will be an increase in security theatre and lots and lots of hand-wringing/hashtaggery.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Time to move on. There is no point trying to convince people of the merits of remain any more, the vote has happened.
What was it in the " we lost " part of my statement that makes you think I'm not moving on ?
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Time to move on. There is no point trying to convince people of the merits of remain any more, the vote has happened.
What was it in the " we lost " part of my statement that makes you think I'm not moving on ?
The fact you keep repeating REMAIN propaganda points, mantra-like, perhaps?
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Sooner or later, the WWC will be coming for the Leave campaigners who lied to them on immigration.
I have no idea about whether this latest German attack is terrorism or not. But the chances are that if you let in a lot of people from a violent warzone, some of them are going to have severe mental health issues. In fact, if you let in two million people from anywhere, some of them will have severe mental health issues. But that is not necessarily a good enough reason not to let the two million in.
Yes it is, because it's more than just 'severe mental health problems'. The first job of an immigration / border control system has to be the protection of the citizens of the country to whom the government is accountable. When there was a clear alternative - support for the Syrian refugees in the region - there was no need at all to open the doors, which not only attracted many refugees but also economic migrants.
Mr. Sandpit, not tempted by that Hamilton bet. Not sure if he won SPOTY last year, and this year he'll have competition from Murray and perhaps Olympians, as well as Froome. The diminished and soon-to-vanish free-to-air coverage won't help either.
Could happen, of course, and the odds are long and likely hedgable.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Time to move on. There is no point trying to convince people of the merits of remain any more, the vote has happened.
What was it in the " we lost " part of my statement that makes you think I'm not moving on ?
The fact you keep repeating REMAIN propaganda points, mantra-like, perhaps?
It's propaganda to point out that there is a very difficult circle to square between limiting immigration and damage to the economy, which will likely disappoint thousands of Leave voters?
Donald Trump has now threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the World Trade Organisation unless major renegotiation can be achieved in a new interview with NBC. He also promised to introduce 'extreme vetting' for French and German visitors to the U.S. saying recent terror attacks 'were their own fault because they allowed people to come into their territory. That is why BREXIT happened, the UK is saying "we're tired of this" '
The thing is what do we consider to be a terrorist? We always used to think of it as guerilla armies targeting civilian soft targets when they can't beat a stronger army. Hamas is an obvious example. If someone doesn't have a clear link to an organisation are they a terrorist? Of course the harm done is the same but when we hear the term 'terrorist' I still think we're inclined to think of a shadowy group conspiracy rather than a deranged nutter. Were Breivik and Anthony McVeigh terrorists.
To my mind it's not complicated, although legally the definition is likely more subtle.
If a person carries out an violent attack, or threatens so, for a cause as a member of a terrorist group, in the name of a cause by claiming allegiance, or in support of a cause by announcing shared grievances, then it is terrorism. i.e. The use of unauthorised violence in the pursuit of political aims.
It doesn't matter how they do it, where or who they target, or what previous criminal or mental health issues they have. If they cross the line and associate the violence with a cause it is terrorism.
By such criteria both Breivik and McVeigh (Timothy) were terrorists.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
Mr. Hall, if you're right, then it's only a mad axeman and a suicide bomber in the last week (in Germany).
Undoubtedly there is a problem, but it's too easy to lump every incident in the same box as 'terrorism'. I guess one could say each of them is an example of a clash of cultures though.
Donald Trump has now threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the World Trade Organisation unless major renegotiation can be achieved in a new interview with NBC. He also promised to introduce 'extreme vetting' for French and German visitors to the U.S. saying recent terror attacks 'were their own fault because they allowed people to come into their territory. That is why BREXIT happened, the UK is saying "we're tired of this" '
His analysis is simplistic, surprise surprise, and his prescriptions amount to putting up a closed sign and locking and barring the door.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Time to move on. There is no point trying to convince people of the merits of remain any more, the vote has happened.
What was it in the " we lost " part of my statement that makes you think I'm not moving on ?
The fact you keep repeating REMAIN propaganda points, mantra-like, perhaps?
Lining to an article by Mark Littlewood who is #1 A Brexiter #2 Director General of the IEA is repeating Remain propaganda ? OK.
I have no idea about whether this latest German attack is terrorism or not. But the chances are that if you let in a lot of people from a violent warzone, some of them are going to have severe mental health issues. In fact, if you let in two million people from anywhere, some of them will have severe mental health issues. But that is not necessarily a good enough reason not to let the two million in.
