Dominic Cummings confirms he was deep throat in the partygate saga – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.0
-
kamski said:
Real non-Brits don't talk about Piers Morgan.Leon said:
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes agoJosiasJessop said:
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...Leon said:Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
I doubted the Piers Morgan reference, but apparently he's been in the news in Israel because Tucker Carlson claims MorganJosiasJessop said:
That in no way negates my original comment.Leon said:
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes agoJosiasJessop said:
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...Leon said:Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
Besides, why would I want to be there? I'm at home, having just enjoyed breakfast with my wife and son. Having real conversations with real people, and not relying on 'overhearing' conversations on nearby tables for my stimulation.
It's also amazing how those 'overheard' conversations mirror your own current worldview...
admitted to "hating Israel with every fiber of his body" during an unrecorded off-camera moment.
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-840891
Difficult to know who to disbelieve.
Why on earth would I lie about this? It wasn’t even that interesting an anecdote
You guys are sad paranoid freaks
0 -
Sounds like an odd design - the closure responsible for electrical contact?JosiasJessop said:Incidentally (and possibly of interest to no-one): a couple of weeks ago I mentioned that friends of ours were having problems with their new solar panel/battery supply system. It would work for a while whilst the engineers were present, then fail.
Well, the fault was discovered (*). One of the engineers had used the wrong length screws when attaching the front/lid of one of the switch units in the garage. The screws were too long, which meant that whilst the front/lid felt secure to the touch, it was actually a fraction loose, meaning electrical contacts from the lid into the interior were inconsistent. Over time the lid would move slightly away from the box's body (I assume a rubber seal would do this?), stopping the unit from working.
It's amazing how something as simple as the wrong screws can be an embuggerance.
(BA flight 5390 waves hello from over Didcot...)
(*) Hopefully I've got this right.0 -
So China can dump product here ?Cleitophon said:Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.
0 -
Now now, i do believe it, but people do lie about things all the time for no obvious reason, so a lack of obvious reason to lie is no guarantee.Leon said:kamski said:
Real non-Brits don't talk about Piers Morgan.Leon said:
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes agoJosiasJessop said:
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...Leon said:Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
I doubted the Piers Morgan reference, but apparently he's been in the news in Israel because Tucker Carlson claims MorganJosiasJessop said:
That in no way negates my original comment.Leon said:
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes agoJosiasJessop said:
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...Leon said:Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
Besides, why would I want to be there? I'm at home, having just enjoyed breakfast with my wife and son. Having real conversations with real people, and not relying on 'overhearing' conversations on nearby tables for my stimulation.
It's also amazing how those 'overheard' conversations mirror your own current worldview...
admitted to "hating Israel with every fiber of his body" during an unrecorded off-camera moment.
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-840891
Difficult to know who to disbelieve.
Why on earth would I lie about this? It wasn’t even that interesting an anecdote
You guys are sad paranoid freaks
Just look at twitter sometime.0 -
The 'in part' is doing a fair bit of heavy lifting in this case.Taz said:What an absolute joke this country has become. An Albanian career criminal, who came to the U.K. and lied about being from the former Yugoslavia cannot be deported in part due to his sons taste in food.
https://x.com/telegraph/status/1888689740171416056?s=61
The evidence surrounding this seems tenuous in the least.
https://x.com/anglopjdst/status/1888700762093461674?s=61
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-004546
IMV the real question is why he was not removed back in 2003, and why he was granted Exceptional Leave to Remain in 2005, given he had arrived illegally and lied to immigration.
The question of whether an eleven year-old child, born in Britain, should be forced to live in Albania if the family has to move over there because of a deportation, is an interesting one. And it seems it is a question that is being heavily played by the child's family...0 -
Chagos creates no precedent for the Falklands. However, the sovereign bases on Cyprus may represent a more similar situation.MoonRabbit said:
Yeah I agree. Whoever was in power would have hidden these negotiations with an election coming up. Maybe negotiations reaching conclusion that summer, feeds in as a further reason Sunak called GE so early and when far behind, that still baffles many why he did - even though PB knew why he did even before he did it.HYUFD said:
The background discussions have been ongoing for years and of course it was the UN Tribunal which supported the handover, not just India, though it was Starmer who agreed the funds for handoverMoonRabbit said:
HY - what do you make of “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations” reports. After being set up in 2022, negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi, just too contentious with elections coming up to let anyone know?HYUFD said:
India isn't our closest ally as this proves but on no definition is it an adversary eitherLuckyguy1983 said:
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.MoonRabbit said:
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.kle4 said:
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).BartholomewRoberts said:
International law is a bad joke.bondegezou said:.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.BartholomewRoberts said:
See DavidL's post at 20:27bondegezou said:
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?DavidL said:
Nah, they make FIFA look good.Casino_Royale said:
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.DavidL said:IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo.
