Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
They’re banned. They weren’t hired by F1 but by the promotors of the individual events. F1 has told the event promotors that they are no longer to hire the grid girls.
Banned to me means there is a law/regulation preventing that. This is just a company making a commercial decision. I don’t doubt they will return if it makes commercial sense.
I was in Australia recently and went along to a big bash game. The contrast with county cricket in the UK is amazing - they are doing very well by adapting the sport, but also through marketing, promotion, playing music etc.
Incredibly (to me at least) they have kfc as a sponsor and have managed to start a trend of fans wearing kfc buckets on their heads!? I would have laughed out loud at that if someone had pitched it to me - but it’s a thing now.
The situation hasn't changed an iota since the Referendum. There are four basic choices for us, all of them bad in some way, including reversing a democratic vote to leave. We are not in the frame of mind to make difficult decisions, as the referendum was sold on a completely false set of assumptions (without those false assumptions we would not have voted to leave). Hence the vacuum. But vacuums must and will be filled.
Exactly correct Mr FF, but I am increasingly of the opinion that we, as a country, are going to have to cliff-edge Brexit before we learn the obvious.
I hope not and that sense will prevail. I'm an inveterate optimist
I used to be one too. These days I have to settle for realism rather than optimism
When did so many adults start behaving like demanding cry-babies? More importantly, when did we stop just telling them not to be so silly and selfish?
Probably not too long after Ambulance-Chasers were allowed to advertise on TV. "Are you annoyed enough to sue somebody and cost them a fortune in legal fees? Call us - no win, no fee! Launch law suits with total impunity. Call now on 08000-SUE-YOU"
Most people and businesses would rather pay-off the awkward customer or change their rules to avoid the issue. Court cases cost too much in time and money, even if they are groundless.
Indeed.
We also take far too much account of peoples’ feelings as if these should be the sun around which everything should revolve.
When you are in a public space, you have to find a way of getting on with a whole range of people. Manners was the way, traditionally, in which we managed to make the public space bearable and, indeed, pleasant for random collections of strangers. And coupled with manners was also some level of restraint in one’s own demands. Kindness and not being too demanding, in other words.
All this endless focus on rights without any consideration of one’s obligations to others has just institutionalised a level of selfishness which can often make the public space unbearable. When someone aggressively flaunts their rights at you, it rather crowds out any feeling of benevolence or kindness or helpfulness you feel towards them. Doing things because you want to is way better than doing them because you have to, because you fear the consequences.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
They’re banned. They weren’t hired by F1 but by the promotors of the individual events. F1 has told the event promotors that they are no longer to hire the grid girls.
Banned to me means there is a law/regulation preventing that. This is just a company making a commercial decision. I don’t doubt they will return if it makes commercial sense.
I was in Australia recently and went along to a big bash game. The contrast with county cricket in the UK is amazing - they are doing very well by adapting the sport, but also through marketing, promotion, playing music etc.
Incredibly (to me at least) they have kfc as a sponsor and have managed to start a trend of fans wearing kfc buckets on their heads!? I would have laughed out loud at that if someone had pitched it to me - but it’s a thing now.
F1 are regulating the event promotors, who have been told they’re not allowed to hire grid girls any more.
Last time I went to a 20/20 cricket match (in Dubai!) the teams had cheerleaders and music played and dancers danced when there was a six or a wicket. I wonder how far the feminist puritans are going to go - banning cheerleaders at the Super Bowl on Sunday?
Not sure what the British trucking industry and the "right to grope" has got to do with a thread on a government minister planning to resign over May's leadership.
No minister is planning to resign. If they were, they'd have done so without any prior notice in order to maximise the story. The very fact that there is media coverage of what, when you read the article, are claims that the minister is "close to resigning" rather than planning to do so, is all the proof you need that no-one is going anywhere - at least, not this week.
Agree. I asked a question here yesterday. I wonder if you have any thoughts? Assuming Mr Brady gets the 48 letters in the near future, do you think (a) Mrs May will stand in a confidence vote and (b) if so, how much support will she get from her MPs?
It stood out as illogical for me... if no deal is calamity and we are not properly preparing, then surely there will be a deal!? We will just sign up to what is on offer.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
They’re banned. They weren’t hired by F1 but by the promotors of the individual events. F1 has told the event promotors that they are no longer to hire the grid girls.
Banned to me means there is a law/regulation preventing that. This is just a company making a commercial decision. I don’t doubt they will return if it makes commercial sense.
I was in Australia recently and went along to a big bash game. The contrast with county cricket in the UK is amazing - they are doing very well by adapting the sport, but also through marketing, promotion, playing music etc.
Incredibly (to me at least) they have kfc as a sponsor and have managed to start a trend of fans wearing kfc buckets on their heads!? I would have laughed out loud at that if someone had pitched it to me - but it’s a thing now.
F1 are regulating the event promotors, who have been told they’re not allowed to hire grid girls any more.
Last time I went to a 20/20 cricket match (in Dubai!) the teams had cheerleaders and music played and dancers danced when there was a six or a wicket. I wonder how far the feminist puritans are going to go - banning cheerleaders at the Super Bowl on Sunday?
Happens iike that in UK. And there's a great deal of beer drunk, which I shouldn't think applies in Dubai.
The grid girl bollox is really missing a hot take by Toby Young. Any whisper from the great man?
Nah, we want Brendan O’Neill’s take on it.
Plus a video from Paul Joseph Watson.
I reckon use of Brainforce will make us want to see the grid girls.
I think it's safe to say that Brendan is already working on it. I suspect the phrases 'chattering classes' 'moral outrage' and 'virtue signalling' will feature. We might even get 'Ever since Britain voted to Leave the EU...'.
When did so many adults start behaving like demanding cry-babies? More importantly, when did we stop just telling them not to be so silly and selfish?
Probably not too long after Ambulance-Chasers were allowed to advertise on TV. "Are you annoyed enough to sue somebody and cost them a fortune in legal fees? Call us - no win, no fee! Launch law suits with total impunity. Call now on 08000-SUE-YOU"
Most people and businesses would rather pay-off the awkward customer or change their rules to avoid the issue. Court cases cost too much in time and money, even if they are groundless.
Indeed.
We also take far too much account of peoples’ feelings as if these should be the sun around which everything should revolve.
When you are in a public space, you have to find a way of getting on with a whole range of people. Manners was the way, traditionally, in which we managed to make the public space bearable and, indeed, pleasant for random collections of strangers. And coupled with manners was also some level of restraint in one’s own demands. Kindness and not being too demanding, in other words.
All this endless focus on rights without any consideration of one’s obligations to others has just institutionalised a level of selfishness which can often make the public space unbearable. When someone aggressively flaunts their rights at you, it rather crowds out any feeling of benevolence or kindness or helpfulness you feel towards them. Doing things because you want to is way better than doing them because you have to, because you fear the consequences.
I think there was a proverb that went something like "Manners are the lubricant of the social machine"
Not sure what the British trucking industry and the "right to grope" has got to do with a thread on a government minister planning to resign over May's leadership.
No minister is planning to resign. If they were, they'd have done so without any prior notice in order to maximise the story. The very fact that there is media coverage of what, when you read the article, are claims that the minister is "close to resigning" rather than planning to do so, is all the proof you need that no-one is going anywhere - at least, not this week.
Agree. I asked a question here yesterday. I wonder if you have any thoughts? Assuming Mr Brady gets the 48 letters in the near future, do you think (a) Mrs May will stand in a confidence vote and (b) if so, how much support will she get from her MPs?
On (a), yes, I think she'd stand. it'd be an (in)action consistent with all her behaviour to date. As for (b), very difficult to say. We're into psychology here and I'm probably influenced too much by my own thinking which I set out at the weekend, namely that if a vote is called then it ought to be the point of no return - there is no good way back from there - so May would then need to be dumped. But do MPs concur with that assessment? I don't know. If I *had* to make a call, I'd say that she'd lose, either directly or because the level of support she received was insufficiently convincing to be able to continue.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
They’re banned. They weren’t hired by F1 but by the promotors of the individual events. F1 has told the event promotors that they are no longer to hire the grid girls.