This was definitely a suicide bomb attack by an Islamic terrorist. He had a backpack which blew up and it contained nails and other shrapnel to injure and kill as many people as possible. He also tried to enter the local festival but was denied entry. Good work by the security guards. It looks like he then went to the nearest populated area and blew himself up.
The thing is what do we consider to be a terrorist? We always used to think of it as guerilla armies targeting civilian soft targets when they can't beat a stronger army. Hamas is an obvious example. If someone doesn't have a clear link to an organisation are they a terrorist? Of course the harm done is the same but when we hear the term 'terrorist' I still think we're inclined to think of a shadowy group conspiracy rather than a deranged nutter. Were Breivik and Anthony McVeigh terrorists.
Also from what you say there's no evidence that this is Islamic/Islamist. It's what we'd all be inclined to believe but to assume that because someone comes from a certain part of the world, may have been bought up as a Muslim that therefore the motive must be Islam is to play the fundamentalists game.
A terrorist is simply someone or some people who wish to force a change in policy by the application of terror. That may be backed up - and usually is - by the actual application of violence but the threat of it works as well, providing that the threat is believed to be credible.
A lone actor, even one who expects his own death, can therefore be a terrorist if he expects that others will follow in his path to maintain the threat of violence on the issue in question. That doesn't preclude the possibility that they're deluded in what they expect.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
The trouble is that the thesis doesn't actually bear examination. If we go back to the A8 accession in 2004, UK GDP/capita (in constant currency) was $38,146. A decade later, it was $40,326. that's an increase of $218 per year. Taking it out to 2015, flatters - GDP/capita jumped ot $40,933. However, even taking the best possible range, we're increasing GDP/capita by .6% p.a, or just over 7% in 12 years.
These figures are obviously distorted due to the 2008 crash. In the decade 1997-2007, GDP per/capita grew by 21.5%. In the prior decade, 22%.
"Convention delegates supporting Mr Sanders, with whom Mrs Clinton fought an acrimonous primary battle, threatened protests, and his supporters planned marches outside the hall including delivering a coffin signifying the party was "dead" to them.
Norman Solomon, a Sanders delegate to the convention from California, told the Washington Post: "The outrage is not just smouldering, it is burning. There has been an insurgency in the party far beyond anybody'’s expectations."
Donald Trump has now threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the World Trade Organisation unless major renegotiation can be achieved in a new interview with NBC. He also promised to introduce 'extreme vetting' for French and German visitors to the U.S. saying recent terror attacks 'were their own fault because they allowed people to come into their territory. That is why BREXIT happened, the UK is saying "we're tired of this" '
His analysis is simplistic, surprise surprise, and his prescriptions amount to putting up a closed sign and locking and barring the door.
A Trump win could well see the WTO collapse and coupled with Brexit see a new era of protectionism and more restricted travel arise, especially if the likes of IDS and Redwood get their way too and force May to end all free movement and take the UK not only out of the EU but out of the single market
PBers might want to note that London IS devolved and has its own governmental system and mayor. The mayor doesn't (yet) have powers to develop a London visa but he can lobby for it with the biggest personal mandate in Europe other than the French president.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Time to move on. There is no point trying to convince people of the merits of remain any more, the vote has happened.
What was it in the " we lost " part of my statement that makes you think I'm not moving on ?
The fact you keep repeating REMAIN propaganda points, mantra-like, perhaps?
Lining to an article by Mark Littlewood who is #1 A Brexiter #2 Director General of the IEA is repeating Remain propaganda ? OK.
Mark has a particular perspective on immigration, which is presented in a polemical way here.
It's your desperate grasping at this as some kind of eternal truth (and your interpretation of it) that shows my point.
Donald Trump has now threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the World Trade Organisation unless major renegotiation can be achieved in a new interview with NBC. He also promised to introduce 'extreme vetting' for French and German visitors to the U.S. saying recent terror attacks 'were their own fault because they allowed people to come into their territory. That is why BREXIT happened, the UK is saying "we're tired of this" '
His analysis is simplistic, surprise surprise, and his prescriptions amount to putting up a closed sign and locking and barring the door.
A Trump win could well see the WTO collapse and coupled with Brexit see a new era of protectionism and more restricted travel arise, especially if the likes of IDS and Redwood get their way too and force May to end all free movement and take the UK not only out of the EU but out of the single market too
The WTO doesn't need to collapse. It's already noting that protectionism is on the increase - there have been over 1.1k newly erected trade barriers globally this year.