For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever.
In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia.
In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference.
Most of their descendants now live in the UK.
At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands.
In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK.
In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814.
We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude.
Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We should say piss off and move on.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says
“In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-welcomes-chagos-islands-agreement-uk-mauritius-2610844-2024-10-03
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
No way it was negotiated in only 12 weeks is it - the 1965 negotiations I posted earlier in thread went on for years.
However, it is becoming much clearer now though, the big UK u-turn to go for a Chagos deal actually occurred in 2022 - wether it was persistent International Law pressure having influence repercussions, like India not cooperating without colonial justice for its Mauritius friend, a mixture of both (and with pressure from Biden wanting it settled) - that forced UKs U-turn.
The next big question, when does Starmer and Lammy bring this to Parliament, so the precedent applying to Chagos and also now applies to Cyprus and the Falklands and all our colonies - can be properly scrutinised and exposed - along with how the control of fishing has been surrendered in this deal, meaning Chinese spy vessels will be everywhere! Those are my 2 big red flags.0 -
Yet it would look very different were it not for the sheep and the deer. Note how the islands in the lochs (eg Sionasgaig) are covered in trees. As you suggest, it would probably look more like the west coast of Sweden - and indeed the names of the mountains are Norse.TimS said:Back from NW Scotland and what a weekend. Scarcely a cloud in the sky the whole time, in fact so few clouds that it was starting to frustrate my spouse who had been hoping to Timelapse some cloud shadows for her art.
But still, that region is incredible. Stark, otherworldly, extremely exotic. Under blue skies it looks nothing like any other mountain range in Britain and pretty unlike most of the rest of the world. There are parts of Scandinavia or Iceland with similar ancient glacially scoured sandstone and metamorphic inselbergs, but these are few enough and recognisable enough with their strange names - Canisp, Suilven, Quinag - to feel more like a film set: more like monument valley or Zion than another European mountain range.
The light and colours made the coast look just like Corsica and the interior like Utah. I recommend you go, outside the summer, but when the sun is going to be shining under an Easterly wind.
I mean look at it.
It's my favourite part of the world.3 -
This is all second-hand, and I thought it odd - and therefore worthy of mention. But if the switches are on the lid, and the gubbins inside, there has to be some form of mechanical or electrical connection?Malmesbury said:
Sounds like an odd design - the closure responsible for electrical contact?JosiasJessop said:Incidentally (and possibly of interest to no-one): a couple of weeks ago I mentioned that friends of ours were having problems with their new solar panel/battery supply system. It would work for a while whilst the engineers were present, then fail.
Well, the fault was discovered (*). One of the engineers had used the wrong length screws when attaching the front/lid of one of the switch units in the garage. The screws were too long, which meant that whilst the front/lid felt secure to the touch, it was actually a fraction loose, meaning electrical contacts from the lid into the interior were inconsistent. Over time the lid would move slightly away from the box's body (I assume a rubber seal would do this?), stopping the unit from working.
It's amazing how something as simple as the wrong screws can be an embuggerance.
(BA flight 5390 waves hello from over Didcot...)
(*) Hopefully I've got this right.0 -
I have just heard from the make up artist who was adjusting Carlson's wig at the time, and the conversation went like this:Leon said:kamski said:
Real non-Brits don't talk about Piers Morgan.Leon said:
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes agoJosiasJessop said:
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...Leon said:Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
I doubted the Piers Morgan reference, but apparently he's been in the news in Israel because Tucker Carlson claims MorganJosiasJessop said:
That in no way negates my original comment.Leon said:
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes agoJosiasJessop said:
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...Leon said:Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
Besides, why would I want to be there? I'm at home, having just enjoyed breakfast with my wife and son. Having real conversations with real people, and not relying on 'overhearing' conversations on nearby tables for my stimulation.
It's also amazing how those 'overheard' conversations mirror your own current worldview...
admitted to "hating Israel with every fiber of his body" during an unrecorded off-camera moment.
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-840891
Difficult to know who to disbelieve.
