Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.
Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.
How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.
It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.
IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.
Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
We do, it's called botox and it is used in cosmetic surgery routinely and less frequently in the treatment of muscular spasm disorders ... Or saxitoxin used in anesthaesia.
For an assassin's weapons, it would not take too much effort to create an effective delivery means, but it gets increasingly more difficult as the subject is more unwilling and more so again if you want the deliverer to go unnoticed and complete delivery unharmed himself or herself.
Well that was pretty boring in terms of detail, although the Chancellor did have a few jokes and political jibes at those on the other side of the House.
OBR teeing themselves up to be absolutely miles off here.
They have not forecast any major changes in borrowing as a result of government in any years, and none for 2017/18 makes sense, as we are much too late for that.
Their forecast for 2017/18 amounts to a suggestion that whilst the first ten months of the year have been lower than last year, and receipts among the best ever, February and March will be some of the worst months for the Exchequer in years. I do not believe it for a moment.
In respect of other years, they say this: "On the receipts side, relatively little of the higher 2017-18 starting point is assumed to persist, as most of the unexpected strength in SA income tax and onshore corporation tax appears to reflect timing changes rather than genuinely higher underlying liabilities." If true that would be interesting, but I have not seen the detail.
Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.
Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.
How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.
It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.
IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.
Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
We do, it's called botox and it is used in cosmetic surgery routinely and less frequently in the treatment of muscular spasm disorders ... Or saxitoxin used in anesthaesia.
For an assassin's weapons, it would not take too much effort to create an effective delivery means, but it gets increasingly more difficult as the subject is more unwilling and more so again if you want the deliverer to go unnoticed and complete delivery unharmed himself or herself.
I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.
It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.
IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.
Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
We do, it's called botox and it is used in cosmetic surgery routinely and less frequently in the treatment of muscular spasm disorders ... Or saxitoxin used in anesthaesia.
For an assassin's weapons, it would not take too much effort to create an effective delivery means, but it gets increasingly more difficult as the subject is more unwilling and more so again if you want the deliverer to go unnoticed and complete delivery unharmed himself or herself.
That's one of those stats that looks clever but really isn't. We'd have been delighted with those figures in 2008-2012.
Growth in 2010 to 2012 was better than that.
But was 2008 to 2012 more or less than the (I can't do compound interest in my head) 7.0% forecast by the OBR?
No but my point is 2010 to 2012 felt pretty bad economically and the average growth rate then was slightly faster than what is being forecast for the next 5 years.
Will the last sensible person in trumps cabinet please remember to turn the lights off....
Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are said to have a pact - one goes, the lot go. If true, and if exercised, I think that would be real implosion time for the Administration and wet knickers time for the GOP.
That's one of those stats that looks clever but really isn't. We'd have been delighted with those figures in 2008-2012.
Growth in 2010 to 2012 was better than that.
But was 2008 to 2012 more or less than the (I can't do compound interest in my head) 7.0% forecast by the OBR?
No but my point is 2010 to 2012 felt pretty bad economically and the average growth rate then was slightly faster than what is being forecast for the next 5 years.
It felt bad because inflation was quite high. A litre of diesel went from £1.00 to £1.40.
That's one of those stats that looks clever but really isn't. We'd have been delighted with those figures in 2008-2012.
No doubt, during the Great Depression, too. Depends how low a bar you want to set.
It’s rather odd to be so lacklustre given the strength of our peers and trading partners.
It's not just odd, its wrong. Its so wrong that you can't help think the OBR has been lent on so Hammond can have more days like today when he exceeds expectations. It also takes the pressure off to spend much more money too (or at least May and Hammond will think it does). It's delusional because people don't pay that close attention.
These forecasts will look silly in 8 days when we get the February deficit figure and it becomes obvious that the out turn will be significantly lower than £45bn. The next day we will get the upward revisal of GDP for 2017. In April we will get Q1 of 2018 which I would guess will be 0.4 or 0.5%. And so on and so forth.
"In his role in the White House, McEntee did tasks such as giving the president messages and making sure the clocks were correctly set for daylight-saving time."
That is really low politics from Putin and Trump to overshadow Big Phil Hammond's spring statement by attempted assassination / sacking Tillerson. Sounds like collusion to me...
That's one of those stats that looks clever but really isn't. We'd have been delighted with those figures in 2008-2012.
No doubt, during the Great Depression, too. Depends how low a bar you want to set.
It’s rather odd to be so lacklustre given the strength of our peers and trading partners.
It's not just odd, its wrong. Its so wrong that you can't help think the OBR has been lent on so Hammond can have more days like today when he exceeds expectations. It also takes the pressure off to spend much more money too (or at least May and Hammond will think it does). It's delusional because people don't pay that close attention.
These forecasts will look silly in 8 days when we get the February deficit figure and it becomes obvious that the out turn will be significantly lower than £45bn. The next day we will get the upward revisal of GDP for 2017. In April we will get Q1 of 2018 which I would guess will be 0.4 or 0.5%. And so on and so forth.