Post Brexit, I've had to read some bloody dull documents to try and make sense of the overall commentary. Tariff levels aren't the issue (modulo economic warfare like tariffs on Chinese rolled steel); it's the non-tariff measures that governments are cheerfully introducing for entirely tactical reasons.
The WTO has been successful in reducing overall tariff levels, but it struggles to deal with differing regulatory and compliance regimes, and fails completely in the face of political barriers (simplest example I can think of is US vs European attitudes to GMO).
PBers might want to note that London IS devolved and has its own governmental system and mayor. The mayor doesn't (yet) have powers to develop a London visa but he can lobby for it with the biggest personal mandate in Europe other than the French president.
I detest the idea of a privacy law, but this sort of collusion between police and journalists was way, way over the top, especially given the reputation of the man involved and the nature of the alleged offences. Sir Cliff has a point when he says the incident ruined him mentally.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
Donald Trump has now threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the World Trade Organisation unless major renegotiation can be achieved in a new interview with NBC. He also promised to introduce 'extreme vetting' for French and German visitors to the U.S. saying recent terror attacks 'were their own fault because they allowed people to come into their territory. That is why BREXIT happened, the UK is saying "we're tired of this" '
His analysis is simplistic, surprise surprise, and his prescriptions amount to putting up a closed sign and locking and barring the door.
A Trump win could well see the WTO collapse and coupled with Brexit see a new era of protectionism and more restricted travel arise, especially if the likes of IDS and Redwood get their way too and force May to end all free movement and take the UK not only out of the EU but out of the single market too
The WTO doesn't need to collapse. It's already noting that protectionism is on the increase - there have been over 1.1k newly erected trade barriers globally this year.
Post Brexit, I've had to read some bloody dull documents to try and make sense of the overall commentary. Tariff levels aren't the issue (modulo economic warfare like tariffs on Chinese rolled steel); it's the non-tariff measures that governments are cheerfully introducing for entirely tactical reasons.
The WTO has been successful in reducing overall tariff levels, but it struggles to deal with differing regulatory and compliance regimes, and fails completely in the face of political barriers (simplest example I can think of is US vs European attitudes to GMO).
Unfortunately the WTO has lost its way a bit in recent years and has become a rather half-hearted champion for freer global trade.
But the big mistake was to allow discriminatory regional trade agreements to proliferate in the way they have. These are now major blockages to further multilateral trade liberalisation.
Murdoch is a free trade backing libertarian. If his backing of BREXIT leads to a more protectionist, isolationist west, rather than the free trading, libertarian nirvana he was hoping for, then tough luck Rupert!
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
rUK is parasitically clinging to London's coat tails, feasting on whatever scraps it deigns to toss to the floor. Londoners assume the rest of the country should be grateful for this state of affairs, are startled to discover it's not actually the case,
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
I agree that being dismissive is unhelpful. But the argument, as posited, is wrong. Let's pretend the treasury forecast was correct. It stated that the UK economy would be 6.2% smaller in 2030 than it would be if we voted Remain.
UK trend growth rate is 2.5%. That means in fifteen years, the UK economy would be 37.5% larger than it is now. Therefore the Brexit economy would be 31.3% larger than it is now.
Therefore, the most slanted, one-eyed forecast, which was rubbished by people like the IFS is forecasting a reduction in UK trend growth to 1.95%.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
With the moaning, special-pleading, and list of grievances those remainer Londoners are starting to sound an awful lot like the bloody Nats.
It really does not seem all that remarkable to me that people who believe in irrational things do irrational things. Those that believe in an omnipotent and (even more remarkably) interested god are simply irrational. Once the most important thing in your life is appeasing that fantasy you can become dangerous.
So if you think that women choosing what clothes they wish to wear or not wear is an insult to that god you feel inclined to do something about it. If you think that what other people do with their sexual parts is any business of yours you condemn your fellow human beings and treat them as less worthy and ultimately evil. Similarly if you are part of a religion which thinks that only those that share the same delusions are going to be "saved" or are more worthy you disrespect others.
Some religions, not many, are fairly passive about this but certain more successful religions (and there is a link in that success, have no doubt about it) positively teach their members that they have a duty to proselytise, punish non believers, kill apostates, etc etc. Our domestic religions are tired, conscious of their own absurdity and mainly harmless. The religions we have imported in recent times are not. We only need to look at our own history to see how dangerous these delusions can be. It is exasperating that our gradual move to rationality is being put back like this.
