Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
For those of us old enough to remember, the present so-called re-negotiations are reminiscent of the similar "make or break" talks concerning the fishing rights around our shores which took place prior to the UK originally joining the Common Market forty five years ago. The negotiations were then undertaken by Heath's man Geoffrey Rippon QC MP who was hailed at the time as having done a great job in achieving what was then considered a highly successful outcome for the UK. Unfortunately, history was to judge such events rather differently, evidenced by the subsequent decimation of our finishing industry, accompanied by the near destruction of our fishing stocks:
"EU leaders insist there is 'no link' between the migrant crisis and New Year sex attacks in Cologne - and vow to bring about an end to 'false accusations'"
...But Mrs Merkel's creation of the migrant crisis...
I've noticed this a couple of times on PB and it seems to have gained the status of "accepted fact", but the cause of the migration isn't the EU. You could argue that Merkel has handled it badly, but that's not causal. Blaming the EU for the Great Migration is like blaming the dinosaurs for the meteorite.
I think there are two points here:
1) It was not a 'crisis' for the EU when it was bottled up in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon etc, as it was for several years. The problem was mostly ignored as pressure built up.
2) Her actions actively encouraged others to make the perilous journey, turning a formative crisis for the EU into a very real one.
The first of these is not her fault; the top was going to come off the bottle some time, and many people were going to flee their homes directly, or leave the camps (and add in non-refugees who are just chancing it).
The second of these is very much her fault. She shook the bottle as the top was coming off.
The top might have been kept on that bottle, or the pressure inside relieved, by: a) directly helping the countries who are struggling with hundreds of thousands of migrants; b) trying to solve the problem(s) in the countries the migrants are coming from c) making it clear we'll take people directly from those countries, and not people who make it to our doorstep.
So Merkel did not cause the Great Migration, but she made it far worse for everyone.
I wonder how the EU bureaucrats will achieve this:
The European Commission wants to remove 'false associations' between the increasing number of some criminal acts and the arrival of migrants, documents show.
Enoch Powell was right. Except for the minor details - it was never "Rivers of Tiber foaming with much blood" but instead "Streets of Cologne sticky with much semen."
Obviously his critics (not you) will try to wriggle over minor details rather than accept they were wrong, but what Powell predicted would happen in the UK is now being played out right before the eyes of the residents of mainland Europe. The logic of his forecasts can be applied wherever mass immigration occurs, and it is always proved correct.
Extremists on both sides taking the law into their own hands.. why encourage the obvious?
I suspect that one could say that until now Cameron has been lucky, and, to be fair, a PM needs luck. However, it may well be that his luck has run out; I suspect that most European leaders (and peoples) see the consequences of the Syrian Civil War, and the various Central African ones, as being far more importance than enabling Cameron to dish Farage.
I wouldn’t be too surprised to see him told that if he wants, as UK Premier, to cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face, he can do it, on the expectation that the UK will see sense when it collectively realises how cold and lonely it is “outside”!
I suspect that one could say that until now Cameron has been lucky, and, to be fair, a PM needs luck. However, it may well be that his luck has run out; I suspect that most European leaders (and peoples) see the consequences of the Syrian Civil War, and the various Central African ones, as being far more importance than enabling Cameron to dish Farage.
I wouldn’t be too surprised to see him told that if he wants, as UK Premier, to cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face, he can do it, on the expectation that the UK will see sense when it collectively realises how cold and lonely it is “outside”!
...But Mrs Merkel's creation of the migrant crisis...
I've noticed this a couple of times on PB and it seems to have gained the status of "accepted fact", but the cause of the migration isn't the EU. You could argue that Merkel has handled it badly, but that's not causal. Blaming the EU for the Great Migration is like blaming the dinosaurs for the meteorite.
Depends how far you go back.
A hundred years ago we were sitting down with the French, drawing lines on maps of the middle east.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
For those of us old enough to remember, the present so-called re-negotiations are reminiscent of the similar "make or break" talks concerning the fishing rights around our shores which took place prior to the UK originally joining the Common Market forty five years ago. The negotiations were then undertaken by Heath's man Geoffrey Rippon QC MP who was hailed at the time as having done a great job in achieving what was then considered a highly successful outcome for the UK. Unfortunately, history was to judge such events rather differently, evidenced by the subsequent decimation of our finishing industry, accompanied by the near destruction of our fishing stocks:
The story of the destruction of the UK fishing industry and grounds is truly one of unremitting horror and incompetence. At one stage the UK taxpayers were forking out for British boats to be taken out of commission, along with the closure of associated infrastructure, and at the same time subsidising the construction of new, much bigger, Spanish boats that would then come and fish in UK waters.
Even now the story grinds on in its utter stupidity and wanton destruction. Followers of the news may remember a couple of weeks ago the new regulations on the fishing for Sea Bass were announced. Industrial scale fishing is to be permitted but rod and line fishing by anglers is banned. This is to ensure the conservation of stocks.
If ever anyone wanted to know about what is now the EU they could use the fishing industry as a case study. It is all there.
On topic, I don't think I agree with David Herdson.
The actual issues involved are slightly technical and the voters don't really understand them. So what's going to happen is that something's going to be agreed, David Cameron's going to say it's a triumph, the skeptics are going to say it's a pile of pants, the media are going to report one side or the other according to their affiliations, the broadcast media will report both arguments, the establishment is going with Cameron, some ambitious high-ranking right-wing Tory is going with pants, and the voters are going to come away either unsure or thinking what they already thought to begin with.
This is going to be what happens pretty much regardless of what the actual deal is.
Lol - pithy and probably true.
...and I suspect the campaign itself will barely mention the Cameron deal. We'll be back to debating whether we are better off out or in, in a general sense. Fear and doubt from both sides.
I suspect that one could say that until now Cameron has been lucky, and, to be fair, a PM needs luck. However, it may well be that his luck has run out; I suspect that most European leaders (and peoples) see the consequences of the Syrian Civil War, and the various Central African ones, as being far more importance than enabling Cameron to dish Farage.
I wouldn’t be too surprised to see him told that if he wants, as UK Premier, to cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face, he can do it, on the expectation that the UK will see sense when it collectively realises how cold and lonely it is “outside”!
Or warm and cosy outside.
With Google, Amazon etc telling us how much tax, if any, they are going to pay. And Vodafone ripping off anyone silly enough to use a UK mobile phone abroad.
...But Mrs Merkel's creation of the migrant crisis...
I've noticed this a couple of times on PB and it seems to have gained the status of "accepted fact", but the cause of the migration isn't the EU. You could argue that Merkel has handled it badly, but that's not causal. Blaming the EU for the Great Migration is like blaming the dinosaurs for the meteorite.
Depends how far you go back.
A hundred years ago we were sitting down with the French, drawing lines on maps of the middle east.
For Cameron to make this all about migrant benefits is at best odd, at worst patronising and insulting.
there are far far bigger issues at stake on this our first chance to have a say about the EU since 1975 - in other words the first chance most of us have ever had.
The EU's stated aim is to move to ever closer union. The question is are we in or out of that? It and all the associated issues are huge.
It's NOT dole for Poles Mr Cameron!
This transparently stage managed brinkmanship makes me more likely to vote to leave. Taking us for fools
If it's transparently stage managed, how come Cameron is not coming back with any of the 5 things he was aiming for.