Why on earth would I lie about this? It wasn’t even that interesting an anecdote
You guys are sad paranoid freaks
Morgan: Hey Tucker, now the mics are off, can I just say what a huge admirer I am. I do my best to be a repulsive liar, but you're in a different league. How do make it look so effortless saying things you know are completely untrue?
Carlson: I'll show you how it's done Piers. (shouting) Hey everyone! Piers Morgan just said he hates Israel with every fibre of his body!2 -
Thermal or meteorological barometric changes would affect the pressure on the lid ...JosiasJessop said:
This is all second-hand, and I thought it odd - and therefore worthy of mention. But if the switches are on the lid, and the gubbins inside, there has to be some form of mechanical or electrical connection?Malmesbury said:
Sounds like an odd design - the closure responsible for electrical contact?JosiasJessop said:Incidentally (and possibly of interest to no-one): a couple of weeks ago I mentioned that friends of ours were having problems with their new solar panel/battery supply system. It would work for a while whilst the engineers were present, then fail.
Well, the fault was discovered (*). One of the engineers had used the wrong length screws when attaching the front/lid of one of the switch units in the garage. The screws were too long, which meant that whilst the front/lid felt secure to the touch, it was actually a fraction loose, meaning electrical contacts from the lid into the interior were inconsistent. Over time the lid would move slightly away from the box's body (I assume a rubber seal would do this?), stopping the unit from working.
It's amazing how something as simple as the wrong screws can be an embuggerance.
(BA flight 5390 waves hello from over Didcot...)
(*) Hopefully I've got this right.0 -
International law isn’t binding. It’s just and attempt to put a framework around disputes to reduce the risk of escalation. The strong and confident ignore itbondegezou said:
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.BartholomewRoberts said:
Or how about Germany deciding to prioritise its domestic policies over international law?bondegezou said:
Countries obey international law all the time, more often than they tell it to piss off.BartholomewRoberts said:
What's the consequence?kle4 said:
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).BartholomewRoberts said:
International law is a bad joke.bondegezou said:.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.BartholomewRoberts said:
See DavidL's post at 20:27bondegezou said:
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?DavidL said:
Nah, they make FIFA look good.Casino_Royale said:
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.DavidL said:IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo.
For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever.
In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia.
In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference.
Most of their descendants now live in the UK.
At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands.
In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK.
In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814.
We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude.
Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We should say piss off and move on.
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Barbossa had it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE
There are cases of countries telling international law to piss off, like Russia invading Ukraine, but maybe we don’t want to emulate those examples.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-germany-s-law-breaking-undermined-the-eu/
Something all countries are entitled to do.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.1 -
This is the key part of the decision:JosiasJessop said:
The 'in part' is doing a fair bit of heavy lifting in this case.Taz said:What an absolute joke this country has become. An Albanian career criminal, who came to the U.K. and lied about being from the former Yugoslavia cannot be deported in part due to his sons taste in food.
https://x.com/telegraph/status/1888689740171416056?s=61
The evidence surrounding this seems tenuous in the least.
https://x.com/anglopjdst/status/1888700762093461674?s=61
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-004546
IMV the real question is why he was not removed back in 2003, and why he was granted Exceptional Leave to Remain in 2005, given he had arrived illegally and lied to immigration.
The question of whether an eleven year-old child, born in Britain, should be forced to live in Albania if the family has to move over there because of a deportation, is an interesting one. And it seems it is a question that is being heavily played by the child's family...
"3.. The appellant is an Albanian national, born on 24 October 1985. On 25 February 2001, the appellant entered the UK illegally as an unaccompanied minor. Two days later, he made an asylum claim on the basis of political persecution. He stated, falsely, that he had been born in the former Yugoslavia in 1986. It also appears that the appellant gave a false name.
4. The appellant’s asylum claim was refused on 14 September 2001, the Secretary of State not being satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution. The appellant sought to appeal, though that process was withdrawn on 6 March 2003.
5. The appellant was granted Exceptional Leave to Remain on 8 September 2005 and Indefinite Leave to Remain on 26 September 2005. The appellant was naturalised on 6 December 2007."