One of the interesting conclusions (which may or may not be true) that they come to is that one of the motivations for Lone Wolfs is posthumous publicity, and that by restricting information about the attacker results in fewer attacks.
Anyway: it's a very interesting analysis and I would suggest everyone on here reads it.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
RCS voted Leave, I believe.
London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
Donald Trump has now threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the World Trade Organisation unless major renegotiation can be achieved in a new interview with NBC. He also promised to introduce 'extreme vetting' for French and German visitors to the U.S. saying recent terror attacks 'were their own fault because they allowed people to come into their territory. That is why BREXIT happened, the UK is saying "we're tired of this" '
His analysis is simplistic, surprise surprise, and his prescriptions amount to putting up a closed sign and locking and barring the door.
A Trump win could well see the WTO collapse and coupled with Brexit see a new era of protectionism and more restricted travel arise, especially if the likes of IDS and Redwood get their way too and force May to end all free movement and take the UK not only out of the EU but out of the single market too
The WTO doesn't need to collapse. It's already noting that protectionism is on the increase - there have been over 1.1k newly erected trade barriers globally this year.
Post Brexit, I've had to read some bloody dull documents to try and make sense of the overall commentary. Tariff levels aren't the issue (modulo economic warfare like tariffs on Chinese rolled steel); it's the non-tariff measures that governments are cheerfully introducing for entirely tactical reasons.
The WTO has been successful in reducing overall tariff levels, but it struggles to deal with differing regulatory and compliance regimes, and fails completely in the face of political barriers (simplest example I can think of is US vs European attitudes to GMO).
Well, that's the crux isn't it? Trade agreements which prohibit NTBs diminish national sovereignty. Those which do not limit NTBs are gamed by governments to protect local industries and therefore cause diminished trust between countries.
I agree that being dismissive is unhelpful. But the argument, as posited, is wrong. Let's pretend the treasury forecast was correct. It stated that the UK economy would be 6.2% smaller in 2030 than it would be if we voted Remain.
UK trend growth rate is 2.5%. That means in fifteen years, the UK economy would be 37.5% larger than it is now. Therefore the Brexit economy would be 31.3% larger than it is now.
Therefore, the most slanted, one-eyed forecast, which was rubbished by people like the IFS is forecasting a reduction in UK trend growth to 1.95%.
The wonders of compound interest. Even a small cut in annual growth makes us substantially poorer after a few years. 6% poorer is a big difference. So the argument, as posited, was correct (assuming you believe the model, of course).
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
With the moaning, special-pleading, and list of grievances those remainer Londoners are starting to sound an awful lot like the bloody Nats.
I am surprised Kavanagh missed out racist. For that is what Trump is too.
He's worse than a racist, he's a calculating opportunist who uses racism to garner support. If Trump thought that picking on Jews or Navajos or Armenians would get him votes, these people(s) would also be getting it in the neck.
“A lot of my customers are in the building trade so maybe after a hard morning of carrying things up ladders you aren’t quite in the mood for a lengthy opinion piece about the gender politics of Pokemon Go.”
Plasterer Roy Hobbs said: “I just know instinctively that it is not for me, in the same way that my dog knows he should not eat cheese.
“If all the other papers are taken and there’s only the Guardian left, I will just look at the tablecloth."
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
She such a nitwit - will she tweet about her security briefing too?
Emily Thornberry On my way to GCHQ for a briefing, including the security implications of #Brexit
The point is, she's so stupid you wouldn't put it past her saying something she shouldn't. I'd bet on one of Corbyn's new Parliamentary acolytes doing something to attract the attention of the authorities in the near future.
I always find it interesting that the people who trumpet London's virtues also tend to be the biggest wailers at the motor that drives the city and makes it rich - the financial markets.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
RCS voted Leave, I believe.
London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
I wasn't talking about rcs, but special visas for people to work in the UK wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, indeed that's what many people voted Leave for. I dont see why it has to be specific to London.
I am surprised Kavanagh missed out racist. For that is what Trump is too.
He's worse than a racist, he's a calculating opportunist who uses racism to garner support. If Trump thought that picking on Jews or Navajos or Armenians would get him votes, these people(s) would also be getting it in the neck.