Correct. There is an element of choreography here (both the UK Government and the EU want the UK to vote Remain, and they know some entertaining WWF moves are needed before one taps out) but, at the same time, you can't choreograph what you don't have.
They know Cameron will recommend Remain come hell or high water, he's probably told them so, and the EU probably think the substance of the deal doesn't really matter in that as long as he can broadly map it to what was originally sought Cameron will be ok, as he's trusted.
I expect some elaborate smoke and mirrors (a bit like Osborne's "halved the bill" nonsense) an announcement from Michael Gove on human rights, and perhaps one or two baby rabbits - like a 20 year freeze on free migration for new EU member states, or some such.
If I remember correctly we ended up paying the full amount and Osborne wasn't properly held to account?
Quite a few people seem to be getting het up on both sides of the argument. I'm finding it difficult to get that invested. I may well have mis-estimated the potential outcomes, though, but the way it looks at the moment is:
- If we vote REMAIN, it'll probably be on the basis of a renegotiated deal that leaves us in a 2 speed Europe, with us in an outer layer somewhat like a souped-up EEA. One benefit of such a system is that the EEA countries like Norway may be attracted to getting their toes a bit wetter.
- If we vote LEAVE, we'll probably end up in the EEA and negotiating more leverage than is current, but at the cost of a larger per-capita contribution. Coincidentally closing that hole in the budget and avoiding any economic turmoil. So with us in something like a souped-up EEA.
When the two options look that similar, it's hard to get that concerned.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Quite a few people seem to be getting het up on both sides of the argument. I'm finding it difficult to get that invested. I may well have mis-estimated the potential outcomes, though, but the way it looks at the moment is:
- If we vote REMAIN, it'll probably be on the basis of a renegotiated deal that leaves us in a 2 speed Europe, with us in an outer layer somewhat like a souped-up EEA. One benefit of such a system is that the EEA countries like Norway may be attracted to getting their toes a bit wetter.
- If we vote LEAVE, we'll probably end up in the EEA and negotiating more leverage than is current, but at the cost of a larger per-capita contribution. Coincidentally closing that hole in the budget and avoiding any economic turmoil. So with us in something like a souped-up EEA.
When the two options look that similar, it's hard to get that concerned.
But still Leave means we have greater sovereignty - yes, the outcome might look the same, but at least ultimately sovereignty will rest with our own parliament.
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Well your lad doesn't yet have the track record of predicting winners that TimB's GSD does. So, full respect to your boy, but I'll stick with Heidi this time around.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
For those of us old enough to remember, the present so-called re-negotiations are reminiscent of the similar "make or break" talks concerning the fishing rights around our shores which took place prior to the UK originally joining the Common Market forty five years ago. The negotiations were then undertaken by Heath's man Geoffrey Rippon QC MP who was hailed at the time as having done a great job in achieving what was then considered a highly successful outcome for the UK. Unfortunately, history was to judge such events rather differently, evidenced by the subsequent decimation of our finishing industry, accompanied by the near destruction of our fishing stocks:
Serves me right .... I have previously resolved never, ever to use the words "decimate" or "decimation", which almost always prove to be an inaccurate assessment, whether it be over or under.
...But Mrs Merkel's creation of the migrant crisis...
I've noticed this a couple of times on PB and it seems to have gained the status of "accepted fact", but the cause of the migration isn't the EU. You could argue that Merkel has handled it badly, but that's not causal. Blaming the EU for the Great Migration is like blaming the dinosaurs for the meteorite.
I think there are two points here:
1) It was not a 'crisis' for the EU when it was bottled up in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon etc, as it was for several years. The problem was mostly ignored as pressure built up.
2) Her actions actively encouraged others to make the perilous journey, turning a formative crisis for the EU into a very real one.
The first of these is not her fault; the top was going to come off the bottle some time, and many people were going to flee their homes directly, or leave the camps (and add in non-refugees who are just chancing it).
The second of these is very much her fault. She shook the bottle as the top was coming off.
The top might have been kept on that bottle, or the pressure inside relieved, by: a) directly helping the countries who are struggling with hundreds of thousands of migrants; b) trying to solve the problem(s) in the countries the migrants are coming from c) making it clear we'll take people directly from those countries, and not people who make it to our doorstep.
So Merkel did not cause the Great Migration, but she made it far worse for everyone.
And, eventually, the migrants will acquire the right to move to the EU country of their choice.
For Cameron to make this all about migrant benefits is at best odd, at worst patronising and insulting.
there are far far bigger issues at stake on this our first chance to have a say about the EU since 1975 - in other words the first chance most of us have ever had.
The EU's stated aim is to move to ever closer union. The question is are we in or out of that? It and all the associated issues are huge.
It's NOT dole for Poles Mr Cameron!
This transparently stage managed brinkmanship makes me more likely to vote to leave. Taking us for fools
If it's transparently stage managed, how come Cameron is not coming back with any of the 5 things he was aiming for.
Correct. There is an element of choreography here (both the UK Government and the EU want the UK to vote Remain, and they know some entertaining WWF moves are needed before one taps out) but, at the same time, you can't choreograph what you don't have.
They know Cameron will recommend Remain come hell or high water, he's probably told them so, and the EU probably think the substance of the deal doesn't really matter in that as long as he can broadly map it to what was originally sought Cameron will be ok, as he's trusted.
I expect some elaborate smoke and mirrors (a bit like Osborne's "halved the bill" nonsense) an announcement from Michael Gove on human rights, and perhaps one or two baby rabbits - like a 20 year freeze on free migration for new EU member states, or some such.
If I remember correctly we ended up paying the full amount and Osborne wasn't properly held to account?
Quite a few people seem to be getting het up on both sides of the argument. I'm finding it difficult to get that invested. I may well have mis-estimated the potential outcomes, though, but the way it looks at the moment is:
- If we vote REMAIN, it'll probably be on the basis of a renegotiated deal that leaves us in a 2 speed Europe, with us in an outer layer somewhat like a souped-up EEA. One benefit of such a system is that the EEA countries like Norway may be attracted to getting their toes a bit wetter.
- If we vote LEAVE, we'll probably end up in the EEA and negotiating more leverage than is current, but at the cost of a larger per-capita contribution. Coincidentally closing that hole in the budget and avoiding any economic turmoil. So with us in something like a souped-up EEA.
When the two options look that similar, it's hard to get that concerned.
In the short term, there's little difference. In the long term, we'd avoid most aspects of political integration if we left the EU for the EEA.
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Well your lad doesn't yet have the track record of predicting winners that TimB's GSD does. So, full respect to your boy, but I'll stick with Heidi this time around.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
For Cameron to make this all about migrant benefits is at best odd, at worst patronising and insulting.
there are far far bigger issues at stake on this our first chance to have a say about the EU since 1975 - in other words the first chance most of us have ever had.
The EU's stated aim is to move to ever closer union. The question is are we in or out of that? It and all the associated issues are huge.
It's NOT dole for Poles Mr Cameron!
This transparently stage managed brinkmanship makes me more likely to vote to leave. Taking us for fools
If it's transparently stage managed, how come Cameron is not coming back with any of the 5 things he was aiming for.
Correct. There is an element of choreography here (both the UK Government and the EU want the UK to vote Remain, and they know some entertaining WWF moves are needed before one taps out) but, at the same time, you can't choreograph what you don't have.
