It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Corollary: whilst stemming/stopping the boats is necessary, it won't be sufficient to placate a significant slice of public opinion. For them the Blairwave and Boriswave were such awful things that they must be reversed as well.
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Corollary: whilst stemming/stopping the boats is necessary, it won't be sufficient to placate a significant slice of public opinion. For them the Blairwave and Boriswave were such awful things that they must be reversed as well.
There may be a 'significant slice of public opinion' that thinks that, but that's because they're being told that all the ills of the country are down to immigration. Which is a lie. And I'd strongly argue that there's a far more significant slice of public opinion that differs from their view.
Can you imagine what would happen to public services if all immigrants 'went home'. (*) Mind you, the destruction of public services is a wet dream to the low-tax millionaires who run the Farage Party. It's probably not a wet dream to many Reform voters, who rely on those public services...
(*) Which is an immense number, and even bigger if you count the 'White British' shite.
I can think of two places where Fascism arguably worked
Spain, perhaps
Chile, definitely
Was Chile under Pinochet fascist? Wasn't it a fairly standard military dictatorship, similar to the rule of the Junta in Argentina, only less incompetent.
And the situation in Spain was also messy. The west worked very hard not to categorise Franco as fascist after WW2; undignified grovelling towards terrible people who might be useful isn't a novelty in diplomacy.
Besides, there was a Spanish economic miracle, but it came after junking the actual fascists from government, replacing them with Opus Dei technocrats to run the economy (as in da Vinci Code and Ruth Kelly) and softening the regime to another fairly standard military dictatorship. Spain under Phase One Francoism was going absolutely nowhere.
Speaking of Opus Dei and Roman Catholicism, the Duchess of Kent's funeral today at Westminster Cathedral was the first Roman Catholic funeral of a member of our royal family since the early 16th century
I'm sorry to be really pedantic, but Mary I had a Requiem Mass at Westminster Abbey in 1558.
As did James II and VII in 1701, and I'm fairly sure his grandson Cardinal Henry Stuart would have done as well in 1807.
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Corollary: whilst stemming/stopping the boats is necessary, it won't be sufficient to placate a significant slice of public opinion. For them the Blairwave and Boriswave were such awful things that they must be reversed as well.
There may be a 'significant slice of public opinion' that thinks that, but that's because they're being told that all the ills of the country are down to immigration. Which is a lie. And I'd strongly argue that there's a far more significant slice of public opinion that differs from their view.
Can you imagine what would happen to public services if all immigrants 'went home'. (*) Mind you, the destruction of public services is a wet dream to the low-tax millionaires who run the Farage Party. It's probably not a wet dream to many Reform voters, who rely on those public services...
(*) Which is an immense number, and even bigger if you count the 'White British' shite.
Absolutely agree. Just wish I knew what is to be done about it. Addressing legitimate concerns just normalises the next round of less-legitimate concerns, rinse and repeat.
And whilst taking a stand is totally the right thing to do, I'm not sure it works in this information space.
I can think of two places where Fascism arguably worked
Spain, perhaps
Chile, definitely
Was Chile under Pinochet fascist? Wasn't it a fairly standard military dictatorship, similar to the rule of the Junta in Argentina, only less incompetent.
And the situation in Spain was also messy. The west worked very hard not to categorise Franco as fascist after WW2; undignified grovelling towards terrible people who might be useful isn't a novelty in diplomacy.
Besides, there was a Spanish economic miracle, but it came after junking the actual fascists from government, replacing them with Opus Dei technocrats to run the economy (as in da Vinci Code and Ruth Kelly) and softening the regime to another fairly standard military dictatorship. Spain under Phase One Francoism was going absolutely nowhere.
Speaking of Opus Dei and Roman Catholicism, the Duchess of Kent's funeral today at Westminster Cathedral was the first Roman Catholic funeral of a member of our royal family since the early 16th century
I'm sorry to be really pedantic, but Mary I had a Requiem Mass at Westminster Abbey in 1558.
As did James II and VII in 1701, and I'm fairly sure his grandson Cardinal Henry Stuart would have done as well in 1807.
I can think of two places where Fascism arguably worked
Spain, perhaps
Chile, definitely
Where has capitalism worked?
Nowhere, as pure capitalism has never been attempted. It has always had a 'public' aspect - even in the USA.
Pure capitalism as described by Adam Smith has a very strong role for Government.
Indeed. Conspiracy of the merchants stuff. Incidentally I seem to recall that one then very prominent right-winger deleted some of that stuff from an edition of the Wealth of Nations to make the Kirkcaldy sage, erm, more 'libertarian'. But that was a long time ago.