Banned to me means there is a law/regulation preventing that. This is just a company making a commercial decision. I don’t doubt they will return if it makes commercial sense.
I was in Australia recently and went along to a big bash game. The contrast with county cricket in the UK is amazing - they are doing very well by adapting the sport, but also through marketing, promotion, playing music etc.
Incredibly (to me at least) they have kfc as a sponsor and have managed to start a trend of fans wearing kfc buckets on their heads!? I would have laughed out loud at that if someone had pitched it to me - but it’s a thing now.
F1 are regulating the event promotors, who have been told they’re not allowed to hire grid girls any more.
Last time I went to a 20/20 cricket match (in Dubai!) the teams had cheerleaders and music played and dancers danced when there was a six or a wicket. I wonder how far the feminist puritans are going to go - banning cheerleaders at the Super Bowl on Sunday?
Happens iike that in UK. And there's a great deal of beer drunk, which I shouldn't think applies in Dubai.
You have to make sure you have a ticket to the correct stand. There is one stand with a bar, as well as plenty of hospitality suites. When Pakistan are playing it’s known as “the away end”
Lots of English tourists got seriously ripped off at the last Pakistan tour here, paid £50 for tickets that were a fiver bought locally and no bar. The bar stand was a tenner a seat.
Not sure what the British trucking industry and the "right to grope" has got to do with a thread on a government minister planning to resign over May's leadership.
No minister is planning to resign. If they were, they'd have done so without any prior notice in order to maximise the story. The very fact that there is media coverage of what, when you read the article, are claims that the minister is "close to resigning" rather than planning to do so, is all the proof you need that no-one is going anywhere - at least, not this week.
Agree. I asked a question here yesterday. I wonder if you have any thoughts? Assuming Mr Brady gets the 48 letters in the near future, do you think (a) Mrs May will stand in a confidence vote and (b) if so, how much support will she get from her MPs?
On (a), yes, I think she'd stand. it'd be an (in)action consistent with all her behaviour to date. As for (b), very difficult to say. We're into psychology here and I'm probably influenced too much by my own thinking which I set out at the weekend, namely that if a vote is called then it ought to be the point of no return - there is no good way back from there - so May would then need to be dumped. But do MPs concur with that assessment? I don't know. If I *had* to make a call, I'd say that she'd lose, either directly or because the level of support she received was insufficiently convincing to be able to continue.
*Edit I am not sure the ports are set up for this. Ferries are RoRo.
I don't know how it is at every port, but at Holyhead you will normally see little truck cabs at the port driving to and from the ferry taking trailers off/on the ferry. You can see how it would be more efficient for the truckers to deliver their trailer to the ferry port and immediately collect a different trailer heading back the way they've come than to sit in the queue and cross the water with their trailer.
Not sure what the British trucking industry and the "right to grope" has got to do with a thread on a government minister planning to resign over May's leadership.
No minister is planning to resign. If they were, they'd have done so without any prior notice in order to maximise the story. The very fact that there is media coverage of what, when you read the article, are claims that the minister is "close to resigning" rather than planning to do so, is all the proof you need that no-one is going anywhere - at least, not this week.
Agree. I asked a question here yesterday. I wonder if you have any thoughts? Assuming Mr Brady gets the 48 letters in the near future, do you think (a) Mrs May will stand in a confidence vote and (b) if so, how much support will she get from her MPs?
On (a), yes, I think she'd stand. it'd be an (in)action consistent with all her behaviour to date. As for (b), very difficult to say. We're into psychology here and I'm probably influenced too much by my own thinking which I set out at the weekend, namely that if a vote is called then it ought to be the point of no return - there is no good way back from there - so May would then need to be dumped. But do MPs concur with that assessment? I don't know. If I *had* to make a call, I'd say that she'd lose, either directly or because the level of support she received was insufficiently convincing to be able to continue.
Thanks for the reply. There's a third part, which is what level of support would be sufficient for Mrs May to continue if she did win the confidence motion? I can't see 50% plus one vote being enough. Maybe 60%.
I remember the brouhaha over the ending of tobacco sponsorship in F1, a lot of the same arguments were made then as we've seen with the grid girls.
F1 is still standing.
It's a bit of a niche sport these days of interest to certain demographics - like snooker or rugby league.
And a bit duller than previously..
Is it possible to make F1 any duller?
Yeah, we could have electric cars that only last half a race and only go 140mph. #formulaE
Hasn't battery power doubled for this year's new cars to allow a full race distance ?
Next year. They’re opening the development up a lot more and have more manufacturers involved, but the cars are still really slow. It’s basically not much more than a go-kart race with a really good driver lineup.
Not sure what the British trucking industry and the "right to grope" has got to do with a thread on a government minister planning to resign over May's leadership.
No minister is planning to resign. If they were, they'd have done so without any prior notice in order to maximise the story. The very fact that there is media coverage of what, when you read the article, are claims that the minister is "close to resigning" rather than planning to do so, is all the proof you need that no-one is going anywhere - at least, not this week.
Agree. I asked a question here yesterday. I wonder if you have any thoughts? Assuming Mr Brady gets the 48 letters in the near future, do you think (a) Mrs May will stand in a confidence vote and (b) if so, how much support will she get from her MPs?
On (a), yes, I think she'd stand. it'd be an (in)action consistent with all her behaviour to date. As for (b), very difficult to say. We're into psychology here and I'm probably influenced too much by my own thinking which I set out at the weekend, namely that if a vote is called then it ought to be the point of no return - there is no good way back from there - so May would then need to be dumped. But do MPs concur with that assessment? I don't know. If I *had* to make a call, I'd say that she'd lose, either directly or because the level of support she received was insufficiently convincing to be able to continue.
Thanks for the reply. There's a third part, which is what level of support would be sufficient for Mrs May to continue if she did win the confidence motion? I can't see 50% plus one vote being enough. Maybe 60%.
When John Major stood against John Redwood in 1995, he reckoned on needing 215 votes, which was a touch over two-thirds. I think that's about right. Any less than 2:1 would leave the PM in an incredibly weak position.
She might try and soldier on with more than the 60% you suggest but I don't see it - she'd be in the same position as Thatcher was in 1990, where the very fact of the exposure of her weakness led to previously loyal MPs defecting as they saw her position as untenable.
Still growing strongly, if not as strongly as at the end of last year and a downward trend on the rate of growth. What I thought particularly encouraging is that exports are by far the strongest area of growth, optimism remains high and employment in manufacturing is ticking up as a result. Figures are consistent with 0.6% growth in January, apparently.
All in all a goodish start to the year.
The UK hits cross-over with Greece! (Both 55 on manufacturing PMI). Seriously, good that countries like Greece and Italy (59) are doing better.
When did so many adults start behaving like demanding cry-babies? More importantly, when did we stop just telling them not to be so silly and selfish?
Probably not too long after Ambulance-Chasers were allowed to advertise on TV. "Are you annoyed enough to sue somebody and cost them a fortune in legal fees? Call us - no win, no fee! Launch law suits with total impunity. Call now on 08000-SUE-YOU"
Most people and businesses would rather pay-off the awkward customer or change their rules to avoid the issue. Court cases cost too much in time and money, even if they are groundless.
Indeed.
We also take far too much account of peoples’ feelings as if these should be the sun around which everything should revolve.
When you are in a public space, you have to find a way of getting on with a whole range of people. Manners was the way, traditionally, in which we managed to make the public space bearable and, indeed, pleasant for random collections of strangers. And coupled with manners was also some level of restraint in one’s own demands. Kindness and not being too demanding, in other words.
All this endless focus on rights without any consideration of one’s obligations to others has just institutionalised a level of selfishness which can often make the public space unbearable. When someone aggressively flaunts their rights at you, it rather crowds out any feeling of benevolence or kindness or helpfulness you feel towards them. Doing things because you want to is way better than doing them because you have to, because you fear the consequences.