But Phil won't get to announce that he has exceed expectations for 2017/18!
That is really low politics from Putin and Trump to overshadow Big Phil Hammond's spring statement by attempted assassination / sacking Tillerson. Sounds like collusion to me...
That's one of those stats that looks clever but really isn't. We'd have been delighted with those figures in 2008-2012.
No doubt, during the Great Depression, too. Depends how low a bar you want to set.
It’s rather odd to be so lacklustre given the strength of our peers and trading partners.
It's not just odd, its wrong. Its so wrong that you can't help think the OBR has been lent on so Hammond can have more days like today when he exceeds expectations. It also takes the pressure off to spend much more money too (or at least May and Hammond will think it does). It's delusional because people don't pay that close attention.
These forecasts will look silly in 8 days when we get the February deficit figure and it becomes obvious that the out turn will be significantly lower than £45bn. The next day we will get the upward revisal of GDP for 2017. In April we will get Q1 of 2018 which I would guess will be 0.4 or 0.5%. And so on and so forth.
But Phil won't get to announce that he has exceed expectations for 2017/18!
He'll think he can do that in the budget. But he is undoubtedly politically inept. As bad as his boss in that department. The Tories have gone from the most politically astute (sometimes admittedly overly so in that they played silly games) to the least politically astute leadership in a very short period of time. I'm not liking the change much.
"In his role in the White House, McEntee did tasks such as giving the president messages and making sure the clocks were correctly set for daylight-saving time."
Then why the need not to even come back in to get his coat???
That's one of those stats that looks clever but really isn't. We'd have been delighted with those figures in 2008-2012.
No doubt, during the Great Depression, too. Depends how low a bar you want to set.
It’s rather odd to be so lacklustre given the strength of our peers and trading partners.
It's not just odd, its wrong. Its so wrong that you can't help think the OBR has been lent on so Hammond can have more days like today when he exceeds expectations. It also takes the pressure off to spend much more money too (or at least May and Hammond will think it does). It's delusional because people don't pay that close attention.
These forecasts will look silly in 8 days when we get the February deficit figure and it becomes obvious that the out turn will be significantly lower than £45bn. The next day we will get the upward revisal of GDP for 2017. In April we will get Q1 of 2018 which I would guess will be 0.4 or 0.5%. And so on and so forth.
But Phil won't get to announce that he has exceed expectations for 2017/18!
He'll think he can do that in the budget. But he is undoubtedly politically inept. As bad as his boss in that department. The Tories have gone from the most politically astute (sometimes admittedly overly so in that they played silly games) to the least politically astute leadership in a very short period of time. I'm not liking the change much.
George Osborne failed to correct the record when we [didn't] have a double dip recession, a time which the newspaper still report as having happened when in fact it didn't.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
"In his role in the White House, McEntee did tasks such as giving the president messages and making sure the clocks were correctly set for daylight-saving time."
Then why the need not to even come back in to get his coat???
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
There is no clear evidence yet Trump will not exempt us from trade sanctions as he has done with Australia and unlike Obama who said we would be 'at the back of the queue' for any trade deal post Brexit Trump has said we will be at the front.
Trump has also appointed Mike Pompeo as his new Secretary of State who has a history of a tough anti Kremlin line and even Trump himself has said the US will condemn Russia if proved they were responsible for te attack, even May has said it was 'likely' they were responsible but not as yet confirmed
"In his role in the White House, McEntee did tasks such as giving the president messages and making sure the clocks were correctly set for daylight-saving time."
Then why the need not to even come back in to get his coat???
I thought the implication in the article was that staff had been operating on an interim security clearance, and the full clearance had just come (or failed to come) through.
I imagine if someone was working in the Cabinet Office and was suddenly found to have failed his vetting he would be out the door pretty sharply, possibly even precipitously depending on the reason of the failure.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
To be fair, I don’t think there are many Trumpers on here.
Although there are many who don’t realise just how similar Trumpery and Brexiteering are.
Seriously, can anyone remember the last time a US President so conspicuously failed to support us in public? We really are in new geopolitidal waters and the U.K. is going to have to figure out what it is for, and who it’s allies are.
Page 18 details our "divorce bill" at £37.1bn, including £16.4bn in contributions to the budget until 2020, i.e. until we actually leave.
The rest, c.£20bn is really for the withdrawal.
That is what the Government told us but some doubted...
Exactly.
As I've said before, there's a lot of bullshit spoken about Brexit on here.
I'm just trying to unpick if the OBR has had to accept any of the government's say so on this.
Edit: not very much of it, indeed it is very slightly lower than the Treasury (page 215 and following)
The OBR future payments is based on the Governments estimate of what it will pay
"On future financial flows and the financial settlement terms described in the joint report published by the UK Government and the European Union on progress during phase one of the Article 50 negotiations, the Government directed us to the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Select Committee of 24 January 2018 setting out the Treasury’s estimate of the total cost of the settlement. "
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
To be fair, I don’t think there are many Trumpers on here.