They know Cameron will recommend Remain come hell or high water, he's probably told them so, and the EU probably think the substance of the deal doesn't really matter in that as long as he can broadly map it to what was originally sought Cameron will be ok, as he's trusted.
I expect some elaborate smoke and mirrors (a bit like Osborne's "halved the bill" nonsense) an announcement from Michael Gove on human rights, and perhaps one or two baby rabbits - like a 20 year freeze on free migration for new EU member states, or some such.
If I remember correctly we ended up paying the full amount and Osborne wasn't properly held to account?
You remember correctly.
What Osborne did sums up UK politicians attitude to the EU. Make Eurosceptic noises for the British public and behave like a Europhile behind closed doors.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
Unless the National Front get elected, I can't see any problems, in the event of a Leave vote.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
I don't know how many times you have been to Canada and how widely you have traveled, but it is a lot more diverse than you probably realise e.g. over 15% of the population are of Asian descent (by that I mean North American definition i.e. Chinese, Japanse etc). In the likes of Vancouver, BC, it is much higher. Vancouver is only 50% white these day and given demographic trends that will be down to <40% in the next 20 years.
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Well your lad doesn't yet have the track record of predicting winners that TimB's GSD does. So, full respect to your boy, but I'll stick with Heidi this time around.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
That seems a little hasty. I'm sure they'd've preferred a letter explaining their errors which they might well have published.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
I don't know how many times you have been to Canada and how widely you have traveled, but it is a lot more diverse than you probably realise e.g. over 15% of the population are of Asian descent (by that I mean North American definition i.e. Chinese, Japanse etc). In the likes of Vancouver, BC, it is much higher.
Indeed. Australia is hardly all-white either.
(Frankly you might get a more "all-white" existence moving to a wealthier and less integrated suburb in South Africa. But there's swathes of England, Wales, Ireland or Scotland - particularly rural areas - which are 98%+ white.)
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
TBH, you have pretty much summed up most of the media. As Marr said of the BBC, it is overwhelmingly young, liberal, metropolitan etc etc etc
The issue now compared to say 20 years ago is now the likes of you and I can do a bit of digging on google and find out they are talking a lot of bollocks most of the time. In years gone by, we didn't have access to the data, journals, etc and so it was impossible to know if they were fully informed and well researched pieces.
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Well your lad doesn't yet have the track record of predicting winners that TimB's GSD does. So, full respect to your boy, but I'll stick with Heidi this time around.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
I find the Economist quite interesting, but it's tiresome that one can predict what almost any article will say.
If it's about immigration, it's always wonderful, with no downside. If it's about the EU, there'll be a few minor criticisms, but otherwise, it's great. If it's about criminal justice, we should always be imprisoning fewer people. If it's about big business, we should give them whatever they want.
It's a catastrophe. The inevitable calamity of trying to combine social democracy with mass immigration and multiculti
Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
A family friend is one of their most senior writers, and is astonishingly well informed and travelled.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
I can agree with that. As I say, I often use it as a launching board. The range of topics it covers is much greater than normals newspapers
What I would really like is a daily news digest: the best writing in newspapers from around the world: a bit like a printed 'From out Own Correspondent', but with a far wider variety of views.
I once met someone who works for the New Scientist (on a Scottish mountain, of all places). His description of the quality (or lack thereof) of the NS's journalism was quite funny. He claimed it was dumbed-down to the point it treated the reader with contempt.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Tens of millions of people from China and India would move to Europe if they were able to do so, if not hundreds of millions.
Which is why Merkel's idiocy is so dangerous long term.
Other countries will have wars, famines, natural disasters etc - is Europe to offer all their peoples open door immigration.
This again, is an area where the mindsets of right and left differ.
To many on the left, people from poor countries have a right to settle here and we have a duty to admit them.
That's because to the 'intellectual' left the European working class have failed to create the socialist nirvana they were supposed to. They therefore need to be 'punished' and if possible 'replaced'.
For EU 'intellectuals' there's also the benefit that by breaking the connection between a country's people and that country itself you remove an obstacle to an EU superstate.
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Well your lad doesn't yet have the track record of predicting winners that TimB's GSD does. So, full respect to your boy, but I'll stick with Heidi this time around.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
The problem is the same thing can be said for all newspapers and media. In that case, why read or watch anything?
(As I think I've said before, the funniest for me was a fire in Derby. It was reported by the local newspaper as being on the other side of town, when it was close by and visible from their office).
For Cameron to make this all about migrant benefits is at best odd, at worst patronising and insulting.
there are far far bigger issues at stake on this our first chance to have a say about the EU since 1975 - in other words the first chance most of us have ever had.
The EU's stated aim is to move to ever closer union. The question is are we in or out of that? It and all the associated issues are huge.
It's NOT dole for Poles Mr Cameron!
This transparently stage managed brinkmanship makes me more likely to vote to leave. Taking us for fools
If it's transparently stage managed, how come Cameron is not coming back with any of the 5 things he was aiming for.
Correct. There is an element of choreography here (both the UK Government and the EU want the UK to vote Remain, and they know some entertaining WWF moves are needed before one taps out) but, at the same time, you can't choreograph what you don't have.
They know Cameron will recommend Remain come hell or high water, he's probably told them so, and the EU probably think the substance of the deal doesn't really matter in that as long as he can broadly map it to what was originally sought Cameron will be ok, as he's trusted.
I expect some elaborate smoke and mirrors (a bit like Osborne's "halved the bill" nonsense) an announcement from Michael Gove on human rights, and perhaps one or two baby rabbits - like a 20 year freeze on free migration for new EU member states, or some such.
If I remember correctly we ended up paying the full amount and Osborne wasn't properly held to account?
You remember correctly.
Several of our resident Camborne cheerleaders on here refused to acknowledge that this had happened, probably still do.
David Frum Moroccans, Tunisians, and Algerians will soon lose asylum rights in Germany https://t.co/Pv13BusMb8
Having read that in Sweden a lot of the issues surround migrants from those countries, I wonder what reasons they were claiming asylum for.
If you turn up from Syria or Iraq, I can understand that the threat of ISIS lopping your head of might be a rather convincing case for claiming asylum, but none of those countries are at war or widespread civil breakdown.
As I seemed to remember, Tunisia had an uprising several years ago from which they now actually have fully democratic system. It was one of the countries in the Arab Spring where change was positive as a result of it, with fully free elections.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Cornwall may be a better bet! All the countries that you mention have a bigger non-white population than the UK.
Alternatively you may like to take up your right to free movement and move to one of the 99% white countries in Eastern Europe like Poland.
It's a catastrophe. The inevitable calamity of trying to combine social democracy with mass immigration and multiculti
Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Cornwall may be a better bet! All the countries that you mention have a bigger non-white population than the UK.
Alternatively you may like to take up your right to free movement and move to one of the 99% white countries in Eastern Europe like Poland.
Your kids will get a better education in Poland to boot. Streets ahead of us on that latest research, where as Canada public education and health isn't the best.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
For some reason I had an infatuation with the Economist for 10 years from about 2002 to 2012. I still have the beautifully preserved copies in special Economist ring binders. Now I can't understand what I saw in it.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Cornwall may be a better bet! All the countries that you mention have a bigger non-white population than the UK.