I think there was a proverb that went something like "Manners are the lubricant of the social machine"
Most women find men with good manners sexy.
Those men who think it is ok to grope any passing sentient female should take note.
Groping, leering, harassment and worse is not on, whether you are a captain of industry or some pakistani taxi driver. Expecting men to behave like civilised human beings not rutting baboons is the very least women should expect.
Not sure what the British trucking industry and the "right to grope" has got to do with a thread on a government minister planning to resign over May's leadership.
No minister is planning to resign. If they were, they'd have done so without any prior notice in order to maximise the story. The very fact that there is media coverage of what, when you read the article, are claims that the minister is "close to resigning" rather than planning to do so, is all the proof you need that no-one is going anywhere - at least, not this week.
Agree. I asked a question here yesterday. I wonder if you have any thoughts? Assuming Mr Brady gets the 48 letters in the near future, do you think (a) Mrs May will stand in a confidence vote and (b) if so, how much support will she get from her MPs?
On (a), yes, I think she'd stand. it'd be an (in)action consistent with all her behaviour to date. As for (b), very difficult to say. We're into psychology here and I'm probably influenced too much by my own thinking which I set out at the weekend, namely that if a vote is called then it ought to be the point of no return - there is no good way back from there - so May would then need to be dumped. But do MPs concur with that assessment? I don't know. If I *had* to make a call, I'd say that she'd lose, either directly or because the level of support she received was insufficiently convincing to be able to continue.
It is a secret ballot, is it not?
It's a secret ballot but not a secret result. The numbers are announced.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
When did so many adults start behaving like demanding cry-babies? More importantly, when did we stop just telling them not to be so silly and selfish?
Probably not too long after Ambulance-Chasers were allowed to advertise on TV. "Are you annoyed enough to sue somebody and cost them a fortune in legal fees? Call us - no win, no fee! Launch law suits with total impunity. Call now on 08000-SUE-YOU"
Most people and businesses would rather pay-off the awkward customer or change their rules to avoid the issue. Court cases cost too much in time and money, even if they are groundless.
Indeed.
We also take far too much account of peoples’ feelings as if these should be the sun around which everything should revolve.
When you are in a public space, you have to find a way of getting on with a whole range of people. Manners was the way, traditionally, in which we managed to make the public space bearable and, indeed, pleasant for random collections of strangers. And coupled with manners was also some level of restraint in one’s own demands. Kindness and not being too demanding, in other words.
All this endless focus on rights without any consideration of one’s obligations to others has just institutionalised a level of selfishness which can often make the public space unbearable. When someone aggressively flaunts their rights at you, it rather crowds out any feeling of benevolence or kindness or helpfulness you feel towards them. Doing things because you want to is way better than doing them because you have to, because you fear the consequences.
I think there was a proverb that went something like "Manners are the lubricant of the social machine"
Most women find men with good manners sexy.
Those men who think it is ok to grope any passing sentient female should take note.
Groping, leering, harassment and worse is not on, whether you are a captain of industry or some pakistani taxi driver. Expecting men to behave like civilised human beings not rutting baboons is the very least women should expect.
Absolutely - when I ended up in detention at school (occasionally) - I had to write 600 times
*Edit I am not sure the ports are set up for this. Ferries are RoRo.
I don't know how it is at every port, but at Holyhead you will normally see little truck cabs at the port driving to and from the ferry taking trailers off/on the ferry. You can see how it would be more efficient for the truckers to deliver their trailer to the ferry port and immediately collect a different trailer heading back the way they've come than to sit in the queue and cross the water with their trailer.
The thing I am not sure about is whether the trailer would need to be certified with the lorry for the territory it operates in. I suspect it is quite likely loads would be carried end to end with EU27 trucks and drivers, at least to begin with. Unless we go for the Norway option, which is also quite likely IMO, or revert to EU membership (less likely).
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
Is this a painting that you would allow your wife or servant to view?
This feels like a cheesy publicity stunt - the kind of thing that never really provokes debate, just ranting in the Guardian's comments section.
The key sentence is tucked at the end of the article.
“We think it probably will return, yes, but hopefully contextualised quite differently. It is not just about that one painting, it is the whole context of the gallery.”
So, it is not really about whether the art should be on display, but about how it should be curated. At the moment it seems that it is not being done all that well.
That "hopefully" is a bit worrying, though. "Hopefully" we will not be totally useless at our job.
"Hopefully" this will put Manchester Art Gallery on the map, drive up our page views, get people here to see the outrage for themselves, and bring us plenty of $$$$.
IMO the move is nicely of the zeitgeist.
DecemberElle Watchman80 18h ago 263 264
The gallery management will be feeling right fools now that someone has pointed out on its own website that Hylas was gay (Heracles was his lover) and that the nymphs were trying to entice him into the water for their own, nefarious reasons.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
There seem to be some signs that some in the EU would welcome a change of heart by Britain. No idea how realistic or widespread this is.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone with a better feel for EU opinion on this.
FWIW my view is that if Britain did want to remain (a big “if” I grant you) a way would be found, whatever the legal niceties around Article 50.
Is this a painting that you would allow your wife or servant to view?
This feels like a cheesy publicity stunt - the kind of thing that never really provokes debate, just ranting in the Guardian's comments section.
The key sentence is tucked at the end of the article.
“We think it probably will return, yes, but hopefully contextualised quite differently. It is not just about that one painting, it is the whole context of the gallery.”
So, it is not really about whether the art should be on display, but about how it should be curated. At the moment it seems that it is not being done all that well.
That "hopefully" is a bit worrying, though. "Hopefully" we will not be totally useless at our job.
"Hopefully" this will put Manchester Art Gallery on the map, drive up our page views, get people here to see the outrage for themselves, and bring us plenty of $$$$.
IMO the move is nicely of the zeitgeist.
DecemberElle Watchman80 18h ago 263 264
The gallery management will be feeling right fools now that someone has pointed out on its own website that Hylas was gay (Heracles was his lover) and that the nymphs were trying to entice him into the water for their own, nefarious reasons.
Spectacular own goal by the gallery.
I always thought it was a picture of Frodo crossing the Dead Marshes. No wonder he jumped in!
Segregated paddocks for beer, Females in the crow told to cover up, no same sex people welcome.
Am sure it will be one of the best viewed and attended ever by the average fan - not.
Qatar 2022 may well be the last World Cup as we know it, particularly with the proposed expansion making the contest 48 teams.
Glad to have my Russia 2018 tickets
Qatar World Cup is going to be very amusing if they can’t sort out their little local dispute with their neighbours.
There’re not close to having enough hotel rooms and were relying on people attending the matches staying in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain with a fleet of A380s doing shuttles. If the political problems don’t get sorted it’s going to be long haul flights in and straight about again for the fans.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
This would all be taking place against a real-world backdrop that would be more highly-charged than during the fuel protests during the Blair government. The idea that what a minority of Tory backbenchers dream about would be the primary factor driving events is a fantasy.
Segregated paddocks for beer, Females in the crow told to cover up, no same sex people welcome.
Am sure it will be one of the best viewed and attended ever by the average fan - not.
Qatar 2022 may well be the last World Cup as we know it, particularly with the proposed expansion making the contest 48 teams.
Glad to have my Russia 2018 tickets
Qatar World Cup is going to be very amusing if they can’t sort out their little local dispute with their neighbours.
There’re not close to having enough hotel rooms and were relying on people attending the matches staying in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain with a fleet of A380s doing shuttles. If the political problems don’t get sorted it’s going to be long haul flights in and straight about again for the fans.
Stay in Cyprus and make day trips might be the best option for fans who want to have fun.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
There seem to be some signs that some in the EU would welcome a change of heart by Britain. No idea how realistic or widespread this is.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone with a better feel for EU opinion on this.
FWIW my view is that if Britain did want to remain (a big “if” I grant you) a way would be found, whatever the legal niceties around Article 50.