I think the comments he made about that Latino judge show that he is a genuine racist.
As an aside, the CBI Trends survey is out in 10 minutes time. This has quite a lot more updated information (they finished collecting information end Saturday, I believe) than the Markit survey from last week. As a result, it will hopefully catch some of the post-May government bounce.
Donald Trump has now threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the World Trade Organisation unless major renegotiation can be achieved in a new interview with NBC. He also promised to introduce 'extreme vetting' for French and German visitors to the U.S. saying recent terror attacks 'were their own fault because they allowed people to come into their territory. That is why BREXIT happened, the UK is saying "we're tired of this" '
His analysis is simplistic, surprise surprise, and his prescriptions amount to putting up a closed sign and locking and barring the door.
A Trump win could well see the WTO collapse and coupled with Brexit see a new era of protectionism and more restricted travel arise, especially if the likes of IDS and Redwood get their way too and force May to end all free movement and take the UK not only out of the EU but out of the single market too
The WTO doesn't need to collapse. It's already noting that protectionism is on the increase - there have been over 1.1k newly erected trade barriers globally this year.
Post Brexit, I've had to read some bloody dull documents to try and make sense of the overall commentary. Tariff levels aren't the issue (modulo economic warfare like tariffs on Chinese rolled steel); it's the non-tariff measures that governments are cheerfully introducing for entirely tactical reasons.
The WTO has been successful in reducing overall tariff levels, but it struggles to deal with differing regulatory and compliance regimes, and fails completely in the face of political barriers (simplest example I can think of is US vs European attitudes to GMO).
Yes it does seem that protectionism is on the rise even if the WTO stays
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I do wonder how practical a system used in a country with massive distances between major population centres would be, in a densely populated country like the UK. You work in Romford but live in Brentwood - oops breaking the rules? And who enforces that?
More generally, why is it needed? London's key value-producing industries are not reliant on large quantities of unskilled or low-skilled labour. The highly educated overseas workforce they currently employ will all easily pass through a future points-based system.
Laugh and the world laughs with you, Cry and you cry alone.
It's only a small minority who are crying, but whinging about a democratic result attracts little sympathy. Should the Leavers say ... "Oh, these poor dears are so upset. We must give them whatever they want or they'll scream and scream until they're sick."
One of the interesting conclusions (which may or may not be true) that they come to is that one of the motivations for Lone Wolfs is posthumous publicity, and that by restricting information about the attacker results in fewer attacks.
Anyway: it's a very interesting analysis and I would suggest everyone on here reads it.
It's a very old phenomenon. It even has a posh name: Herostratic fame, after the man who burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - at that time one of the seven ancient wonders of the world.
Herostratus wanted the immortality of fame. The Ephesians executed him and swore that they would keep no records of his name. Sadly, someone (Theopompus) who would be right at home on present-day Twitter, blabbed it.
London visas are clearly the way to go. Sadiq should make them a key plank of his mayoralty. London is open. If the rest of England wants to turn its back on the world, up to them. Just don't mess with the Anglophone Europhile Jewel in the Crown.
How would people with London visas be stopped from travelling elsewhere in the UK to work illegally.
People can come into the UK on tourist visas and work illegally now. Indeed, like in the US, that is how the vast majority of illegal workers come in,
The answer is - like in Switzerland and Germany - you have very severe punishments (including jail time) for people who employ undocumented/illegal workers. And, of course, if you work outside your region, your visa is cancelled. Regional visas work well in both Australia and Canada.
You can't compare the vast rural backwaters iof those countries to our English regions.
''Londoners assume the rest of the country should be grateful for this state of affairs, are startled to discover it's not actually the case.''
How productive and wealthy would London be without its financial markets, powered forward by people who in many cases don;t even live in the city, but commute?
Remainers are making a convenient friend of an industry they have been extremely critical of in the recent past.
As an aside, the CBI Trends survey is out in 10 minutes time. This has quite a lot more updated information (they finished collecting information end Saturday, I believe) than the Markit survey from last week. As a result, it will hopefully catch some of the post-May government bounce.
Perhaps. From what I know about the declining and narrowing response rate of that survey over the years I would be even more cautious about it than the PMIs mind./
I agree that being dismissive is unhelpful. But the argument, as posited, is wrong. Let's pretend the treasury forecast was correct. It stated that the UK economy would be 6.2% smaller in 2030 than it would be if we voted Remain.