Alternatively you may like to take up your right to free movement and move to one of the 99% white countries in Eastern Europe like Poland.
It's quite sad really to see that some think that Canada is all white. This is before you get to the French speaking separatists. It's also quite laughable to think that the world's immigration problem can be solved by emigration.
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Well your lad doesn't yet have the track record of predicting winners that TimB's GSD does. So, full respect to your boy, but I'll stick with Heidi this time around.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
If it isn't a rule some where it ought to be: everyone assumes the media must be largely correct on most things until they first encounter a story about a subject of which they have personal knowledge. For me it is usually anything to do with education or anything in the Guardian that involves numbers (and particularly units).
If it isn't a rule some where it ought to be: everyone assumes the media must be largely correct on most things until they first encounter a story about a subject of which they have personal knowledge. For me it is usually anything to do with education or anything in the Guardian that involves numbers (and particularly units).
I would presume part of the problem is that being a journo is being a bit of Jack of all trades and a master of none. Very few highly skilled, highly educated specialists are going to go into a business that isn't doing very well (especially print newspapers and specialist magazines) and has long hours and pay is pretty piss poor.
Its a bit like the financial regulators, if you are a star trader (or have dreams of being one) you aren't going to go and work for "compliance" for a tiny fraction of the money and none of the excitement.
I once met someone who works for the New Scientist (on a Scottish mountain, of all places). His description of the quality (or lack thereof) of the NS's journalism was quite funny. He claimed it was dumbed-down to the point it treated the reader with contempt.
All content creators seem to follow the same downward path. The rot sets in when they think they 'know' their audience and start pandering to this fictional character.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Cornwall may be a better bet! All the countries that you mention have a bigger non-white population than the UK.
Alternatively you may like to take up your right to free movement and move to one of the 99% white countries in Eastern Europe like Poland.
It's quite sad really to see that some think that Canada is all white. This is before you get to the French speaking separatists. It's also quite laughable to think that the world's immigration problem can be solved by emigration.
Immigrants are mostly well integrated in Canada. I was walking around Toronto recently and saw hardly any headscarfs or burqas even though a large percentage of the population of the city are originally from Muslim countries.
< I would presume part of the problem is that being a journo is being a bit of Jack of all trades and a master of none. Very few highly skilled, highly educated specialists are going to go into a business that isn't doing very well (especially print newspapers and specialist magazines) and has long hours and pay is pretty piss poor.
Its a bit like the financial regulators, if you are a star trader (or have dreams of being one) you aren't going to go and work for "compliance" for a tiny fraction of the money and none of the excitement.
A friend's girlfriend was a doctor (from memory, a surgeon). She was changing career to become a freelance journalist. It seemed odd to go from a well-paid and respected career to a relatively poorly paid one which is much less respected.
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Well your lad doesn't yet have the track record of predicting winners that TimB's GSD does. So, full respect to your boy, but I'll stick with Heidi this time around.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
If it isn't a rule some where it ought to be: everyone assumes the media must be largely correct on most things until they first encounter a story about a subject of which they have personal knowledge. For me it is usually anything to do with education or anything in the Guardian that involves numbers (and particularly units).
True. I work with computers and have a keen interest in aviation - two subjects that the media appear to have no clue about - to the point that the 'experts' seen on the TV news are derided by their own profession as either uninformed or fantasists.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
I don't know how many times you have been to Canada and how widely you have traveled, but it is a lot more diverse than you probably realise e.g. over 15% of the population are of Asian descent (by that I mean North American definition i.e. Chinese, Japanse etc). In the likes of Vancouver, BC, it is much higher. Vancouver is only 50% white these day and given demographic trends that will be down to <40% in the next 20 years.</p>
This is the all white commonwealth that dumbassed dingbat Farage's wants us to cosy up to. I am afraid the whole leave the EU project has become twisted and is just a cover for whites only.
The problem with the EU is that it's still popular in theory but in practice it gives the wrong results. In theory the EU should be peaceful, prosperous, stable and democratic. The result is internal instability, permanent economic crisis, most eurozone countries don't have functional democracies and a vast war zone stretching all around it from Ukraine to Tunisia.
The EU is a bureaucrats dream and a nightmare reality. But dreams are popular and most people still have memories of what europe used to be 10 years ago before the dream ended, after-all the Soviet Union needed 15 years of permanent crisis to be dissolved, the EU is in year 7.
Very fair analysis. The final sentence sums it up.
I would add one more point. If Cameron's deal is so laughably poor - and it's not looking good at the moment - then that will seriously devalue him as a salesman. Every time he says Look I got a fivepence a week reduction in UK child benefits paid to Romanian plumbers living in Berlin, he will be ridiculed. Not just rejected, but ridiculed.
If this is how little they are prepared to listen to us, when we are on the cusp of leaving, how much do you think they will listen to us after we have voted to remain ?
I think isam has got this one absolutely right: to the average European leader struggling with dealing with Mrs Merkel's idiocy, Britain is a distraction. We are so far down their list of priorities, there are very few domestic votes in it for them.
Unless we leave, and everyone else in the EU has to either pay a lot more money into the pot, or take a lot less out of it... then all of sudden people will notice.
The financial difference to the eurozone will be a lot less than I originally thought.
We contribute about £15bn gross, and £7.5bn net. So our departure will "cost" £7.5bn that the EU will need to make up.
But.
Norway pays £800m, and Switzerland somewhat more than that to have access to common market. Realistically, on a per person basis, we would expect to pay a similar amount. So, say £3.5bn. That means that the EU will have a £4bn hole. Which is quite a lot, but compared to (say) the size of Greece's debts, it's a rounding error.
Just a note on this RCS. Though I am not sure how much difference it makes to your overall argument, your figures are quite considerably out.
According to the OBR the UK Gross Contribution in 2014 was £19.2 billion and the net contribution was £9.84 Billion. For 2015 that had risen to just over £20 billion gross and £10.8 billion net. So about a third more than you thought.
If it isn't a rule some where it ought to be: everyone assumes the media must be largely correct on most things until they first encounter a story about a subject of which they have personal knowledge. For me it is usually anything to do with education or anything in the Guardian that involves numbers (and particularly units).
I would presume part of the problem is that being a journo is being a bit of Jack of all trades and a master of none. Very few highly skilled, highly educated specialists are going to go into a business that isn't doing very well (especially print newspapers and specialist magazines) and has long hours and pay is pretty piss poor.
Its a bit like the financial regulators, if you are a star trader (or have dreams of being one) you aren't going to go and work for "compliance" for a tiny fraction of the money and none of the excitement.
There must be some subjects that are covered well and knowledgeably (sport? Film and theatre reviews?) or am I being naive?
If it isn't a rule some where it ought to be: everyone assumes the media must be largely correct on most things until they first encounter a story about a subject of which they have personal knowledge. For me it is usually anything to do with education or anything in the Guardian that involves numbers (and particularly units).
I would presume part of the problem is that being a journo is being a bit of Jack of all trades and a master of none. Very few highly skilled, highly educated specialists are going to go into a business that isn't doing very well (especially print newspapers and specialist magazines) and has long hours and pay is pretty piss poor.
Its a bit like the financial regulators, if you are a star trader (or have dreams of being one) you aren't going to go and work for "compliance" for a tiny fraction of the money and none of the excitement.