I think the PR imperative behind the coordinated statements suggesting the EU door remains open to the UK, is to stress that any Brexit consequences are due to British choices, and not because they were forced on Britain by the EU. Britain can always choose not to have those consequences.
Having said that, I think the open door is genuine. Most of the EU players would be OK to take the UK back, even if they don't expect that to happen.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
There seem to be some signs that some in the EU would welcome a change of heart by Britain. No idea how realistic or widespread this is.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone with a better feel for EU opinion on this.
FWIW my view is that if Britain did want to remain (a big “if” I grant you) a way would be found, whatever the legal niceties around Article 50.
In truth it should never have come to this but it has because the EU has no vision other than to become a federal US of Europe.
If it was an organisation with a real future it should have recognised some will want closer union but others will want a looser or associate membership.
The EU would have to offer something on free movement to even have a chance of changing views, indeed a grand offer allowing some sovereignty could work and would be a solution for all.
Unfortunately I do not think the EU have it in them
Segregated paddocks for beer, Females in the crow told to cover up, no same sex people welcome.
Am sure it will be one of the best viewed and attended ever by the average fan - not.
Qatar 2022 may well be the last World Cup as we know it, particularly with the proposed expansion making the contest 48 teams.
Glad to have my Russia 2018 tickets
Qatar World Cup is going to be very amusing if they can’t sort out their little local dispute with their neighbours.
There’re not close to having enough hotel rooms and were relying on people attending the matches staying in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain with a fleet of A380s doing shuttles. If the political problems don’t get sorted it’s going to be long haul flights in and straight about again for the fans.
Stay in Cyprus and make day trips might be the best option for fans who want to have fun.
Yes, except Cyprus is usually dead in December, and is 4 hours from Doha. I’m going to expect a lot of imaginative thinking going on from European tour operators to make it work for the fans.
If the local difficulties don’t get sorted I’m thinking of things like desert camps with tents and a bar. They’ll fudge the licensing if everyone there is a tourist. This is Qatar’s chance to shine on the world stage and they don’t dare f it up
The nightmare scenario is a last minute easing of the travel restrictions, which in this part of the world is quite normal but could screw everyone’s plans up.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
There seem to be some signs that some in the EU would welcome a change of heart by Britain. No idea how realistic or widespread this is.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone with a better feel for EU opinion on this.
FWIW my view is that if Britain did want to remain (a big “if” I grant you) a way would be found, whatever the legal niceties around Article 50.
I think the PR imperative behind the coordinated statements suggesting the EU door remains open to the UK, is to stress that any Brexit consequences are due to British choices, and not because they were forced on Britain by the EU. Britain can always choose not to have those consequences.
Having said that, I think the open door is genuine. Most of the EU players would be OK to take the UK back, even if they don't expect that to happen.
That doesn't work because, frankly, it is patronising. Also there is some evidence the public are beginning to blame the EU
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
This would all be taking place against a real-world backdrop that would be more highly-charged than during the fuel protests during the Blair government. The idea that what a minority of Tory backbenchers dream about would be the primary factor driving events is a fantasy.
What is a fantasy is that a Conservative PM could revoke A50. You are right about the atmosphere that this would be operating in. What's strange is that you don't recognise that it would be being driven by those who delivered Brexit in the first place.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
This would all be taking place against a real-world backdrop that would be more highly-charged than during the fuel protests during the Blair government. The idea that what a minority of Tory backbenchers dream about would be the primary factor driving events is a fantasy.
Yes, there’d be massive protests led by Nigel Farage, of people waving placards politely suggesting that if the government ask the people a question they should respect the answer given - or something like that.
Its a game of snakes and ladders as you get older, you'll accrue wealth (Excluding a japan style property/shares crash) and head up the board. There are some ladders in terms of career progression, and a potentially big one for some of inheritance. The big snake on the board is care, and possibly divorce. Though that is a snake for some and a ladder for others !
I think the PR imperative behind the coordinated statements suggesting the EU door remains open to the UK, is to stress that any Brexit consequences are due to British choices, and not because they were forced on Britain by the EU. Britain can always choose not to have those consequences.
Having said that, I think the open door is genuine. Most of the EU players would be OK to take the UK back, even if they don't expect that to happen.
That doesn't work because, frankly, it is patronising. Also there is some evidence the public are beginning to blame the EU
I don't agree it is patronising to say the EU door remains open to us. We are the ones choosing to leave. Leave campaigners who made out that leaving the EU would be free of consequences are the real patronisers here, as were some excessive Project Fear claims from Remainers. The fact the UK public do blame the EU for the consequences of their own decision is precisely why the EU side are keen to point out those consequences are by their own choice.
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
A lot of huff and puff and spin - then we end up out of the EU with low friction trade and no MEPs and maybe a small annual contribution.
The EU would be daft to try and add friction to trade.
low friction trade is only possible when countries align regulations and agree to allow supranational bodies to overrule elected bodies. we will reclaim our sovereignty only to give it up again.
Some people last week were equating a bawdy gentlemen’s dinner with mass rape in Rotherham. (Snip)
I made that comparison, and do not withdraw it. Yes, the scales are different, but the causes of the abuse sadly all too similar and familiar. Also add in abuse by Catholic and CofE priests.
There's more commonality than some seem to want to admit. The stories coming out of Hollywood can also be added to the list. Different crimes, different scales, but very similar causes, including the abuse of a power differential.
I'd have a lot more time for the people who screech about Rotherham et al (and there is much to screech about there) if they did not gloss over other abuses. It does make it appear that their anger is more about the identity of the perpetrator than the actual crime.
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
A lot of huff and puff and spin - then we end up out of the EU with low friction trade and no MEPs and maybe a small annual contribution.
The EU would be daft to try and add friction to trade.
Better or worse than what South Korea and Canada have now? Better? So anything we get will also apply to them under MFA?
"Better/worse" is where the arguments go wrong.
It will be a deal that works for both sides or it will fall apart or be changed.
Nothing is static - whatever happens when we leave will evolve over time as both the EU and the Uk changes dynamically.
Could easily be a scenario where the Uk booms ahead over the next 10-15 years and the EU starts agitating for tarrifs and quotas because we are stealing their market share.
Some people last week were equating a bawdy gentlemen’s dinner with mass rape in Rotherham. (Snip)
I made that comparison, and do not withdraw it. Yes, the scales are different, but the causes of the abuse sadly all too similar and familiar. Also add in abuse by Catholic and CofE priests.
There's more commonality than some seem to want to admit. The stories coming out of Hollywood can also be added to the list. Different crimes, different scales, but very similar causes, including the abuse of a power differential.
I'd have a lot more time for the people who screech about Rotherham et al (and there is much to screech about there) if they did not gloss over other abuses. It does make it appear that their anger is more about the identity of the perpetrator than the actual crime.
Agree with the allegations about power differential and among churches and similar organisations.
But rape of children is in a very different class of offence to putting an arm around a hostess at a party - even though both are wrong.
I’m more concerned with the identity of the victim than the identity of the perpetrator - in a lot of the “Rotherham” cases these children were wards of court or being “looked after” by the state. We failed them in a massive way.
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
Realistic options:
* WTO - Disastrous cliff edge non-solution * Canada - Prolonged period of uncertainty that may not be covered by transition arrangements, ie cliff edge still there. Might never happen (FTAs often don't) and outcome guaranteed to be mediocre in the best case. * Norway - Less than what we have as members but otherwise similar. Whatever we objected to about membership of the EU applies here too. Move from collective decision-making to doing what we are told. * Full membership of the EU - Requires a reversal of a democratic vote to leave the EU.
It might be more useful to ask which outcome would Leavers die in the ditch for to avoid?
FWIW I am going for Norway because I believe, maybe surprisingly, that Leavers will sacrifice sovereignty first. For most Leavers, Brexit is an exercise in rhetoric. They like the idea of sovereignty and taking back control but have no interest in making choices with consequences, which is the definition of the word, sovereignty. That's more a Remainer thing. The other thing is the importance to Leavers of British trade deals. The actual deals can be as mediocre as you like and will definitely be inferior to what we had as a member of the EU. But as long as they can stick a Union flag on those deals they are happy. You can't do that as a member of the EU.