It was probably Kinabula. He's been on a long journey since his banking days.
That’s the one. Not very good - too one sided and not hugely insightful.
I’m halfway through and all I’ve learnt is that PE executives are amazing, the brightest of the bright, really hard working and have the uncanny ability to take a completely dispassionate perspective on long term investment.
I can think of two places where Fascism arguably worked
Spain, perhaps
Chile, definitely
Was Chile under Pinochet fascist? Wasn't it a fairly standard military dictatorship, similar to the rule of the Junta in Argentina, only less incompetent.
And the situation in Spain was also messy. The west worked very hard not to categorise Franco as fascist after WW2; undignified grovelling towards terrible people who might be useful isn't a novelty in diplomacy.
Besides, there was a Spanish economic miracle, but it came after junking the actual fascists from government, replacing them with Opus Dei technocrats to run the economy (as in da Vinci Code and Ruth Kelly) and softening the regime to another fairly standard military dictatorship. Spain under Phase One Francoism was going absolutely nowhere.
Speaking of Opus Dei and Roman Catholicism, the Duchess of Kent's funeral today at Westminster Cathedral was the first Roman Catholic funeral of a member of our royal family since the early 16th century
I'm sorry to be really pedantic, but Mary I had a Requiem Mass at Westminster Abbey in 1558.
As did James II and VII in 1701, and I'm fairly sure his grandson Cardinal Henry Stuart would have done as well in 1807.
And where was James II and James VII's funeral?
"Paris is worth a mass", as his grandfather once said...
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
You've quoted a drop out, where's 'The Farage Party'?
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Corollary: whilst stemming/stopping the boats is necessary, it won't be sufficient to placate a significant slice of public opinion. For them the Blairwave and Boriswave were such awful things that they must be reversed as well.
There may be a 'significant slice of public opinion' that thinks that, but that's because they're being told that all the ills of the country are down to immigration. Which is a lie. And I'd strongly argue that there's a far more significant slice of public opinion that differs from their view.
Can you imagine what would happen to public services if all immigrants 'went home'. (*) Mind you, the destruction of public services is a wet dream to the low-tax millionaires who run the Farage Party. It's probably not a wet dream to many Reform voters, who rely on those public services...
(*) Which is an immense number, and even bigger if you count the 'White British' shite.
The problem is that there are self evidently people who abuse the system. There is an example of a Bangladeshi man in the Mail today (let’s set aside whether the mail is reliable just to use as an example).
He’s been here since 1997 and says he has a passport. Fine. He used to work in a restaurant but is now on disability benefits and living in social housing.
But he brought over his second wife and 2 young kids a few months ago - she is on a spousal visa (I thought there were minimum earning requirements?)
He lives in a retirement complex and is in the process of being evicted because no one under the age of 55 is supposed to live there (he is 59 but his wife is 28). He is fighting it on the grounds that he can’t read English - despite 28 years in the country - and no one explained the tenancy conditions to him.
He’s earned his right to stay. But to add 3 more dependents and to demand a larger property? Doesn’t seem to be a good use of national resources.
It’s cases like that - as reported, I’m sure there are nuances - that drive people to rage a hard line on even legal immigration.
Since in the way of a West of Scotland male made of sausage meat Neil always looked 20 years older than his actual age, he’s still behind the curve. Marvellous that he’s kept his natural hair colour though.
BBC Today just interviewing one of those awful American commentators whose smug arrogance on the eve of a state visit seems designed to alienate the dwindling number of Brits who will give the US the time of day. Only the Russians and the occasional Israeli spokesperson have been able to achieve such levels of twattishness on the Today programme.
I can never understand if these people really believe the shit they’re saying, of are just trying to troll the listener. But I really don’t appreciate the BBC subjecting me to it as I’m waking up.
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Corollary: whilst stemming/stopping the boats is necessary, it won't be sufficient to placate a significant slice of public opinion. For them the Blairwave and Boriswave were such awful things that they must be reversed as well.
There may be a 'significant slice of public opinion' that thinks that, but that's because they're being told that all the ills of the country are down to immigration. Which is a lie. And I'd strongly argue that there's a far more significant slice of public opinion that differs from their view.
Can you imagine what would happen to public services if all immigrants 'went home'. (*) Mind you, the destruction of public services is a wet dream to the low-tax millionaires who run the Farage Party. It's probably not a wet dream to many Reform voters, who rely on those public services...
(*) Which is an immense number, and even bigger if you count the 'White British' shite.