UK trend growth rate is 2.5%. That means in fifteen years, the UK economy would be 37.5% larger than it is now. Therefore the Brexit economy would be 31.3% larger than it is now.
Therefore, the most slanted, one-eyed forecast, which was rubbished by people like the IFS is forecasting a reduction in UK trend growth to 1.95%.
The wonders of compound interest. Even a small cut in annual growth makes us substantially poorer after a few years. 6% poorer is a big difference. So the argument, as posited, was correct (assuming you believe the model, of course).
A bigger economy doesn't imply poorer. It means you're choosing to be less richer .
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I had Jobabob in mind
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
I am surprised Kavanagh missed out racist. For that is what Trump is too.
He's worse than a racist, he's a calculating opportunist who uses racism to garner support. If Trump thought that picking on Jews or Navajos or Armenians would get him votes, these people(s) would also be getting it in the neck.
I think the comments he made about that Latino judge show that he is a genuine racist.
The thing is, he has no internal censor. We all catch ourselves thinking bigoted and unpleasant things from time to time, but our internal censor catches them and swallows them long before they reach the lips.
Trump doesn't have that. Pavllovian conditioning from the campaign has taught him things go best for him when he blurts out the first horrible thing that comes to mind. He'll be rewarded for it.
One of the interesting conclusions (which may or may not be true) that they come to is that one of the motivations for Lone Wolfs is posthumous publicity, and that by restricting information about the attacker results in fewer attacks.
Anyway: it's a very interesting analysis and I would suggest everyone on here reads it.
It's a very old phenomenon. It even has a posh name: Herostratic fame, after the man who burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - at that time one of the seven ancient wonders of the world.
Herostratus wanted the immortality of fame. The Ephesians executed him and swore that they would keep no records of his name. Sadly, someone (Theopompus) who would be right at home on present-day Twitter, blabbed it.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
RCS voted Leave, I believe.
London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
It's also one of biggest problems for housing and transport. Making a hot-house hotter is easier than doing the same in other places, but there's the dangerous of it over-heating.
What might be needed is for at least some of that activtity to flow out of London to the other parts of the UK, otherwise the disconnection between London and the UK is just going to get worse.
As we've already seen that impact is clear for politics.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
RCS voted Leave, I believe.
London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
I wasn't talking about rcs, but special visas for people to work in the UK wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, indeed that's what many people voted Leave for. I dont see why it has to be specific to London.
We already have an exceptional persons visa scheme. It's quota-limited to 1k per year, of which 200 go to Tech City in London. That's pathetic.
UK visa schemes in general are pretty rich and varied. If we're importing talent, tbh I don't give a flying fuck where they live. Due to the nature of the UK beast, I'd imagine they'd _want_ to live in London.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
With the moaning, special-pleading, and list of grievances those remainer Londoners are starting to sound an awful lot like the bloody Nats.
There's certainly a similarity wherein the PB Brexitories whining about whining Remainers actually now outnumber whining Remainers.
One of the interesting conclusions (which may or may not be true) that they come to is that one of the motivations for Lone Wolfs is posthumous publicity, and that by restricting information about the attacker results in fewer attacks.
Anyway: it's a very interesting analysis and I would suggest everyone on here reads it.
It's a very old phenomenon. It even has a posh name: Herostratic fame, after the man who burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - at that time one of the seven ancient wonders of the world.
Herostratus wanted the immortality of fame. The Ephesians executed him and swore that they would keep no records of his name. Sadly, someone (Theopompus) who would be right at home on present-day Twitter, blabbed it.
I seem to remember there was supposed to be some change in policy by the BBC towards focusing on the victims of such attacks rather than the perpetrators for precisely this reason, that is, to reduce the chance of copy-cat murder/suicides.
Comments
Might be worth a punt with someone else's money...
Edit to add: Mrs Thatcher also kept the Common Travel Area - on the basis that the economic benefits outweighed the security costs, which is a direct analog
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/motor-sport/event/27582432/market?marketId=1.121499283
Group demands Belfast Agreement be legally protected before UK move to trigger EU exit
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ni-politicians-threaten-legal-challenge-to-brexit-1.2733162#.V5Wun8Szg0A.twitter
Edited extra bit: I'll wait and see how things stand after Germany, I think.
I suppose the trouble is there becomes a copycat element - a bit like we get after riots in one place.