Some people last week were equating a bawdy gentlemen’s dinner with mass rape in Rotherham. (Snip)
I made that comparison, and do not withdraw it. Yes, the scales are different, but the causes of the abuse sadly all too similar and familiar. Also add in abuse by Catholic and CofE priests.
There's more commonality than some seem to want to admit. The stories coming out of Hollywood can also be added to the list. Different crimes, different scales, but very similar causes, including the abuse of a power differential.
I'd have a lot more time for the people who screech about Rotherham et al (and there is much to screech about there) if they did not gloss over other abuses. It does make it appear that their anger is more about the identity of the perpetrator than the actual crime.
By way of analogy, slapping someone in the face and murder are both examples of violence, but I'd say the difference between the two is more than one of scale.
If there were examples of white men engaging in the mass rape of Muslim girls, then a charge of hypocrisy would stand against a person who made excuses for it, while condemning the reverse.
IMO, it is perfectly reasonable to say that there are very different degrees of badness and to condemn the worst acts more than the less bad ones.
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
A lot of huff and puff and spin - then we end up out of the EU with low friction trade and no MEPs and maybe a small annual contribution.
The EU would be daft to try and add friction to trade.
Better or worse than what South Korea and Canada have now? Better? So anything we get will also apply to them under MFA?
"Better/worse" is where the arguments go wrong.
It will be a deal that works for both sides or it will fall apart or be changed.
Nothing is static - whatever happens when we leave will evolve over time as both the EU and the Uk changes dynamically.
Could easily be a scenario where the Uk booms ahead over the next 10-15 years and the EU starts agitating for tarrifs and quotas because we are stealing their market share.
OK, not better/worse: but will the UK have freer access than Canada currently has? For instance, will services be included in the FTA?
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
Realistic options:
* WTO - Disastrous cliff edge non-solution * Canada - Prolonged period of uncertainty that may not be covered by transition arrangements, ie cliff edge still there. Might never happen (FTAs often don't) and outcome guaranteed to be mediocre in the best case. * Norway - Less than what we have as members but otherwise similar. Whatever we objected to about membership of the EU applies here too. Move from collective decision-making to doing what we are told. * Full membership of the EU - Requires a reversal of a democratic vote to leave the EU. .
Only half of the equation - what relationship will we have with the rest of the world ?
Clue - it will be as per now until formal deals can be agreed.
Some people last week were equating a bawdy gentlemen’s dinner with mass rape in Rotherham. (Snip)
I made that comparison, and do not withdraw it. Yes, the scales are different, but the causes of the abuse sadly all too similar and familiar. Also add in abuse by Catholic and CofE priests.
There's more commonality than some seem to want to admit. The stories coming out of Hollywood can also be added to the list. Different crimes, different scales, but very similar causes, including the abuse of a power differential.
I'd have a lot more time for the people who screech about Rotherham et al (and there is much to screech about there) if they did not gloss over other abuses. It does make it appear that their anger is more about the identity of the perpetrator than the actual crime.
Agree with the allegations about power differential and among churches and similar organisations.
But rape of children is in a very different class of offence to putting an arm around a hostess at a party - even though both are wrong.
I’m more concerned with the identity of the victim than the identity of the perpetrator - in a lot of the “Rotherham” cases these children were wards of court or being “looked after” by the state. We failed them in a massive way.
I'd agree with that, except that's not what we hear. For instance, whenever someone talks about 'thousands of crimes at New Year at Cologne', they are including crimes such as groping in that number. How come they count in that case, but not when it is rich businessmen doing it?
To avoid doubt, I'm not whitewashing or minimising either crimes, for that is what they are. But whether rape or groping, the only way we can start to stop such abuses is to tackle the idea that someone who you have power and influence over is somehow 'lesser' and therefore can be abused. In fact, that anyone is 'lesser' for whatever unearned reason.
We don't accept it in teaching, we should not accept it in other walks of life.
And businessmen feeling up women at a charity event is treating her as 'lesser', in the same way a priest doing the same to a child in his care, or a Muslim man in Rotherham. If they wouldn't want it done to their own daughter, they shouldn't do it to other girls and women.
(Then there are the issues that boys and men are also frequently the victims of such abuse because of power differentials, and that abusers can be of either gender. It's a massively complex and fraught area.)
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
A lot of huff and puff and spin - then we end up out of the EU with low friction trade and no MEPs and maybe a small annual contribution.
The EU would be daft to try and add friction to trade.
Better or worse than what South Korea and Canada have now? Better? So anything we get will also apply to them under MFA?
"Better/worse" is where the arguments go wrong.
It will be a deal that works for both sides or it will fall apart or be changed.
Nothing is static - whatever happens when we leave will evolve over time as both the EU and the Uk changes dynamically.
Could easily be a scenario where the Uk booms ahead over the next 10-15 years and the EU starts agitating for tarrifs and quotas because we are stealing their market share.
OK, not better/worse: but will the UK have freer access than Canada currently has? For instance, will services be included in the FTA?
Of course services have to be included in some sort of low friction deal - would be daft to sign up to just goods where we have a massive imbalance of trade.
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
Realistic options:
* WTO - Disastrous cliff edge non-solution * Canada - Prolonged period of uncertainty that may not be covered by transition arrangements, ie cliff edge still there. Might never happen (FTAs often don't) and outcome guaranteed to be mediocre in the best case. * Norway - Less than what we have as members but otherwise similar. Whatever we objected to about membership of the EU applies here too. Move from collective decision-making to doing what we are told. * Full membership of the EU - Requires a reversal of a democratic vote to leave the EU. .
Only half of the equation - what relationship will we have with the rest of the world ?
Clue - it will be as per now until formal deals can be agreed.
You are wrong on that, I am afraid. The relationships with the rest of the world will need to be recreated. To recreate something similar to what we have now requires the goodwill of both the EU and the third parties, as Liam Fox is finding out now. The EU doesn't have a huge incentive to go along with this and third parties will be looking to extract advantage to them. Add into the mix the fact that multilateral arrangements are always better than bilateral ones, by a big margin.
Its a game of snakes and ladders as you get older, you'll accrue wealth (Excluding a japan style property/shares crash) and head up the board. There are some ladders in terms of career progression, and a potentially big one for some of inheritance. The big snake on the board is care, and possibly divorce. Though that is a snake for some and a ladder for others !
Is that data Gross Assets or Net? Plenty of people who live in £1Mn+ house with a Mortgage of £800k - in which case 13% seems plausible if you're only taking 1 side of the equation. If it's Net (as it obviously should be in my view, but is much harder to calculate / estimate) then it is very surprising.
David Cameron's govt had a somewhat problematic relationship with evidence-based policy making but Brexit and Theresa May are taking it to new heights.
The vast majority of economists/economic models all say that leaving the EU is going to damage our economy to varying degrees.
It's perfectly reasonable for Ministers to say they don't care about what is actually not that huge an economic impact under most scenarios - but they should at least be honest and say they are choosing to proceed in spite of these warnings, rather than shooting the messenger and criticising civil servants who are not allowed to talk back in public.
The democratic damage from attacking our civil service is hugely underestimated.
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
Realistic options:
* WTO - Disastrous cliff edge non-solution * Canada - Prolonged period of uncertainty that may not be covered by transition arrangements, ie cliff edge still there. Might never happen (FTAs often don't) and outcome guaranteed to be mediocre in the best case. * Norway - Less than what we have as members but otherwise similar. Whatever we objected to about membership of the EU applies here too. Move from collective decision-making to doing what we are told. * Full membership of the EU - Requires a reversal of a democratic vote to leave the EU. .
Only half of the equation - what relationship will we have with the rest of the world ?
Clue - it will be as per now until formal deals can be agreed.