Once again what looks like an odd decision now is based upon an utterly dysfunctional immigration system where decisions are simply not enforced. This is what has to change.4 -
All steel and aluminium, not just Chinese.Cleitophon said:Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98yv3e1yyqo0 -
a
On Chagos. A question for the legal types.bondegezou said:
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.BartholomewRoberts said:
Or how about Germany deciding to prioritise its domestic policies over international law?bondegezou said:
Countries obey international law all the time, more often than they tell it to piss off.BartholomewRoberts said:
What's the consequence?kle4 said:
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).BartholomewRoberts said:
International law is a bad joke.bondegezou said:.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.BartholomewRoberts said:
See DavidL's post at 20:27bondegezou said:
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?DavidL said:
Nah, they make FIFA look good.Casino_Royale said:
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.DavidL said:IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo.
For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever.
In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia.
In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference.
Most of their descendants now live in the UK.
At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands.
In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK.
In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814.
We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude.
Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We should say piss off and move on.
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Barbossa had it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE
There are cases of countries telling international law to piss off, like Russia invading Ukraine, but maybe we don’t want to emulate those examples.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-germany-s-law-breaking-undermined-the-eu/
Something all countries are entitled to do.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
If the U.K. did something like -
1) work out who the Chagos islanders and their descendants are.
2) using electronic, online voting (borrow the tech from Estonia), use direct democracy to ask what they want.
3) obviously, have some elected negotiators, but back stop proposals with votes.
4) come up with a solution that the Chagos Islanders like. And vote for.
5) all funds to go to them, not third parties. No handling charges either.
Would that cover the advisory judgment?
I think it would certainly cover the moral issue.3 -
Tariffs on things like steel and aluminium are dumb: they mean US car makers will need to pay more for steel than people with plants outside the US. In fact they mean that steel and aluminium are actually cheaper outside the US than previously, because there is no longer US demand for their products.Cleitophon said:Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.
This means US cars are less competitive in export markets and ones made in Germany and Mexico are more competitive.
The number of people who work in industries that consume steel and aluminium is about 1,00x larger than work in the steel and aluminium industries.1 -
Good morning, everyone.Casino_Royale said:
I am both nervous and excited about Civ 7 being released tomorrow.kle4 said:
Valuble lessons to be learned from that series. Such as that it doesn't matter if you are up against Gandhi, he might still nuke you, so be careful.Scott_xP said:
Was the computer game Civilisation?rottenborough said:
I'm eighteen years old and have spent my entire teenage years in a cupboard playing computer games and doing maths puzzles but I know how to run and entire country.Nigelb said:
The majority of soybean demand is as a feedstock for the livestock industries.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.Nigelb said:
Why is it pork barrel ?BartholomewRoberts said:
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.rottenborough said:Soy bean research in US red states. Cancelled.
Gonna be thousands of examples of this kind of thing as Musk and five teenagers are allowed to burn down the federal government.
James Surowiecki
@JamesSurowiecki
Brilliant decision by Musk to quash this obviously wasteful program. Red state colleges and farmers thank him.
https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1888439017500230141
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
Not really fond of the way the leaders and Civs have been divorced, plus the Ages now involving changing civilisations. But I hope you enjoy it, assuming you've got it pre-ordered.0 -
I expect the sad truth is that, hitherto, it's been backed up by Western power with Soviet containment during the Cold War and Chinese acquiescence as they built up during the 1990s onwards.StillWaters said:
International law isn’t binding. It’s just and attempt to put a framework around disputes to reduce the risk of escalation. The strong and confident ignore itbondegezou said:
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.BartholomewRoberts said:
Or how about Germany deciding to prioritise its domestic policies over international law?bondegezou said:
Countries obey international law all the time, more often than they tell it to piss off.BartholomewRoberts said:
What's the consequence?kle4 said:
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).BartholomewRoberts said:
International law is a bad joke.bondegezou said:.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.BartholomewRoberts said:
See DavidL's post at 20:27bondegezou said:
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?DavidL said:
Nah, they make FIFA look good.Casino_Royale said:
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.DavidL said:IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo.
For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever.
In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia.
In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference.
Most of their descendants now live in the UK.
At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands.
In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK.
In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814.
We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude.
Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We should say piss off and move on.