The problem is that there are self evidently people who abuse the system. There is an example of a Bangladeshi man in the Mail today (let’s set aside whether the mail is reliable just to use as an example).
He’s been here since 1997 and says he has a passport. Fine. He used to work in a restaurant but is now on disability benefits and living in social housing.
But he brought over his second wife and 2 young kids a few months ago - she is on a spousal visa (I thought there were minimum earning requirements?)
He lives in a retirement complex and is in the process of being evicted because no one under the age of 55 is supposed to live there (he is 59 but his wife is 28). He is fighting it on the grounds that he can’t read English - despite 28 years in the country - and no one explained the tenancy conditions to him.
He’s earned his right to stay. But to add 3 more dependents and to demand a larger property? Doesn’t seem to be a good use of national resources.
It’s cases like that - as reported, I’m sure there are nuances - that drive people to rage a hard line on even legal immigration.
The spousal visa limits don't apply where there is disability and care requirements. Laws, especially Social Security laws, are so complex that there will always be wrinkles that the Daily Mail can wail about. Since people don't fit into the 'boxes', legislation creates more and more sections/sub-sections/paras to find the 'box' into which a situation fits.
People talk about the atomisation of society, but in many cases legislation reflects this atomisation.
The gullible Western press seemed to be awestruck by the whole thing, no doubt relaying back to their populations that Russia is an invincible superpower and must be appeased at all times. The reporter I saw was remarking at how loud the bangs were.
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Morning, PB.
Yes. chilling. And once again a crucial fact is that it's closely shadowing moves on the American right.
I hadn't realised quite how bad was the deal Trump is trying to impose on S Korea, assuming the 'investment' was largely Trump hyperbole. Apparently not.
S Korea seem to be beginning to question the entire basis of paying what's essentially massive protection money to a semi-hostile state.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20250917/seouls-industry-minister-refutes-questions-on-necessity-for-us-tariff-talks Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jung-kwan expressed caution over questions on the necessity of Korea's protracted tariff negotiations with the United States, amid mounting voices that paying the current 25 percent tariff will be less costly than hastily accepting Washington's demand to take most of the benefits that would be created from the $350 billion investment proposed by Seoul.
"Some say even if tariffs were raised from 15 percent (as the two countries previously agreed) to 25 percent, it would not be much compared to $350 billion, and I also sometimes think of this as an option," Kim said during a dinner reception with reporters, while also stressing that it was his personal opinion.
"But the real question is what kind of country we’re going to pass on to the next generation... When you look into the negotiations, you will realize it's about how we define our relations with the U.S., and it will be an important decision that will shape our future."..
..In late July, Seoul and Washington reached a broad deal to lower Washington's proposed 25 percent reciprocal and item-specific tariffs to 15 percent, in return for the promised 350 billion investment fund.
Since then, the two sides have been negotiating to fine-tune the details of the agreement, but they have been hitting a snag in recent weeks, as Washington demands 90 percent of the profits from the investment, unlike Seoul's stance to have the fund as a tool for Korean companies' improved presence in the U.S. market.
Fueling negative sentiment among the Korean public, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided the construction site of a joint Hyundai Motor–LG Energy Solution battery plant in Georgia, resulting in more than 300 Korean workers being detained.
Against this backdrop, there are growing calls for Korea to accept the 25 percent tariff and cushion the impact through government support for industries, with some arguing that the $350 billion Washington is demanding would be better spent on strengthening domestic companies...
Frankly, I don't think there's any real question. They should scrap the deal, and spend 50bn out of the 350bn on getting a nuclear deterrent.
Both the Attorney General of the US, and her deputy are Trump's former personal lawyers (something that ought to shame the Senators that confirmed them).
Transneft has warned russian O&G suppliers that production may need to be cut, thanks to Ukranian “sanctions” on storage facilities, pipelines, refineries, and export facilities.
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Corollary: whilst stemming/stopping the boats is necessary, it won't be sufficient to placate a significant slice of public opinion. For them the Blairwave and Boriswave were such awful things that they must be reversed as well.
There may be a 'significant slice of public opinion' that thinks that, but that's because they're being told that all the ills of the country are down to immigration. Which is a lie. And I'd strongly argue that there's a far more significant slice of public opinion that differs from their view.
Can you imagine what would happen to public services if all immigrants 'went home'. (*) Mind you, the destruction of public services is a wet dream to the low-tax millionaires who run the Farage Party. It's probably not a wet dream to many Reform voters, who rely on those public services...
(*) Which is an immense number, and even bigger if you count the 'White British' shite.
The problem is that there are self evidently people who abuse the system. There is an example of a Bangladeshi man in the Mail today (let’s set aside whether the mail is reliable just to use as an example).