You are wrong on that, I am afraid. The relationships with the rest of the world will need to be recreated. To recreate something similar to what we have now requires the goodwill of both the EU and the third parties, as Liam Fox is finding out now. The EU doesn't have a huge incentive to go along with this and third parties will be looking to extract advantage to them. Add into the mix the fact that multilateral arrangements are always better than bilateral ones, by a big margin.
Again you look at this in such a cowering asymmetric way - as if the whole world wants to put up barriers.
Mr Verhofstadt is describing continued membership, not transition.
The word "transition" is a fiction and it always has been. It's an extension. Given that it allows us continued access to stuff we want we should bite their hands off.
Mr Verhofstadt is describing continued membership, not transition.
The word "transition" is a fiction and it always has been. It's an extension. Given that it allows us continued access to stuff we want we should bite their hands off.
its not an extension as we wont be participating in many areas of the EU.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
This would all be taking place against a real-world backdrop that would be more highly-charged than during the fuel protests during the Blair government. The idea that what a minority of Tory backbenchers dream about would be the primary factor driving events is a fantasy.
What is a fantasy is that a Conservative PM could revoke A50. You are right about the atmosphere that this would be operating in. What's strange is that you don't recognise that it would be being driven by those who delivered Brexit in the first place.
In the hypothetical scenario that we're a week away from exiting with no deal, what would Farage and his People's Army's rallying cry be?
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
Realistic options:
* WTO - Disastrous cliff edge non-solution * Canada - Prolonged period of uncertainty that may not be covered by transition arrangements, ie cliff edge still there. Might never happen (FTAs often don't) and outcome guaranteed to be mediocre in the best case. * Norway - Less than what we have as members but otherwise similar. Whatever we objected to about membership of the EU applies here too. Move from collective decision-making to doing what we are told. * Full membership of the EU - Requires a reversal of a democratic vote to leave the EU. .
Only half of the equation - what relationship will we have with the rest of the world ?
Clue - it will be as per now until formal deals can be agreed.
You are wrong on that, I am afraid. The relationships with the rest of the world will need to be recreated. To recreate something similar to what we have now requires the goodwill of both the EU and the third parties, as Liam Fox is finding out now. The EU doesn't have a huge incentive to go along with this and third parties will be looking to extract advantage to them. Add into the mix the fact that multilateral arrangements are always better than bilateral ones, by a big margin.
Again you look at this in such a cowering asymmetric way - as if the whole world wants to put up barriers.
Are you so paranoid on all topics ?
Of course the whole world puts up barriers. Why should they take them down just for us. The EU is a very rare example of barrier reduction.
I see that Steve Baker is being attacked for saying something which he didn't say, and for making an attack on the civil service which he did not make.
What he actually said, according to the irreproachable source of the Guardian, was:
At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. I think we must proceed with great caution in this matter but I heard [Grant] raise this issue. I think we need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way. But he has reminded me of something which I heard. I think it would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.
Its a game of snakes and ladders as you get older, you'll accrue wealth (Excluding a japan style property/shares crash) and head up the board. There are some ladders in terms of career progression, and a potentially big one for some of inheritance. The big snake on the board is care, and possibly divorce. Though that is a snake for some and a ladder for others !
Is that data Gross Assets or Net? Plenty of people who live in £1Mn+ house with a Mortgage of £800k - in which case 13% seems plausible if you're only taking 1 side of the equation. If it's Net (as it obviously should be in my view, but is much harder to calculate / estimate) then it is very surprising.
Yet 7 in 10 people claim that they are struggling to get by and 41% have less than £1000 in savings
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
Realistic options:
* WTO - Disastrous cliff edge non-solution * Canada - Prolonged period of uncertainty that may not be covered by transition arrangements, ie cliff edge still there. Might never happen (FTAs often don't) and outcome guaranteed to be mediocre in the best case. * Norway - Less than what we have as members but otherwise similar. Whatever we objected to about membership of the EU applies here too. Move from collective decision-making to doing what we are told. * Full membership of the EU - Requires a reversal of a democratic vote to leave the EU. .
Only half of the equation - what relationship will we have with the rest of the world ?
Clue - it will be as per now until formal deals can be agreed.
You are wrong on that, I am afraid. The relationships with the rest of the world will need to be recreated. To recreate something similar to what we have now requires the goodwill of both the EU and the third parties, as Liam Fox is finding out now. The EU doesn't have a huge incentive to go along with this and third parties will be looking to extract advantage to them. Add into the mix the fact that multilateral arrangements are always better than bilateral ones, by a big margin.
Again you look at this in such a cowering asymmetric way - as if the whole world wants to put up barriers.
Are you so paranoid on all topics ?
Of course the whole world puts up barriers. Why should they take them down just for us. The EU is a very rare example of barrier reduction.
According to the Legatum institute, "the advent of a comprehensive, independent UK trade policy would inject new impetus into the global economy."
Its a game of snakes and ladders as you get older, you'll accrue wealth (Excluding a japan style property/shares crash) and head up the board. There are some ladders in terms of career progression, and a potentially big one for some of inheritance. The big snake on the board is care, and possibly divorce. Though that is a snake for some and a ladder for others !
Is that data Gross Assets or Net? Plenty of people who live in £1Mn+ house with a Mortgage of £800k - in which case 13% seems plausible if you're only taking 1 side of the equation. If it's Net (as it obviously should be in my view, but is much harder to calculate / estimate) then it is very surprising.
Don't forget that pension rights can be incredibly valuable. Anyone on a final-salary scheme who has accrued £25K's worth of pension entitlement has an asset which is equivalent according to HMRC to half a million quid (and it would actually cost much more than that for an individual to buy an inflation-linked pension of £25K).
Its a game of snakes and ladders as you get older, you'll accrue wealth (Excluding a japan style property/shares crash) and head up the board. There are some ladders in terms of career progression, and a potentially big one for some of inheritance. The big snake on the board is care, and possibly divorce. Though that is a snake for some and a ladder for others !
Is that data Gross Assets or Net? Plenty of people who live in £1Mn+ house with a Mortgage of £800k - in which case 13% seems plausible if you're only taking 1 side of the equation. If it's Net (as it obviously should be in my view, but is much harder to calculate / estimate) then it is very surprising.
Don't forget that pension rights can be incredibly valuable. Anyone on a final-salary scheme who has accrued £25K's worth of pension entitlement has an asset which is equivalent according to HMRC to half a million quid (and actually worth more than that if you wanted to buy an inflation-linked pension of £25K).
Shhh - all the money is in the private sector remember..
I see that Steve Baker is being attacked for saying something which he didn't say, and for making an attack on the civil service which he did not make.
What he actually said, according to the irreproachable source of the Guardian, was:
At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. I think we must proceed with great caution in this matter but I heard [Grant] raise this issue. I think we need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way. But he has reminded me of something which I heard. I think it would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.
Steve Baker was agreeing with Jacob Rees-Mogg's description of a conversation that Baker had with Charles Grant from the Centre for European Research. Baker had presumably related the incident to Rees-Mogg and the latter was retelling the allegation for public consumption. Rees-Mogg clearly thought Grant's alleged description of civil servants' motives was accurate.
Grant denies he ever claimed that civil servants were deliberately modelling to show all non-Customs Union options were bad. Steve Baker disingenuously pretended that as someone presumably with the authority of Grant made that claim he would have to take it seriously. If libel laws applied in this case, both Grant and an individual implicated civil servant would have a case against Baker.
Its a game of snakes and ladders as you get older, you'll accrue wealth (Excluding a japan style property/shares crash) and head up the board. There are some ladders in terms of career progression, and a potentially big one for some of inheritance. The big snake on the board is care, and possibly divorce. Though that is a snake for some and a ladder for others !
Is that data Gross Assets or Net? Plenty of people who live in £1Mn+ house with a Mortgage of £800k - in which case 13% seems plausible if you're only taking 1 side of the equation. If it's Net (as it obviously should be in my view, but is much harder to calculate / estimate) then it is very surprising.