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Barbossa had it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE
There are cases of countries telling international law to piss off, like Russia invading Ukraine, but maybe we don’t want to emulate those examples.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-germany-s-law-breaking-undermined-the-eu/
Something all countries are entitled to do.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
Without it it's simple idealism.1 -
Rowies in the shops I've bought them at. Maybe it's an Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire thing. Like not being able to understand anything someone says when you step outside the city.ohnotnow said:
I grew up near Aberdeen and they were always called butteries. What... are they called in Aberdeen?FF43 said:
Mildly interesting fact, Aberdeen butteries, the city's take on croissants, aren't in fact called butteries in Aberdeen.ohnotnow said:
And the smell of fish. And the shortened life due to excessive buttery consumption.DavidL said:
Well you have to compensate for the extra tax you pay in Scotland for a start.FrancisUrquhart said:GB Energy faces ‘challenging’ task to find CEO for Aberdeen HQ, sources say
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/09/gb-energy-recruitment-ceo-aberdeen-hq
Sounds like anybody with the experience won't work in Aberdeen unless they are paid big bucks.
Though butteries are really quite nice.
Aberdeen is a fine city by the way, despite being definitively the coldest place on earth.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
Steel being sold cheaply doesn't exactly help those companies still manufacturing steel in Europe who won't be able to compete on price.DecrepiterJohnL said:
All steel and aluminium, not just Chinese.Cleitophon said:Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98yv3e1yyqo
Not that we have that problem nowadays given that we've closed our smelters...0 -
https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/33/4/1125/6825293 discussed the relevance of the Chagos ruling to the UK sovereign bases (SBA) on Cyprus. I quote:
“This section applies the law outlined in Chagos to the creation of the SBA. A comparison between the two is appropriate because, in both cases, a part of a colony was separated before independence in order to create a military base under British sovereignty that remains in operation today. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged from the outset that there are differences between how this happened in each instance. These differences suggest that the RoC will find it more difficult than Mauritius, albeit not impossible, to challenge the legality of the separation of its territory. This section focuses on four such differences. First, while Mauritius achieved independence in 1968 – at a time when the existence of the right to self-determination was virtually undisputed – the RoC was created in August 1960, four months before the passing of Resolution 1514 [the UN resolution on which the Chagos decision was based]. Second, Chagos was separated from Mauritius without any consultation with the local population. Conversely, the separation of the SBA was preceded by intense negotiations and a general election. Third, while Mauritians agreed to Chagos’ separation and their independence without any support from third states, Greece and Turkey were actively involved in the negotiations for the independence of the Republic and the creation of the SBA. Fourth, the separation of Chagos from Mauritius became possible through the forced displacement of some 2,000 Chagossians.[98] Nothing similar happened in Cyprus.”2 -
Been to 80-odd countries on every continent. Seen many wonderous places. But Cape Wrath down to the Isle of Mull is unbeatable.Eabhal said:
Yet it would look very different were it not for the sheep and the deer. Note how the islands in the lochs (eg Sionasgaig) are covered in trees. As you suggest, it would probably look more like the west coast of Sweden - and indeed the names of the mountains are Norse.TimS said:Back from NW Scotland and what a weekend. Scarcely a cloud in the sky the whole time, in fact so few clouds that it was starting to frustrate my spouse who had been hoping to Timelapse some cloud shadows for her art.
But still, that region is incredible. Stark, otherworldly, extremely exotic. Under blue skies it looks nothing like any other mountain range in Britain and pretty unlike most of the rest of the world. There are parts of Scandinavia or Iceland with similar ancient glacially scoured sandstone and metamorphic inselbergs, but these are few enough and recognisable enough with their strange names - Canisp, Suilven, Quinag - to feel more like a film set: more like monument valley or Zion than another European mountain range.
The light and colours made the coast look just like Corsica and the interior like Utah. I recommend you go, outside the summer, but when the sun is going to be shining under an Easterly wind.
I mean look at it.
It's my favourite part of the world.1 -
That’s sounds like one of those philosophical conundrums - A Total Liar Lies About A Total Liar.kamski said:
Real non-Brits don't talk about Piers Morgan.Leon said:
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes agoJosiasJessop said:
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...Leon said:Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
I doubted the Piers Morgan reference, but apparently he's been in the news in Israel because Tucker Carlson claims MorganJosiasJessop said:
That in no way negates my original comment.Leon said:
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes agoJosiasJessop said:
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...Leon said:Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
Besides, why would I want to be there? I'm at home, having just enjoyed breakfast with my wife and son. Having real conversations with real people, and not relying on 'overhearing' conversations on nearby tables for my stimulation.
It's also amazing how those 'overheard' conversations mirror your own current worldview...
admitted to "hating Israel with every fiber of his body" during an unrecorded off-camera moment.