There must be some subjects that are covered well and knowledgeably (sport? Film and theatre reviews?) or am I being naive?
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
I don't know how many times you have been to Canada and how widely you have traveled, but it is a lot more diverse than you probably realise e.g. over 15% of the population are of Asian descent (by that I mean North American definition i.e. Chinese, Japanse etc). In the likes of Vancouver, BC, it is much higher. Vancouver is only 50% white these day and given demographic trends that will be down to <40% in the next 20 years.</p>
This is the all white commonwealth that dumbassed dingbat Farage's wants us to cosy up to. I am afraid the whole leave the EU project has become twisted and is just a cover for whites only.
I should have said, I would highly recommend Canada as a place to live, if it hadn't got so damn expensive to live in anywhere that isn't -40 all year round. Vancouver is eye wateringly expensive. Here is what $1 million gets you these days in good neighbourhood in Vancouver,
If it isn't a rule some where it ought to be: everyone assumes the media must be largely correct on most things until they first encounter a story about a subject of which they have personal knowledge. For me it is usually anything to do with education or anything in the Guardian that involves numbers (and particularly units).
I would presume part of the problem is that being a journo is being a bit of Jack of all trades and a master of none. Very few highly skilled, highly educated specialists are going to go into a business that isn't doing very well (especially print newspapers and specialist magazines) and has long hours and pay is pretty piss poor.
Its a bit like the financial regulators, if you are a star trader (or have dreams of being one) you aren't going to go and work for "compliance" for a tiny fraction of the money and none of the excitement.
There must be some subjects that are covered well and knowledgeably (sport? Film and theatre reviews?) or am I being naive?
Sport not really, with noticeable exception. Those in the world of professional sport betting think most of the talking heads you get covering sport are absolute numpties. The likes of Robbie Savage and Ian Wright don't do a lot to help that perception. Continuing the football, compare what Gary Neville used to do with the Sky coverage compared to any other media coverage of football, it just chalk and cheese. I would suggest a lot of sports coverage is asinine.
Film probably, but then with your liberal arts degree it is a more attractive career opportunity than say STEM background.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
A family friend is one of their most senior writers, and is astonishingly well informed and travelled.
Yes, obviously there are some senior folk too (as with other newspapers) but the bulk of the copy (as with other newspapers) gets written by those wetter behind the years.
The main complaint isn't really that they are thick and poorly travelled (untrue), or even that they're pretty homogenous (though that is a fair criticism), but that they aren't really as well-connected and well-informed in all the countries they're reporting on as the omniscient writing style is hinting at.
To be fair, to do policy analysis - which is mostly what the Economist does - you don't need to know all the players, just have a clear vision of what the options are. But they often write as if they have an "inside view" from a government's perspective, when in reality they're generally either guessing or they're using local media. In some cases they'll have sources inside the local civil service or politics, but when they write as if they're inside the mind of the local Prime Minister they're usually not writing straight from the horse's mouth.
David Frum Moroccans, Tunisians, and Algerians will soon lose asylum rights in Germany https://t.co/Pv13BusMb8
Having read that in Sweden a lot of the issues surround migrants from those countries, I wonder what reasons they were claiming asylum for.
If you turn up from Syria or Iraq, I can understand that the threat of ISIS lopping your head of might be a rather convincing case for claiming asylum, but none of those countries are at war or widespread civil breakdown.
As I seemed to remember, Tunisia had an uprising several years ago from which they now actually have fully democratic system. It was one of the countries in the Arab Spring where change was positive as a result of it, with fully free elections.
The article in the link goes on to explain that there is evidence of torture in Morocco and Algeria.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
For some reason I had an infatuation with the Economist for 10 years from about 2002 to 2012. I still have the beautifully preserved copies in special Economist ring binders. Now I can't understand what I saw in it.
When it comes to the Economist my rule of thumb is "whatever they write the opposite is true".
That rule is accurate, from who to politically support, to which wars to support, to economic predictions, I keep their yearly predictions book as proof that they know nothing of what's going on now or in the future.
But it's a general disease in academia too, I have a copy of Time magazine from 2006 where a Harvard historian predicted a massive banking crisis in China in 2008 leading to american supremacy in the 2010's led by president Jim Webb and Tim Allen with a peaceful middle east after america won the Iraq war.
You couldn't get more wrong than that, which proves that they are useless, it's better to do the opposite of what the "experts" recommend.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
< I would presume part of the problem is that being a journo is being a bit of Jack of all trades and a master of none. Very few highly skilled, highly educated specialists are going to go into a business that isn't doing very well (especially print newspapers and specialist magazines) and has long hours and pay is pretty piss poor.
Its a bit like the financial regulators, if you are a star trader (or have dreams of being one) you aren't going to go and work for "compliance" for a tiny fraction of the money and none of the excitement.
A friend's girlfriend was a doctor (from memory, a surgeon). She was changing career to become a freelance journalist. It seemed odd to go from a well-paid and respected career to a relatively poorly paid one which is much less respected.
The key word may be 'freelance' here. A chance to do something for yourself and not have a boss or have to deal with hospital managers or whatever. I wonder how she got on? Setting out to be a freelance journalist without actually having been a journalist with all the editorial contacts is a long, hard road.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
I don't know how many times you have been to Canada and how widely you have traveled, but it is a lot more diverse than you probably realise e.g. over 15% of the population are of Asian descent (by that I mean North American definition i.e. Chinese, Japanse etc). In the likes of Vancouver, BC, it is much higher. Vancouver is only 50% white these day and given demographic trends that will be down to <40% in the next 20 years.</p>
This is the all white commonwealth that dumbassed dingbat Farage's wants us to cosy up to. I am afraid the whole leave the EU project has become twisted and is just a cover for whites only.
UKIP would be better off establishing their version of Israel on the Isle of Wight, Farage leading his chosen ones to the promised land via the Wight Link ferry.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
The issue is that in the modern world everybody can get a window into what life is like in other countries (well perhaps not in North Korea)...and if it looks a damn sight better than where you currently are you are going to be rather motivated to move. Even within the UK, the number of people who born, grow up, and die in the same town / region is very small these days, where as say in the 50's that was really the norm.
The real issue at the heart of where we are today in the world is that all the laws were made when people on the whole couldn't travel and didn't know what life was like outside of their very narrow vicinity. You were either in the small minority who were rich and educated to know and be able to, or you were being force-ably moved.
Places like South Korea and Japan remain the exception by both the very strict immigration laws and the fact that the language is extremely difficult to grasp even to those from the region (and in Japan's case it is 1000's of miles from anywhere).
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
I've heard leave supporters that said homeless gypsies can be sent back, but those are just randoms. Didn't UKIP say just those with 7 years would automatically stay?
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
Poland has got to be seriously negatively affected. A million people to UK alone, let alone the likes of Germany, and many of them are young and educated.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
An idea the UK should adopt. It is ridiculous that NHS spends 10s of thousands of pounds training a junior doctor for them to leave for Oz at first opportunity.
David Frum Moroccans, Tunisians, and Algerians will soon lose asylum rights in Germany https://t.co/Pv13BusMb8
Having read that in Sweden a lot of the issues surround migrants from those countries, I wonder what reasons they were claiming asylum for.
If you turn up from Syria or Iraq, I can understand that the threat of ISIS lopping your head of might be a rather convincing case for claiming asylum, but none of those countries are at war or widespread civil breakdown.