Don't forget that pension rights can be incredibly valuable. Anyone on a final-salary scheme who has accrued £25K's worth of pension entitlement has an asset which is equivalent according to HMRC to half a million quid (and it would actually cost much more than that for an individual to buy an inflation-linked pension of £25K).
Yes, a very high proportion of wealth comes in the form of pension entitlements.
Er, yes, we can - and indeed, we will. It's not down to the UK any more. There are treaties in place that govern this. In any case, there will be a deal of some sort for the reasons rkrkrk says. The biggest potential fly in the ointment is the EP - but if push came to shove there, I think they'd play ball in the end.
If push came to shove, Number 10 would capitulate and revoke Article 50 - every time. The fact that it would be a national humiliation doesn't mean it can't happen.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
In the former case, that firstly assumes that A50 is revocable, which is highly contestable, and secondly, that the Con MPs would go along with it, which they wouldn't. If May tried it, she'd be out within 48 hours and a Brexiteer would be installed. A50 would then be reinstated.
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
This would all be taking place against a real-world backdrop that would be more highly-charged than during the fuel protests during the Blair government. The idea that what a minority of Tory backbenchers dream about would be the primary factor driving events is a fantasy.
What is a fantasy is that a Conservative PM could revoke A50. You are right about the atmosphere that this would be operating in. What's strange is that you don't recognise that it would be being driven by those who delivered Brexit in the first place.
In the hypothetical scenario that we're a week away from exiting with no deal, what would Farage and his People's Army's rallying cry be?
"Leave - it's what we voted for".
In any case, it's a false choice to say crash out or revoke A50; defer would be a potential option - but only (1) if the EU27 accepted it - it wouldn't be the UK's call - and (2), only if there was a realistic and short pathway to a deal.
If it's simply a matter of browbeating the European Parliament into not being numpties, after the EU27 and UK have agreed, then I can see, say, a one month extension being acceptable all round. If, on the other hand, talks have broken down at governmental level with fundamental disagreements on points of principle then we'll leave with no deal.
Its a game of snakes and ladders as you get older, you'll accrue wealth (Excluding a japan style property/shares crash) and head up the board. There are some ladders in terms of career progression, and a potentially big one for some of inheritance. The big snake on the board is care, and possibly divorce. Though that is a snake for some and a ladder for others !
Is that data Gross Assets or Net? Plenty of people who live in £1Mn+ house with a Mortgage of £800k - in which case 13% seems plausible if you're only taking 1 side of the equation. If it's Net (as it obviously should be in my view, but is much harder to calculate / estimate) then it is very surprising.
Don't forget that pension rights can be incredibly valuable. Anyone on a final-salary scheme who has accrued £25K's worth of pension entitlement has an asset which is equivalent according to HMRC to half a million quid (and actually worth more than that if you wanted to buy an inflation-linked pension of £25K).
Shhh - all the money is in the private sector remember..
It is.
Public sector final-salary pensions are another baby-boomer perk that is now history.
Agree with the allegations about power differential and among churches and similar organisations.
But rape of children is in a very different class of offence to putting an arm around a hostess at a party - even though both are wrong.
I’m more concerned with the identity of the victim than the identity of the perpetrator - in a lot of the “Rotherham” cases these children were wards of court or being “looked after” by the state. We failed them in a massive way.
I'd agree with that, except that's not what we hear. For instance, whenever someone talks about 'thousands of crimes at New Year at Cologne', they are including crimes such as groping in that number. How come they count in that case, but not when it is rich businessmen doing it?
To avoid doubt, I'm not whitewashing or minimising either crimes, for that is what they are. But whether rape or groping, the only way we can start to stop such abuses is to tackle the idea that someone who you have power and influence over is somehow 'lesser' and therefore can be abused. In fact, that anyone is 'lesser' for whatever unearned reason.
We don't accept it in teaching, we should not accept it in other walks of life.
And businessmen feeling up women at a charity event is treating her as 'lesser', in the same way a priest doing the same to a child in his care, or a Muslim man in Rotherham. If they wouldn't want it done to their own daughter, they shouldn't do it to other girls and women.
(Then there are the issues that boys and men are also frequently the victims of such abuse because of power differentials, and that abusers can be of either gender. It's a massively complex and fraught area.)
Indeed, these things are complex, and I’d love to know how many complaints the police received as a result of the gentleman’s dinner compared to New Year’s Eve in Cologne. As I understand it the only complaint about the Presidents Club was from the undercover journalist present, and she chose to put it in the papers rather than go through the correct channels.
My guess is that a lot of the other ladies working alongside her were escorts very happy to be paid to give their phone number to every man in the room, and that the journalist’s application for the job was not as straightforward as was made out to be.
Its a game of snakes and ladders as you get older, you'll accrue wealth (Excluding a japan style property/shares crash) and head up the board. There are some ladders in terms of career progression, and a potentially big one for some of inheritance. The big snake on the board is care, and possibly divorce. Though that is a snake for some and a ladder for others !
Is that data Gross Assets or Net? Plenty of people who live in £1Mn+ house with a Mortgage of £800k - in which case 13% seems plausible if you're only taking 1 side of the equation. If it's Net (as it obviously should be in my view, but is much harder to calculate / estimate) then it is very surprising.
Don't forget that pension rights can be incredibly valuable. Anyone on a final-salary scheme who has accrued £25K's worth of pension entitlement has an asset which is equivalent according to HMRC to half a million quid (and actually worth more than that if you wanted to buy an inflation-linked pension of £25K).
Shhh - all the money is in the private sector remember..
It is.
Public sector final-salary pensions are another baby-boomer perk that is now history.
I see that Steve Baker is being attacked for saying something which he didn't say, and for making an attack on the civil service which he did not make.
What he actually said, according to the irreproachable source of the Guardian, was:
At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. I think we must proceed with great caution in this matter but I heard [Grant] raise this issue. I think we need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way. But he has reminded me of something which I heard. I think it would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.
Steve Baker was agreeing with Jacob Rees-Mogg's description of a conversation that Baker had with Charles Grant from the Centre for European Research. Baker had presumably related the incident to Rees-Mogg and the latter was retelling for public consumption. Rees-Mogg clearly thought Grant's alleged description of civil servants' motives was accurate.
Given how quick Baker was to answer that the account was accurate it does make it look as though the exchange had been coordinated between the two of them beforehand.
Comments
This is just a company making a commercial decision.
I don’t doubt they will return if it makes commercial sense.
I was in Australia recently and went along to a big bash game. The contrast with county cricket in the UK is amazing - they are doing very well by adapting the sport, but also through marketing, promotion, playing music etc.
Incredibly (to me at least) they have kfc as a sponsor and have managed to start a trend of fans wearing kfc buckets on their heads!? I would have laughed out loud at that if someone had pitched it to me - but it’s a thing now.
Plus a video from Paul Joseph Watson.
I reckon use of Brainforce will make us want to see the grid girls.
We also take far too much account of peoples’ feelings as if these should be the sun around which everything should revolve.
When you are in a public space, you have to find a way of getting on with a whole range of people. Manners was the way, traditionally, in which we managed to make the public space bearable and, indeed, pleasant for random collections of strangers. And coupled with manners was also some level of restraint in one’s own demands. Kindness and not being too demanding, in other words.
All this endless focus on rights without any consideration of one’s obligations to others has just institutionalised a level of selfishness which can often make the public space unbearable. When someone aggressively flaunts their rights at you, it rather crowds out any feeling of benevolence or kindness or helpfulness you feel towards them. Doing things because you want to is way better than doing them because you have to, because you fear the consequences.
Last time I went to a 20/20 cricket match (in Dubai!) the teams had cheerleaders and music played and dancers danced when there was a six or a wicket. I wonder how far the feminist puritans are going to go - banning cheerleaders at the Super Bowl on Sunday?
I think there was a proverb that went something like "Manners are the lubricant of the social machine"
Lots of English tourists got seriously ripped off at the last Pakistan tour here, paid £50 for tickets that were a fiver bought locally and no bar. The bar stand was a tenner a seat.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/959055139767312384
She might try and soldier on with more than the 60% you suggest but I don't see it - she'd be in the same position as Thatcher was in 1990, where the very fact of the exposure of her weakness led to previously loyal MPs defecting as they saw her position as untenable.