Also from what you say there's no evidence that this is Islamic/Islamist. It's what we'd all be inclined to believe but to assume that because someone comes from a certain part of the world, may have been bought up as a Muslim that therefore the motive must be Islam is to play the fundamentalists game.
'SWINGERS PARTY SHOOTING' Murder investigation launched after a man is found dead and several others injured at ‘sex party murder’ at £1m bungalow in Surrey
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1497267/one-dead-and-several-serious-injured-after-private-party-at-house-in-surrey/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-TheSunNewspaper-_-20160725-_-News-_-525969393
On topic, the value's in Trump if these "incidents" continue. He's the one offering a solution. It maybe a crap, badly thought out and unworkable solution, but he's the only one saying it to a lot of pissed off voters.
Really? I mean - REALLY?
I still feel a lot of liberal inclined people are being excessively sanguine, possibly through being able to view the situation at arms length. A Conservative is a liberal that has been mugged by reality
Also, someone please nominate Paddy Lowe for an honour in the New Year. What a car.
Security folk have a simple definition of risk. It's a combination of the value of the asset we wish to protect, the capability of the threat actor and the residual vulnerabilities in our own system. It's a useful model for IT security. For people, I like a simpler method.
We all run risks everyday. We manage those risks consciously or subconsciously, whether that's by defensive driving, or not walking through that dimly lit subway at midnight or not drinking a bottle of wine a night.
If we look at England & Wales, 529k people died last year. That's over 10k per week, 1.4k per day. While risk of death isn't flat in practice, but the annual male mortality rate is around 116 per 10k p.a. with women at 86.
Generally we manage these implicit risks quite well; some may have an irrational fear of flying, or decide to live entirely on beansprouts, but by and large we just get on with our lives.
Threat is based on malice, and that interferes with our cognition. Water can kill you; we all accept that (and 400 UKians drown every year), but it's a passive thing. The sea isn't actively out to kill you dear reader.
We find it very hard to act rationally in the face of threats, even if the probability of that threat is low. Islamic terrorism and pedophiles are two good examples of this phenomenon. These low-level threats have a chilling effect across society, whether that's our willingness to accept further Muslim immigration or our reluctance to employ male nannies/primary school teachers.
* Note. I am not equating Muslims with pedophiles, before someone jumps on the outrage bus.
How we deal with this is not easy - it's an open question in the security field. People feel unsafe, even if that is not a rational response. Sadly the likely response will be an increase in security theatre and lots and lots of hand-wringing/hashtaggery.
With pitchforks.
Could happen, of course, and the odds are long and likely hedgable.
If a person carries out an violent attack, or threatens so, for a cause as a member of a terrorist group, in the name of a cause by claiming allegiance, or in support of a cause by announcing shared grievances, then it is terrorism. i.e. The use of unauthorised violence in the pursuit of political aims.
It doesn't matter how they do it, where or who they target, or what previous criminal or mental health issues they have. If they cross the line and associate the violence with a cause it is terrorism.
By such criteria both Breivik and McVeigh (Timothy) were terrorists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36882456
A lone actor, even one who expects his own death, can therefore be a terrorist if he expects that others will follow in his path to maintain the threat of violence on the issue in question. That doesn't preclude the possibility that they're deluded in what they expect.
These figures are obviously distorted due to the 2008 crash. In the decade 1997-2007, GDP per/capita grew by 21.5%. In the prior decade, 22%.
CONFIRMATION of “The Donald” as Republican candidate for the Presidency is a real shocker.
Along with millions of Americans, including her own fellow Democrats, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton.
But while she may be corrupt, deceitful and blinded by ambition, I don’t think she’s quite bonkers.
It’s hard to say the same for pouting, posing comb-over king Donald Trump.
Why should we believe a delusional, Mafia-hugging, misogynist egomaniac has what it takes to be the leader of the world’s greatest superpower?
Let’s pray for “that woman” Clinton.
I think we can assume Rupert and The Donald don't get on then?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1496543/nodding-donkey-jeremy-corbyn-may-be-a-bit-thick-but-he-is-surrounded-by-a-core-of-ruthless-revolutionaries/
"Convention delegates supporting Mr Sanders, with whom Mrs Clinton fought an acrimonous primary battle, threatened protests, and his supporters planned marches outside the hall including delivering a coffin signifying the party was "dead" to them.
Norman Solomon, a Sanders delegate to the convention from California, told the Washington Post: "The outrage is not just smouldering, it is burning. There has been an insurgency in the party far beyond anybody'’s expectations."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/hillary-clinton-faces-mass-dissent-over-dirty-tricks-on-bernie-s/
Now, to work.