As I seemed to remember, Tunisia had an uprising several years ago from which they now actually have fully democratic system. It was one of the countries in the Arab Spring where change was positive as a result of it, with fully free elections.
The article in the link goes on to explain that there is evidence of torture in Morocco and Algeria.
It's a tricky one because there are people whose human rights are being abused in Morocco and Algeria, in really quite grotesque ways.
But that is almost completely disconnected to the main reason most migrants are leaving Morocco and Algeria (and Libya, come to that) - that there are no jobs. That's even true for foreign-language-speaking graduates, which bizarrely they have a glut of - a lot of North Africa counties essentially overinvested in education (even though education is supposed to be one of the routes for a country out of poverty).
Similarly a lot of people leave Afghanistan seeking a better life. They may not be under specific threat of persecution, they may not be all that near the war zone*, but they're certainly living in an unstable and unpleasant region where they are not "free" in the same sense that a Westerner is "free". Is it really freedom that they seek, though, or economic and educational advancement? I think this is a really difficult call for governments and there's a lot to be said, if you want to avoid this kind of thing, for governments to expend more effort making the rest of the world a better place.
* though how close does it have to come, how violent does your region have to be, for you to count as a "proper refugee"? Would inhabitants of Belfast in the 1970s and 1980s have been able to claim asylum elsewhere? After the London pub and restaurant bombings of the 1970s, could a Londoner have turned up in New York and claimed asylum?
Ydoethur said 'A not wholly unreasonable point. But I would still have said that when the best case scenario you can posit on the data is that Labour are standing still after nine months of weak and controversial government following your worst election result in 32 years it is still by any standard an absolutely pathetic performance.'
It is a myth to say that 2015 was Labour's worst result in 32 years. Even in terms of seats Labour exceeded its 1987 total of 229 - despite the collapse in Scotland. In England Labour's result was not that bad - better than 2010 - 1992 - 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959. Moreover, in terms of % vote the Tory lead - whilst clear and substantial - was at 6.6% less than 2010 (7.3%) - 1992 (7.6%) - 1987 (11.8%) - 1983 (15.2%) - 1979 (7.1%) To repeat a point I have made before, it took Labour almost two years to gain the lead in the Parliaments of 1959 and 1987. Also looking back to the 2001 Parliament , at the same point - Feb/March 2002 Labour's lead over the Tories ranged from 9% to 23%. On that basis, Labour is better placed today than the Tories were in early 2002.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
For some reason I had an infatuation with the Economist for 10 years from about 2002 to 2012. I still have the beautifully preserved copies in special Economist ring binders. Now I can't understand what I saw in it.
When it comes to the Economist my rule of thumb is "whatever they write the opposite is true".
That rule is accurate, from who to politically support, to which wars to support, to economic predictions, I keep their yearly predictions book as proof that they know nothing of what's going on now or in the future.
But it's a general disease in academia too, I have a copy of Time magazine from 2006 where a Harvard historian predicted a massive banking crisis in China in 2008 leading to american supremacy in the 2010's led by president Jim Webb and Tim Allen with a peaceful middle east after america won the Iraq war.
You couldn't get more wrong than that, which proves that they are useless, it's better to do the opposite of what the "experts" recommend.
"it's better to do the opposite of what the "experts" recommend."
It's a tricky one because there are people whose human rights are being abused in Morocco and Algeria, in really quite grotesque ways.
But that is almost completely disconnected to the main reason most migrants are leaving Morocco and Algeria (and Libya, come to that) - that there are no jobs. That's even true for foreign-language-speaking graduates, which bizarrely they have a glut of - a lot of North Africa counties essentially overinvested in education (even though education is supposed to be one of the routes for a country out of poverty).
Similarly a lot of people leave Afghanistan seeking a better life. They may not be under specific threat of persecution, they may not be all that near the war zone*, but they're certainly living in an unstable and unpleasant region where they are not "free" in the same sense that a Westerner is "free". Is it really freedom that they seek, though, or economic and educational advancement? I think this is a really difficult call for governments and there's a lot to be said, if you want to avoid this kind of thing, for governments to expend more effort making the rest of the world a better place.
* though how close does it have to come, how violent does your region have to be, for you to count as a "proper refugee"? Would inhabitants of Belfast in the 1970s and 1980s have been able to claim asylum elsewhere? After the London pub and restaurant bombings of the 1970s, could a Londoner have turned up in New York and claimed asylum?
Surely if we extend this to logical conclusion..i.e. if you country is a rather nasty to its citizens, we would have to accept everybody who arrived from say China, as we know the human rights abuses and lack of freedoms of the masses is widespread.
Again what should be done is that we pressure government of these countries to change their ways. With China and Saudia Arabia we know western leaders get rather concerned at raising these issues, but North African countries have a lot less of the potential drawbacks.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
The issue is that in the modern world everybody can get a window into what life is like in other countries (well perhaps not in North Korea)...and if it looks a damn sight better than where you currently are you are going to be rather motivated to move. Even within the UK, the number of people who born, grow up, and die in the same town / region is very small these days, where as say in the 50's that was really the norm.
The real issue at the heart of where we are today in the world is that all the laws were made when people on the whole couldn't travel and didn't know what life was like outside of their very narrow vicinity. You were either in the small minority who were rich and educated to know and be able to, or you were being force-ably moved.
Places like South Korea and Japan remain the exception by both the very strict immigration laws and the fact that the language is extremely difficult to grasp even to those from the region (and in Japan's case it is 1000's of miles from anywhere).
South Korea also benefits from not having a traversable land border.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
An idea the UK should adopt. It is ridiculous that NHS spends 10s of thousands of pounds training a junior doctor for them to leave for Oz at first opportunity.
I've been able to advise a few young Hungarians considering a medical career to consider applying to Glasgow University. I hope the resident Scots approve.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
Poland has got to be seriously negatively affected. A million people to UK alone, let alone the likes of Germany, and many of them are young and educated.
Some will be made up by money flowing back to Poland from eg the UK, and Poland is filling the skills gaps itself from places like Romania and Lithuania. It's those countries who are really suffering as they can't find workers as easily from non-EU Ukraine and Belarus, which would be the logical thing to do. They are receiving huge EU development money from mainly the UK and Germany though, so everything goes in circles in theory if not perfectly in practice.
If we set the bar at a similar level for say Chinese, we would have to accept everybody who arrived, as we know the human rights abuses and lack of freedoms of the masses is widespread.
Precisely. And yet it is very difficult to verify, or disprove, specific claims of risk of persecution. If an Iranian lad turns up and claims to be gay, or a Chinese lass claims that her religious or political leanings put her at risk, how do we expect them to demonstrate proof?
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
The issue is that in the modern world everybody can get a window into what life is like in other countries (well perhaps not in North Korea)...and if it looks a damn sight better than where you currently are you are going to be rather motivated to move. Even within the UK, the number of people who born, grow up, and die in the same town / region is very small these days, where as say in the 50's that was really the norm.
The real issue at the heart of where we are today in the world is that all the laws were made when people on the whole couldn't travel and didn't know what life was like outside of their very narrow vicinity. You were either in the small minority who were rich and educated to know and be able to, or you were being force-ably moved.
Places like South Korea and Japan remain the exception by both the very strict immigration laws and the fact that the language is extremely difficult to grasp even to those from the region (and in Japan's case it is 1000's of miles from anywhere).