It's not a big deal - but don't be surprised if viewers drop over time every time you take a bit of the glamour out of the sport.
Those men who think it is ok to grope any passing sentient female should take note.
Groping, leering, harassment and worse is not on, whether you are a captain of industry or some pakistani taxi driver. Expecting men to behave like civilised human beings not rutting baboons is the very least women should expect.
Segregated paddocks for beer, Females in the crow told to cover up, no same sex people welcome.
Am sure it will be one of the best viewed and attended ever by the average fan - not.
For the sake of argument, suppose it would take us a year to be ready to operate with no deal. What do you think will happen as we approach the cliff edge and we're not ready, or after we jump?
'Manners maketh man'
Glad to have my Russia 2018 tickets
https://twitter.com/FDA_union/status/959053502533292032
In the second, the obvious options would be to request an extention to A50, which the EU27 might or might not sign up to. If they don't, Britain still crashes out; if they do, then May is still deposed and the whole thing is delayed by 12 months.
18h ago
263 264
The gallery management will be feeling right fools now that someone has pointed out on its own website that Hylas was gay (Heracles was his lover) and that the nymphs were trying to entice him into the water for their own, nefarious reasons.
Spectacular own goal by the gallery.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone with a better feel for EU opinion on this.
FWIW my view is that if Britain did want to remain (a big “if” I grant you) a way would be found, whatever the legal niceties around Article 50.
There’re not close to having enough hotel rooms and were relying on people attending the matches staying in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain with a fleet of A380s doing shuttles. If the political problems don’t get sorted it’s going to be long haul flights in and straight about again for the fans.
Having said that, I think the open door is genuine. Most of the EU players would be OK to take the UK back, even if they don't expect that to happen.
If it was an organisation with a real future it should have recognised some will want closer union but others will want a looser or associate membership.
The EU would have to offer something on free movement to even have a chance of changing views, indeed a grand offer allowing some sovereignty could work and would be a solution for all.
Unfortunately I do not think the EU have it in them
This is surprising (IMHO) from the ONS. 13% of households own £1m+ assets, 30% own £500,000 plus, and median household wealth is £259,000.
That includes pension rights, as well as other assets.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/wealthingreatbritainwave5/2014to2016
If the local difficulties don’t get sorted I’m thinking of things like desert camps with tents and a bar. They’ll fudge the licensing if everyone there is a tourist. This is Qatar’s chance to shine on the world stage and they don’t dare f it up
The nightmare scenario is a last minute easing of the travel restrictions, which in this part of the world is quite normal but could screw everyone’s plans up.
What deal do you expect the UK to have after the transition period? What deal would you prefer (if not what we get)?
The EU would be daft to try and add friction to trade.
There's more commonality than some seem to want to admit. The stories coming out of Hollywood can also be added to the list. Different crimes, different scales, but very similar causes, including the abuse of a power differential.
I'd have a lot more time for the people who screech about Rotherham et al (and there is much to screech about there) if they did not gloss over other abuses. It does make it appear that their anger is more about the identity of the perpetrator than the actual crime.
They will spin it to look awful for us but meh..
It will be a deal that works for both sides or it will fall apart or be changed.
Nothing is static - whatever happens when we leave will evolve over time as both the EU and the Uk changes dynamically.
Could easily be a scenario where the Uk booms ahead over the next 10-15 years and the EU starts agitating for tarrifs and quotas because we are stealing their market share.
But rape of children is in a very different class of offence to putting an arm around a hostess at a party - even though both are wrong.
I’m more concerned with the identity of the victim than the identity of the perpetrator - in a lot of the “Rotherham” cases these children were wards of court or being “looked after” by the state. We failed them in a massive way.
* WTO - Disastrous cliff edge non-solution
* Canada - Prolonged period of uncertainty that may not be covered by transition arrangements, ie cliff edge still there. Might never happen (FTAs often don't) and outcome guaranteed to be mediocre in the best case.
* Norway - Less than what we have as members but otherwise similar. Whatever we objected to about membership of the EU applies here too. Move from collective decision-making to doing what we are told.
* Full membership of the EU - Requires a reversal of a democratic vote to leave the EU.
It might be more useful to ask which outcome would Leavers die in the ditch for to avoid?
FWIW I am going for Norway because I believe, maybe surprisingly, that Leavers will sacrifice sovereignty first. For most Leavers, Brexit is an exercise in rhetoric. They like the idea of sovereignty and taking back control but have no interest in making choices with consequences, which is the definition of the word, sovereignty. That's more a Remainer thing. The other thing is the importance to Leavers of British trade deals. The actual deals can be as mediocre as you like and will definitely be inferior to what we had as a member of the EU. But as long as they can stick a Union flag on those deals they are happy. You can't do that as a member of the EU.
If there were examples of white men engaging in the mass rape of Muslim girls, then a charge of hypocrisy would stand against a person who made excuses for it, while condemning the reverse.
IMO, it is perfectly reasonable to say that there are very different degrees of badness and to condemn the worst acts more than the less bad ones.
Clue - it will be as per now until formal deals can be agreed.
To avoid doubt, I'm not whitewashing or minimising either crimes, for that is what they are. But whether rape or groping, the only way we can start to stop such abuses is to tackle the idea that someone who you have power and influence over is somehow 'lesser' and therefore can be abused. In fact, that anyone is 'lesser' for whatever unearned reason.
We don't accept it in teaching, we should not accept it in other walks of life.
And businessmen feeling up women at a charity event is treating her as 'lesser', in the same way a priest doing the same to a child in his care, or a Muslim man in Rotherham. If they wouldn't want it done to their own daughter, they shouldn't do it to other girls and women.
(Then there are the issues that boys and men are also frequently the victims of such abuse because of power differentials, and that abusers can be of either gender. It's a massively complex and fraught area.)
The vast majority of economists/economic models all say that leaving the EU is going to damage our economy to varying degrees.
It's perfectly reasonable for Ministers to say they don't care about what is actually not that huge an economic impact under most scenarios - but they should at least be honest and say they are choosing to proceed in spite of these warnings, rather than shooting the messenger and criticising civil servants who are not allowed to talk back in public.
The democratic damage from attacking our civil service is hugely underestimated.
Are you so paranoid on all topics ?
What he actually said, according to the irreproachable source of the Guardian, was:
At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. I think we must proceed with great caution in this matter but I heard [Grant] raise this issue. I think we need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way. But he has reminded me of something which I heard. I think it would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/feb/01/george-osborne-tells-tory-mps-they-have-power-to-insist-on-soft-brexit-politics-live?page=with:block-5a730929e4b0460af94be873#block-5a730929e4b0460af94be873
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/25/uk-workers-chronically-broke-study-economic-insecurity
Not a view that has found much resonance among people familiar with the WTO.
https://twitter.com/tgemiles/status/958682719378079745
Grant denies he ever claimed that civil servants were deliberately modelling to show all non-Customs Union options were bad. Steve Baker disingenuously pretended that as someone presumably with the authority of Grant made that claim he would have to take it seriously. If libel laws applied in this case, both Grant and an individual implicated civil servant would have a case against Baker.
In any case, it's a false choice to say crash out or revoke A50; defer would be a potential option - but only (1) if the EU27 accepted it - it wouldn't be the UK's call - and (2), only if there was a realistic and short pathway to a deal.
If it's simply a matter of browbeating the European Parliament into not being numpties, after the EU27 and UK have agreed, then I can see, say, a one month extension being acceptable all round. If, on the other hand, talks have broken down at governmental level with fundamental disagreements on points of principle then we'll leave with no deal.
Public sector final-salary pensions are another baby-boomer perk that is now history.
My guess is that a lot of the other ladies working alongside her were escorts very happy to be paid to give their phone number to every man in the room, and that the journalist’s application for the job was not as straightforward as was made out to be.
NEW THREAD