He’s been here since 1997 and says he has a passport. Fine. He used to work in a restaurant but is now on disability benefits and living in social housing.
But he brought over his second wife and 2 young kids a few months ago - she is on a spousal visa (I thought there were minimum earning requirements?)
He lives in a retirement complex and is in the process of being evicted because no one under the age of 55 is supposed to live there (he is 59 but his wife is 28). He is fighting it on the grounds that he can’t read English - despite 28 years in the country - and no one explained the tenancy conditions to him.
He’s earned his right to stay. But to add 3 more dependents and to demand a larger property? Doesn’t seem to be a good use of national resources.
It’s cases like that - as reported, I’m sure there are nuances - that drive people to rage a hard line on even legal immigration.
The spousal visa limits don't apply where there is disability and care requirements. Laws, especially Social Security laws, are so complex that there will always be wrinkles that the Daily Mail can wail about. Since people don't fit into the 'boxes', legislation creates more and more sections/sub-sections/paras to find the 'box' into which a situation fits.
People talk about the atomisation of society, but in many cases legislation reflects this atomisation.
Wasn’t aware of that wrinkle.
Not convinced that this is the right solution from our perspective. He has depression and sleep apnoea - not trying to diminish those conditions, but in most cases they don’t require a full time carer. You would have thought there is a better solution.
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Corollary: whilst stemming/stopping the boats is necessary, it won't be sufficient to placate a significant slice of public opinion. For them the Blairwave and Boriswave were such awful things that they must be reversed as well.
There may be a 'significant slice of public opinion' that thinks that, but that's because they're being told that all the ills of the country are down to immigration. Which is a lie. And I'd strongly argue that there's a far more significant slice of public opinion that differs from their view.
Can you imagine what would happen to public services if all immigrants 'went home'. (*) Mind you, the destruction of public services is a wet dream to the low-tax millionaires who run the Farage Party. It's probably not a wet dream to many Reform voters, who rely on those public services...
(*) Which is an immense number, and even bigger if you count the 'White British' shite.
The problem is that there are self evidently people who abuse the system. There is an example of a Bangladeshi man in the Mail today (let’s set aside whether the mail is reliable just to use as an example).
He’s been here since 1997 and says he has a passport. Fine. He used to work in a restaurant but is now on disability benefits and living in social housing.
But he brought over his second wife and 2 young kids a few months ago - she is on a spousal visa (I thought there were minimum earning requirements?)
He lives in a retirement complex and is in the process of being evicted because no one under the age of 55 is supposed to live there (he is 59 but his wife is 28). He is fighting it on the grounds that he can’t read English - despite 28 years in the country - and no one explained the tenancy conditions to him.
He’s earned his right to stay. But to add 3 more dependents and to demand a larger property? Doesn’t seem to be a good use of national resources.
It’s cases like that - as reported, I’m sure there are nuances - that drive people to rage a hard line on even legal immigration.
The spousal visa limits don't apply where there is disability and care requirements. Laws, especially Social Security laws, are so complex that there will always be wrinkles that the Daily Mail can wail about. Since people don't fit into the 'boxes', legislation creates more and more sections/sub-sections/paras to find the 'box' into which a situation fits.
People talk about the atomisation of society, but in many cases legislation reflects this atomisation.
Wasn’t aware of that wrinkle.
Not convinced that this is the right solution from our perspective. He has depression and sleep apnoea - not trying to diminish those conditions, but in most cases they don’t require a full time carer. You would have thought there is a better solution.
Feels like he is trying to abuse the system
Twas always the case. One man's rights can be viewed by others as abuse. Then there is gaming the system.
I have posted before that there are so many layers of legislation, to reset the system is almost Augean Stables level of effort. So it gets kicked into the long grass - or brought out by the Daily Mail to provide clickbait.
T May, for example, just read over all EU Legislation into UK law which added even more complexity - and fees for lawyers. I'm sure when I get to the pearly gates, there will be a Human Rights lawyer there arguing on people's behalf.
Comments
"Deporting the illegal migrants is just the start.
A huge number of legal migrants need to go home too - if they're not upholding their end of the deal, then goodbye.
Difficult for some to hear, but it is absolutely necessary."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1968005924876079472
---
It is tempting for those who, like me, have immigrant family and friends to think: "Ah, they're not the ones Lowe's talking about. They uphold their end of the deal."
This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Lowe is changing the debate from illegal immigration in boats, to legal immigration. It can change further. Secondly, what is 'upholding their end of the deal'? If it means (say) paying taxes, then you are only one illness away from not 'upholding their end of the deal'.