It's your desperate grasping at this as some kind of eternal truth (and your interpretation of it) that shows my point.
Post Brexit, I've had to read some bloody dull documents to try and make sense of the overall commentary. Tariff levels aren't the issue (modulo economic warfare like tariffs on Chinese rolled steel); it's the non-tariff measures that governments are cheerfully introducing for entirely tactical reasons.
The WTO has been successful in reducing overall tariff levels, but it struggles to deal with differing regulatory and compliance regimes, and fails completely in the face of political barriers (simplest example I can think of is US vs European attitudes to GMO).
I detest the idea of a privacy law, but this sort of collusion between police and journalists was way, way over the top, especially given the reputation of the man involved and the nature of the alleged offences. Sir Cliff has a point when he says the incident ruined him mentally.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/24/cliff-richard-set-for-court-battle-with-bbc-after-corporation-re/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-blasted-media-ignoring-8480992
But the big mistake was to allow discriminatory regional trade agreements to proliferate in the way they have. These are now major blockages to further multilateral trade liberalisation.
Emily Thornberry
On my way to GCHQ for a briefing, including the security implications of #Brexit
UK trend growth rate is 2.5%. That means in fifteen years, the UK economy would be 37.5% larger than it is now. Therefore the Brexit economy would be 31.3% larger than it is now.
Therefore, the most slanted, one-eyed forecast, which was rubbished by people like the IFS is forecasting a reduction in UK trend growth to 1.95%.
So if you think that women choosing what clothes they wish to wear or not wear is an insult to that god you feel inclined to do something about it. If you think that what other people do with their sexual parts is any business of yours you condemn your fellow human beings and treat them as less worthy and ultimately evil. Similarly if you are part of a religion which thinks that only those that share the same delusions are going to be "saved" or are more worthy you disrespect others.
Some religions, not many, are fairly passive about this but certain more successful religions (and there is a link in that success, have no doubt about it) positively teach their members that they have a duty to proselytise, punish non believers, kill apostates, etc etc. Our domestic religions are tired, conscious of their own absurdity and mainly harmless. The religions we have imported in recent times are not. We only need to look at our own history to see how dangerous these delusions can be. It is exasperating that our gradual move to rationality is being put back like this.
One of the interesting conclusions (which may or may not be true) that they come to is that one of the motivations for Lone Wolfs is posthumous publicity, and that by restricting information about the attacker results in fewer attacks.
Anyway: it's a very interesting analysis and I would suggest everyone on here reads it.
London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
BREAKING: German official says man who blew himself up in Ansbach was to be deported to Bulgaria.
Plasterer Roy Hobbs said: “I just know instinctively that it is not for me, in the same way that my dog knows he should not eat cheese.
“If all the other papers are taken and there’s only the Guardian left, I will just look at the tablecloth."
http://m.thedailymash.co.uk/news/media/workers-cafe-has-untouched-copy-of-guardian-20160725111371
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
More generally, why is it needed? London's key value-producing industries are not reliant on large quantities of unskilled or low-skilled labour. The highly educated overseas workforce they currently employ will all easily pass through a future points-based system.
Laugh and the world laughs with you,
Cry and you cry alone.
It's only a small minority who are crying, but whinging about a democratic result attracts little sympathy. Should the Leavers say ... "Oh, these poor dears are so upset. We must give them whatever they want or they'll scream and scream until they're sick."
Spare the rod and spoil the child.
Herostratus wanted the immortality of fame. The Ephesians executed him and swore that they would keep no records of his name. Sadly, someone (Theopompus) who would be right at home on present-day Twitter, blabbed it.
How productive and wealthy would London be without its financial markets, powered forward by people who in many cases don;t even live in the city, but commute?
Remainers are making a convenient friend of an industry they have been extremely critical of in the recent past.
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
Trump doesn't have that. Pavllovian conditioning from the campaign has taught him things go best for him when he blurts out the first horrible thing that comes to mind. He'll be rewarded for it.
Eleven people - believed to include ex-police - now formally under investigation over handling of allegations against Greville #Janner.
Border controls on the A12 and A13, job done.
UK visa schemes in general are pretty rich and varied. If we're importing talent, tbh I don't give a flying fuck where they live. Due to the nature of the UK beast, I'd imagine they'd _want_ to live in London.