South Korea also benefits from not having a traversable land border.
Yes, I can't see too many migrants wanting to try and hike their way through North Korea to get there....
For those of us old enough to remember, the present so-called re-negotiations are reminiscent of the similar "make or break" talks concerning the fishing rights around our shores which took place prior to the UK originally joining the Common Market forty five years ago. The negotiations were then undertaken by Heath's man Geoffrey Rippon QC MP who was hailed at the time as having done a great job in achieving what was then considered a highly successful outcome for the UK. Unfortunately, history was to judge such events rather differently, evidenced by the subsequent decimation of our finishing industry, accompanied by the near destruction of our fishing stocks:
If we set the bar at a similar level for say Chinese, we would have to accept everybody who arrived, as we know the human rights abuses and lack of freedoms of the masses is widespread.
Precisely. And yet it is very difficult to verify, or disprove, specific claims of risk of persecution. If an Iranian lad turns up and claims to be gay, or a Chinese lass claims that her religious or political leanings put her at risk, how do we expect them to demonstrate proof?
One other issue...many countries have "troubled" regions e.g. Pakistan North region is really bad, as is Northern Nigeria. But large areas of the rest of the country are largely unaffected. It is a bit like saying all bombs and shooting in Northern Ireland means every mainland Brit and Irish person should have been able to get asylum or the Spanish because of ETA.
Even in Egypt during the uprising, outside of some isolated areas life continued as normal. I know a couple of people who were there and said it was anarchy in certain parts of Cario, but for instance Sharm El Sheikh nothing was different.
Mexico is another good example. Cities on the routes for the drug smugglers are hell holes, but away from that I know a number of westerners who say you really would have no idea of the issues. Life is perfectly calm and safe.
It is absolutely clear that she just doesn't get it.
All I have seen from her indicates that she really isn't that bright. She is incredibly blinkered in her world view and cannot conceive that anything outside of that might be worth considering.
True Lefty Colours shown. When one of the groups they like to condescend are caught red handed, they have to smear the WWC #tim
How do you know she's specifically talking about white people?
Well, in Birmingham she could have tried an evening walk in Edgbaston, Balsall Heath, Alum Rock, Ward End, Sparkhill, Handsworth, Aston, Saltley, Digbeth, Selly Oak, the Mailbox, or or Broad Street. Only in Digbeth and the last one would she likely encounter those white aspiring flag wavers/white van types to whom Labour (as given away by the new Defence Shadow - the dreadful Emily Thornberry) feels so hostile. Surely, this is another nail Labour has driven into its own coffin.
There are only 3 stations I have made a point of visiting just to see them, central station NY , Antwerp main station ( trust me if you haven't you must) and Birmingham New street when they finished it. The modern architecture and in particular the roof is quite stunning TBF and in no way is the city dying. It is cleverly connected now directly to the Bullring.
I have passed through hundreds more nice and famous ones of course across the world I am merely pointing out these were the ones I specifically diverted to see.
Foot note - El Alamein was also another not for architecture obviously but for a different reason. I also stayed in the hotel in Alexandria that was Monty's military headquarters during that period
Comments
' In 1970 around 400 trawlers were based in the port, by 2013 only 5 trawlers remain based there '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimsby#Food_industry
"EU leaders insist there is 'no link' between the migrant crisis and New Year sex attacks in Cologne - and vow to bring about an end to 'false accusations'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3423959/No-link-migrant-crisis-wave-New-Year-sex-attacks-Arab-North-African-men-women-Cologne-say-EU-leaders.html
1) It was not a 'crisis' for the EU when it was bottled up in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon etc, as it was for several years. The problem was mostly ignored as pressure built up.
2) Her actions actively encouraged others to make the perilous journey, turning a formative crisis for the EU into a very real one.
The first of these is not her fault; the top was going to come off the bottle some time, and many people were going to flee their homes directly, or leave the camps (and add in non-refugees who are just chancing it).
The second of these is very much her fault. She shook the bottle as the top was coming off.
The top might have been kept on that bottle, or the pressure inside relieved, by:
a) directly helping the countries who are struggling with hundreds of thousands of migrants;
b) trying to solve the problem(s) in the countries the migrants are coming from
c) making it clear we'll take people directly from those countries, and not people who make it to our doorstep.
So Merkel did not cause the Great Migration, but she made it far worse for everyone.
By telling us that it is the case.
It's all for our own good of course.
"the partnerships’ efforts have (see table) returned employment levels to those seen before the closure."
http://www.theplanner.co.uk/features/back-in-gear-the-regeneration-of-longbridge
Extremists on both sides taking the law into their own hands.. why encourage the obvious?
I wouldn’t be too surprised to see him told that if he wants, as UK Premier, to cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face, he can do it, on the expectation that the UK will see sense when it collectively realises how cold and lonely it is “outside”!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Demographics
and Nigeria about 100 million:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Demographics
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
A hundred years ago we were sitting down with the French, drawing lines on maps of the middle east.
If only the Germans hadn't started the war....
Even now the story grinds on in its utter stupidity and wanton destruction. Followers of the news may remember a couple of weeks ago the new regulations on the fishing for Sea Bass were announced. Industrial scale fishing is to be permitted but rod and line fishing by anglers is banned. This is to ensure the conservation of stocks.
If ever anyone wanted to know about what is now the EU they could use the fishing industry as a case study. It is all there.
- If we vote REMAIN, it'll probably be on the basis of a renegotiated deal that leaves us in a 2 speed Europe, with us in an outer layer somewhat like a souped-up EEA. One benefit of such a system is that the EEA countries like Norway may be attracted to getting their toes a bit wetter.
- If we vote LEAVE, we'll probably end up in the EEA and negotiating more leverage than is current, but at the cost of a larger per-capita contribution. Coincidentally closing that hole in the budget and avoiding any economic turmoil. So with us in something like a souped-up EEA.
When the two options look that similar, it's hard to get that concerned.
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
Other countries will have wars, famines, natural disasters etc - is Europe to offer all their peoples open door immigration.
To many on the left, people from poor countries have a right to settle here and we have a duty to admit them.
Huge police presence at junctions 8 and 11 of the M20 after trouble sparks arrests. https://t.co/5THs6DYQAw https://t.co/XAcfsisvzT
(Frankly you might get a more "all-white" existence moving to a wealthier and less integrated suburb in South Africa. But there's swathes of England, Wales, Ireland or Scotland - particularly rural areas - which are 98%+ white.)
The issue now compared to say 20 years ago is now the likes of you and I can do a bit of digging on google and find out they are talking a lot of bollocks most of the time. In years gone by, we didn't have access to the data, journals, etc and so it was impossible to know if they were fully informed and well researched pieces.
If it's about immigration, it's always wonderful, with no downside. If it's about the EU, there'll be a few minor criticisms, but otherwise, it's great. If it's about criminal justice, we should always be imprisoning fewer people. If it's about big business, we should give them whatever they want.
Moroccans, Tunisians, and Algerians will soon lose asylum rights in Germany https://t.co/Pv13BusMb8
What I would really like is a daily news digest: the best writing in newspapers from around the world: a bit like a printed 'From out Own Correspondent', but with a far wider variety of views.