So no; your family and friends are *not* different. He means them.
Can you imagine what would happen to public services if all immigrants 'went home'. (*) Mind you, the destruction of public services is a wet dream to the low-tax millionaires who run the Farage Party. It's probably not a wet dream to many Reform voters, who rely on those public services...
(*) Which is an immense number, and even bigger if you count the 'White British' shite.
And whilst taking a stand is totally the right thing to do, I'm not sure it works in this information space.
He’s been here since 1997 and says he has a passport. Fine. He used to work in a restaurant but is now on disability benefits and living in social housing.
But he brought over his second wife and 2 young kids a few months ago - she is on a spousal visa (I thought there were minimum earning requirements?)
He lives in a retirement complex and is in the process of being evicted because no one under the age of 55 is supposed to live there (he is 59 but his wife is 28). He is fighting it on the grounds that he can’t read English - despite 28 years in the country - and no one explained the tenancy conditions to him.
He’s earned his right to stay. But to add 3 more dependents and to demand a larger property? Doesn’t seem to be a good use of national resources.
It’s cases like that - as reported, I’m sure there are nuances - that drive people to rage a hard line on even legal immigration.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15104797/Migrant-disability-benefits-housed-retirement-home-human-rights.html
Here’s a pic of 12 year old Andra.
I can never understand if these people really believe the shit they’re saying, of are just trying to troll the listener. But I really don’t appreciate the BBC subjecting me to it as I’m waking up.
They announced 180,000 soldiers would be involved, but only 13,000 turned up. I wonder what happened to the rest of them
https://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1967959177382199366
People talk about the atomisation of society, but in many cases legislation reflects this atomisation.
Yes. chilling. And once again a crucial fact is that it's closely shadowing moves on the American right.
Apparently not.
S Korea seem to be beginning to question the entire basis of paying what's essentially massive protection money to a semi-hostile state.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20250917/seouls-industry-minister-refutes-questions-on-necessity-for-us-tariff-talks
Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jung-kwan expressed caution over questions on the necessity of Korea's protracted tariff negotiations with the United States, amid mounting voices that paying the current 25 percent tariff will be less costly than hastily accepting Washington's demand to take most of the benefits that would be created from the $350 billion investment proposed by Seoul.
"Some say even if tariffs were raised from 15 percent (as the two countries previously agreed) to 25 percent, it would not be much compared to $350 billion, and I also sometimes think of this as an option," Kim said during a dinner reception with reporters, while also stressing that it was his personal opinion.
"But the real question is what kind of country we’re going to pass on to the next generation... When you look into the negotiations, you will realize it's about how we define our relations with the U.S., and it will be an important decision that will shape our future."..
..In late July, Seoul and Washington reached a broad deal to lower Washington's proposed 25 percent reciprocal and item-specific tariffs to 15 percent, in return for the promised 350 billion investment fund.
Since then, the two sides have been negotiating to fine-tune the details of the agreement, but they have been hitting a snag in recent weeks, as Washington demands 90 percent of the profits from the investment, unlike Seoul's stance to have the fund as a tool for Korean companies' improved presence in the U.S. market.
Fueling negative sentiment among the Korean public, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided the construction site of a joint Hyundai Motor–LG Energy Solution battery plant in Georgia, resulting in more than 300 Korean workers being detained.
Against this backdrop, there are growing calls for Korea to accept the 25 percent tariff and cushion the impact through government support for industries, with some arguing that the $350 billion Washington is demanding would be better spent on strengthening domestic companies...
Frankly, I don't think there's any real question.
They should scrap the deal, and spend 50bn out of the 350bn on getting a nuclear deterrent.
The latter is now suggesting using the RICO act against those who protest against Trump in his presence.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1968122428313555031
Transneft has warned russian O&G suppliers that production may need to be cut, thanks to Ukranian “sanctions” on storage facilities, pipelines, refineries, and export facilities.
https://x.com/mylovanov/status/1968059139428585737
NEW THREAD
Not convinced that this is the right solution from our perspective. He has depression and sleep apnoea - not trying to diminish those conditions, but in most cases they don’t require a full time carer. You would have thought there is a better solution.
Feels like he is trying to abuse the system
I have posted before that there are so many layers of legislation, to reset the system is almost Augean Stables level of effort. So it gets kicked into the long grass - or brought out by the Daily Mail to provide clickbait.
T May, for example, just read over all EU Legislation into UK law which added even more complexity - and fees for lawyers. I'm sure when I get to the pearly gates, there will be a Human Rights lawyer there arguing on people's behalf.