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-840891
Difficult to know who to disbelieve.0 -
Without details, is it possible Musk has discovered what is also true here, that much of the national debt is simply a bookkeeping entry between different parts of the state?Scott_xP said:@annmarie
Trump suggested DOGE has found irregularities in US treasuries & intimated that may lead the US to disregard some.
“Maybe we have less debt than we thought,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on the way to the Super Bowl.0 -
On topic, if the Trump-Musk destruction of state institutions is Cummings' fantasy, the UK is very lucky he fell out with Johnson.3
-
Protectionism of (relatively) low value add industries at the cost of sectors higher up the value chain.rcs1000 said:
Tariffs on things like steel and aluminium are dumb: they mean US car makers will need to pay more for steel than people with plants outside the US. In fact they mean that steel and aluminium are actually cheaper outside the US than previously, because there is no longer US demand for their products.Cleitophon said:Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.
This means US cars are less competitive in export markets and ones made in Germany and Mexico are more competitive.
The number of people who work in industries that consume steel and aluminium is about 1,00x larger than work in the steel and aluminium industries.
Looking at the FT it seems Canada, China and Mexico make up around half of US steel and aluminium imports in aggregate. Canada the largest by far of those.
Presumably a breach of whatever NAFTA is now called and there will be new retaliation.0 -
Am I the only PBer to have fractured an elbow near Cape Wrath?MarqueeMark said:
Been to 80-odd countries on every continent. Seen many wonderous places. But Cape Wrath down to the Isle of Mull is unbeatable.Eabhal said:
Yet it would look very different were it not for the sheep and the deer. Note how the islands in the lochs (eg Sionasgaig) are covered in trees. As you suggest, it would probably look more like the west coast of Sweden - and indeed the names of the mountains are Norse.TimS said:Back from NW Scotland and what a weekend. Scarcely a cloud in the sky the whole time, in fact so few clouds that it was starting to frustrate my spouse who had been hoping to Timelapse some cloud shadows for her art.
But still, that region is incredible. Stark, otherworldly, extremely exotic. Under blue skies it looks nothing like any other mountain range in Britain and pretty unlike most of the rest of the world. There are parts of Scandinavia or Iceland with similar ancient glacially scoured sandstone and metamorphic inselbergs, but these are few enough and recognisable enough with their strange names - Canisp, Suilven, Quinag - to feel more like a film set: more like monument valley or Zion than another European mountain range.
The light and colours made the coast look just like Corsica and the interior like Utah. I recommend you go, outside the summer, but when the sun is going to be shining under an Easterly wind.
I mean look at it.
It's my favourite part of the world. 0 -
To illustrate the point:Ratters said:
Protectionism of (relatively) low value add industries at the cost of sectors higher up the value chain.rcs1000 said:
Tariffs on things like steel and aluminium are dumb: they mean US car makers will need to pay more for steel than people with plants outside the US. In fact they mean that steel and aluminium are actually cheaper outside the US than previously, because there is no longer US demand for their products.Cleitophon said:Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.
This means US cars are less competitive in export markets and ones made in Germany and Mexico are more competitive.
The number of people who work in industries that consume steel and aluminium is about 1,00x larger than work in the steel and aluminium industries.
Looking at the FT it seems Canada, China and Mexico make up around half of US steel and aluminium imports in aggregate. Canada the largest by far of those.
Presumably a breach of whatever NAFTA is now called and there will be new retaliation.
On the plus side, I think it's fair to say the UK needn't be too concerned by the impact of these tariffs.1 -
If you are always chasing a Daily Telegraph faux story, they will have moved on by the time you've decided the answer. It's like watching cats following a light.Malmesbury said:a
On Chagos. A question for the legal types.bondegezou said:
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.BartholomewRoberts said:
Or how about Germany deciding to prioritise its domestic policies over international law?bondegezou said:
Countries obey international law all the time, more often than they tell it to piss off.BartholomewRoberts said:
What's the consequence?kle4 said:
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).BartholomewRoberts said:
International law is a bad joke.bondegezou said:.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.BartholomewRoberts said:
See DavidL's post at 20:27bondegezou said:
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?DavidL said:
Nah, they make FIFA look good.Casino_Royale said:
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.DavidL said:IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo.
For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever.
In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia.
In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference.
Most of their descendants now live in the UK.
At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands.
In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK.
In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814.
We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude.
Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We should say piss off and move on.
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Barbossa had it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE
There are cases of countries telling international law to piss off, like Russia invading Ukraine, but maybe we don’t want to emulate those examples.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-germany-s-law-breaking-undermined-the-eu/
Something all countries are entitled to do.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
If the U.K. did something like -
1) work out who the Chagos islanders and their descendants are.