I once met someone who works for the New Scientist (on a Scottish mountain, of all places). His description of the quality (or lack thereof) of the NS's journalism was quite funny. He claimed it was dumbed-down to the point it treated the reader with contempt.
For EU 'intellectuals' there's also the benefit that by breaking the connection between a country's people and that country itself you remove an obstacle to an EU superstate.
(As I think I've said before, the funniest for me was a fire in Derby. It was reported by the local newspaper as being on the other side of town, when it was close by and visible from their office).
If you turn up from Syria or Iraq, I can understand that the threat of ISIS lopping your head of might be a rather convincing case for claiming asylum, but none of those countries are at war or widespread civil breakdown.
As I seemed to remember, Tunisia had an uprising several years ago from which they now actually have fully democratic system. It was one of the countries in the Arab Spring where change was positive as a result of it, with fully free elections.
Alternatively you may like to take up your right to free movement and move to one of the 99% white countries in Eastern Europe like Poland.
It's also quite laughable to think that the world's immigration problem can be solved by emigration.
Its a bit like the financial regulators, if you are a star trader (or have dreams of being one) you aren't going to go and work for "compliance" for a tiny fraction of the money and none of the excitement.
In theory the EU should be peaceful, prosperous, stable and democratic.
The result is internal instability, permanent economic crisis, most eurozone countries don't have functional democracies and a vast war zone stretching all around it from Ukraine to Tunisia.
The EU is a bureaucrats dream and a nightmare reality.
But dreams are popular and most people still have memories of what europe used to be 10 years ago before the dream ended, after-all the Soviet Union needed 15 years of permanent crisis to be dissolved, the EU is in year 7.
According to the OBR the UK Gross Contribution in 2014 was £19.2 billion and the net contribution was £9.84 Billion. For 2015 that had risen to just over £20 billion gross and £10.8 billion net. So about a third more than you thought.
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Vancouver-exterior.jpg
Film probably, but then with your liberal arts degree it is a more attractive career opportunity than say STEM background.
The main complaint isn't really that they are thick and poorly travelled (untrue), or even that they're pretty homogenous (though that is a fair criticism), but that they aren't really as well-connected and well-informed in all the countries they're reporting on as the omniscient writing style is hinting at.
To be fair, to do policy analysis - which is mostly what the Economist does - you don't need to know all the players, just have a clear vision of what the options are. But they often write as if they have an "inside view" from a government's perspective, when in reality they're generally either guessing or they're using local media. In some cases they'll have sources inside the local civil service or politics, but when they write as if they're inside the mind of the local Prime Minister they're usually not writing straight from the horse's mouth.
That rule is accurate, from who to politically support, to which wars to support, to economic predictions, I keep their yearly predictions book as proof that they know nothing of what's going on now or in the future.
But it's a general disease in academia too, I have a copy of Time magazine from 2006 where a Harvard historian predicted a massive banking crisis in China in 2008 leading to american supremacy in the 2010's led by president Jim Webb and Tim Allen with a peaceful middle east after america won the Iraq war.
You couldn't get more wrong than that, which proves that they are useless, it's better to do the opposite of what the "experts" recommend.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Reuters/IPSOS
Hillary 37
Trump 31
Bloomberg 9
Sanders 37
Trump 30
Bloomberg 8
Hillary 38
Cruz 25
Bloomberg 10
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg-idUSMTZSAPEC1SOOMWHP
As I said, never trust Frank Luntz and his focus group (Bloomberg at 28% hahaha).
So far 3 polls showing Bloomberg at 13, 10 and 9.
U.S. states' populations superimposed in U.K. regions. #dataviz
https://t.co/vkwEmfxQ0Q https://t.co/T2e4yc34Sn
The real issue at the heart of where we are today in the world is that all the laws were made when people on the whole couldn't travel and didn't know what life was like outside of their very narrow vicinity. You were either in the small minority who were rich and educated to know and be able to, or you were being force-ably moved.
Places like South Korea and Japan remain the exception by both the very strict immigration laws and the fact that the language is extremely difficult to grasp even to those from the region (and in Japan's case it is 1000's of miles from anywhere).
A few months in& Westminster commentariat are already writing political obituary. Truth is, he's hardly started yet
Chilling. Or more chances for popcorn. Depending on your point of view.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-35449577
But that is almost completely disconnected to the main reason most migrants are leaving Morocco and Algeria (and Libya, come to that) - that there are no jobs. That's even true for foreign-language-speaking graduates, which bizarrely they have a glut of - a lot of North Africa counties essentially overinvested in education (even though education is supposed to be one of the routes for a country out of poverty).
Similarly a lot of people leave Afghanistan seeking a better life. They may not be under specific threat of persecution, they may not be all that near the war zone*, but they're certainly living in an unstable and unpleasant region where they are not "free" in the same sense that a Westerner is "free". Is it really freedom that they seek, though, or economic and educational advancement? I think this is a really difficult call for governments and there's a lot to be said, if you want to avoid this kind of thing, for governments to expend more effort making the rest of the world a better place.
* though how close does it have to come, how violent does your region have to be, for you to count as a "proper refugee"? Would inhabitants of Belfast in the 1970s and 1980s have been able to claim asylum elsewhere? After the London pub and restaurant bombings of the 1970s, could a Londoner have turned up in New York and claimed asylum?
'A not wholly unreasonable point. But I would still have said that when the best case scenario you can posit on the data is that Labour are standing still after nine months of weak and controversial government following your worst election result in 32 years it is still by any standard an absolutely pathetic performance.'
It is a myth to say that 2015 was Labour's worst result in 32 years. Even in terms of seats Labour exceeded its 1987 total of 229 - despite the collapse in Scotland. In England Labour's result was not that bad - better than 2010 - 1992 - 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959.
Moreover, in terms of % vote the Tory lead - whilst clear and substantial - was at 6.6% less than 2010 (7.3%) - 1992 (7.6%) - 1987 (11.8%) - 1983 (15.2%) - 1979 (7.1%)
To repeat a point I have made before, it took Labour almost two years to gain the lead in the Parliaments of 1959 and 1987. Also looking back to the 2001 Parliament , at the same point - Feb/March 2002 Labour's lead over the Tories ranged from 9% to 23%. On that basis, Labour is better placed today than the Tories were in early 2002.
"it's better to do the opposite of what the "experts" recommend."
True. But there are often a lot of "opposites".
Again what should be done is that we pressure government of these countries to change their ways. With China and Saudia Arabia we know western leaders get rather concerned at raising these issues, but North African countries have a lot less of the potential drawbacks.
Even in Egypt during the uprising, outside of some isolated areas life continued as normal. I know a couple of people who were there and said it was anarchy in certain parts of Cario, but for instance Sharm El Sheikh nothing was different.
Mexico is another good example. Cities on the routes for the drug smugglers are hell holes, but away from that I know a number of westerners who say you really would have no idea of the issues. Life is perfectly calm and safe.
All I have seen from her indicates that she really isn't that bright. She is incredibly blinkered in her world view and cannot conceive that anything outside of that might be worth considering.
A dangerous combination of bigotry and stupidity.
I have passed through hundreds more nice and famous ones of course across the world I am merely pointing out these were the ones I specifically diverted to see.
Foot note - El Alamein was also another not for architecture obviously but for a different reason. I also stayed in the hotel in Alexandria that was Monty's military headquarters during that period