2) using electronic, online voting (borrow the tech from Estonia), use direct democracy to ask what they want.
3) obviously, have some elected negotiators, but back stop proposals with votes.
4) come up with a solution that the Chagos Islanders like. And vote for.
5) all funds to go to them, not third parties. No handling charges either.
Would that cover the advisory judgment?
I think it would certainly cover the moral issue.
As an aside, looks like buying Twitter was a genius stroke by Musk seeing where he is now.0 -
Exactly. As I mention upthread. Dumping is something that happens quite regularly.eek said:
Steel being sold cheaply doesn't exactly help those companies still manufacturing steel in Europe who won't be able to compete on price.DecrepiterJohnL said:
All steel and aluminium, not just Chinese.Cleitophon said:Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98yv3e1yyqo
Not that we have that problem nowadays given that we've closed our smelters...0 -
Which is funny as he wanted to back out of buying it (or alternatively failed in a bid to knock down the price, if the backing out was just a tactic).Battlebus said:
If you are always chasing a Daily Telegraph faux story, they will have moved on by the time you've decided the answer. It's like watching cats following a light.Malmesbury said:a
On Chagos. A question for the legal types.bondegezou said:
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.BartholomewRoberts said:
Or how about Germany deciding to prioritise its domestic policies over international law?bondegezou said:
Countries obey international law all the time, more often than they tell it to piss off.BartholomewRoberts said:
What's the consequence?kle4 said:
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).BartholomewRoberts said:
International law is a bad joke.bondegezou said:.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.BartholomewRoberts said:
See DavidL's post at 20:27bondegezou said:
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?DavidL said:
Nah, they make FIFA look good.Casino_Royale said:
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.DavidL said:IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo.
For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever.
In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia.
In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference.
Most of their descendants now live in the UK.
At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands.
In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK.
In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814.
We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude.
Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We should say piss off and move on.
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Barbossa had it right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE
There are cases of countries telling international law to piss off, like Russia invading Ukraine, but maybe we don’t want to emulate those examples.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-germany-s-law-breaking-undermined-the-eu/
Something all countries are entitled to do.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
If the U.K. did something like -
1) work out who the Chagos islanders and their descendants are.
2) using electronic, online voting (borrow the tech from Estonia), use direct democracy to ask what they want.
3) obviously, have some elected negotiators, but back stop proposals with votes.
4) come up with a solution that the Chagos Islanders like. And vote for.
5) all funds to go to them, not third parties. No handling charges either.
Would that cover the advisory judgment?
I think it would certainly cover the moral issue.
As an aside, looks like buying Twitter was a genius stroke by Musk seeing where he is now.0 -
It's called USMCA signed by someone called Donald Trump who said at the timeRatters said:
Protectionism of (relatively) low value add industries at the cost of sectors higher up the value chain.rcs1000 said:
Tariffs on things like steel and aluminium are dumb: they mean US car makers will need to pay more for steel than people with plants outside the US. In fact they mean that steel and aluminium are actually cheaper outside the US than previously, because there is no longer US demand for their products.Cleitophon said:Trump announces tarrifs on Chinese steel and aluminum. If europe plays it's cards right we should be the beneficiaries of a Chinese glut and lower prices here in britain.
This means US cars are less competitive in export markets and ones made in Germany and Mexico are more competitive.
The number of people who work in industries that consume steel and aluminium is about 1,00x larger than work in the steel and aluminium industries.
Looking at the FT it seems Canada, China and Mexico make up around half of US steel and aluminium imports in aggregate. Canada the largest by far of those.
Presumably a breach of whatever NAFTA is now called and there will be new retaliation.
"The USMCA is the largest, most significant, modern, and balanced trade agreement in history. All of our countries will benefit greatly."
Last year that Donald Trump called it "the best trade deal ever made"
The current president (also called Donald Trump) strongly criticised his predecessor Donald Trump, saying the other day
"I look at some of these trade deals and I say 'who the hell made these deals' they're so bad."1 -
I ❤️ Kierkegaardviewcode said:I finally found that quote I was looking for. I thought it was Wittgenstein, but it's actually Kierkegaard. It's "This is the way I think the world will end: with general giggling with all the witty heads, who think it is a joke" https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10821555-this-is-the-way-i-think-the-world-will-end-with
0