Although there are many who don’t realise just how similar Trumpery and Brexiteering are.
Seriously, can anyone remember the last time a US President so conspicuously failed to support us in public? We really are in new geopolitidal waters and the U.K. is going to have to figure out what it is for, and who it’s allies are.
This ain’t Kansas anymore.
Eisenhower and our adventure in the Suez canal might be the last time a US President failed to support us publicly.
I think we're used to very pro UK Presidents in recent times, such as Reagan and Weinberger offering to loan us an Aircraft Carrier during the Falklands.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
There is no clear evidence yet Trump will not exempt us from trade sanctions as he has done with Australia and unlike Obama who said we would be 'at the back of the queue' for any trade deal post Brexit Trump has said we will be at the front.
Trump has also appointed Mike Pompeo as his new Secretary of State who has a history of a tough anti Kremlin line and even Trump himself has said the US will condemn Russia if proved they were responsible for te attack, even May has said it was 'likely' they were responsible but not as yet confirmed
Of course. And there are no American tanks in Baghdad.
The Russians launch an attack on British soil. The US president has yet to speak to our PM about it, having recently imposed trade sanctions on the UK. If Obama had acted in the same way there would have been uproar.
Cameron, of course, did point out the security risks implied by Brexit.
All of a sudden, it’s not a good time to be giving two fingers up to our European allies. Putin is testing NATO, and we can be pretty sure we can’t count on the US so long as Trump is at the controls.
Cameron was widely deplored by the PB armchair gang for scaremongering.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
Well quite. Tears were shed on here when Obama merely warned that creating a new US/UK trade deal would be a protracted process - never mind ripping apart the arrangements we already have.
Page 18 details our "divorce bill" at £37.1bn, including £16.4bn in contributions to the budget until 2020, i.e. until we actually leave.
The rest, c.£20bn is really for the withdrawal.
That is what the Government told us but some doubted...
Exactly.
As I've said before, there's a lot of bullshit spoken about Brexit on here.
I'm just trying to unpick if the OBR has had to accept any of the government's say so on this.
Edit: not very much of it, indeed it is very slightly lower than the Treasury (page 215 and following)
The OBR future payments is based on the Governments estimate of what it will pay
"On future financial flows and the financial settlement terms described in the joint report published by the UK Government and the European Union on progress during phase one of the Article 50 negotiations, the Government directed us to the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Select Committee of 24 January 2018 setting out the Treasury’s estimate of the total cost of the settlement. "
Where does it say that?
Most of the references in the annex are to the joint report.
To be fair, I don’t think there are many Trumpers on here.
Are there any? I mean, I'm prepared to give Trump a chance to see how his approach on North Korea plays out, because at least it seems to be getting more traction than 8 years of Obama. But its a huge leap from that to saying I'm a Trumper. I find virtually every other aspect of his existence just plain objectionable.
Brexit does not owe its existence to President Donald Trump. It may owe much more to the tin-eared efforts of "back of the queue" Obama - although All Out War suggests that George Osborne may have had a hand in that little episode.....
Page 18 details our "divorce bill" at £37.1bn, including £16.4bn in contributions to the budget until 2020, i.e. until we actually leave.
The rest, c.£20bn is really for the withdrawal.
That is what the Government told us but some doubted...
Exactly.
As I've said before, there's a lot of bullshit spoken about Brexit on here.
I'm just trying to unpick if the OBR has had to accept any of the government's say so on this.
Edit: not very much of it, indeed it is very slightly lower than the Treasury (page 215 and following)
The OBR future payments is based on the Governments estimate of what it will pay
"On future financial flows and the financial settlement terms described in the joint report published by the UK Government and the European Union on progress during phase one of the Article 50 negotiations, the Government directed us to the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Select Committee of 24 January 2018 setting out the Treasury’s estimate of the total cost of the settlement. "
Where does it say that?
Most of the references in the annex are to the joint report.
That's from bottom of page 1 of the foreword. The graph of net payments over time on p18 is also good.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
To be fair, I don’t think there are many Trumpers on here.
Although there are many who don’t realise just how similar Trumpery and Brexiteering are.
Seriously, can anyone remember the last time a US President so conspicuously failed to support us in public? We really are in new geopolitidal waters and the U.K. is going to have to figure out what it is for, and who it’s allies are.
This ain’t Kansas anymore.
Eisenhower and our adventure in the Suez canal might be the last time a US President failed to support us publicly.
I think we're used to very pro UK Presidents in recent times, such as Reagan and Weinberger offering to loan us an Aircraft Carrier during the Falklands.
Don't get too excited. It was only the USS Iwo Jima not a Nimitz CVN.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
To be fair, I don’t think there are many Trumpers on here.
Although there are many who don’t realise just how similar Trumpery and Brexiteering are.
Seriously, can anyone remember the last time a US President so conspicuously failed to support us in public? We really are in new geopolitidal waters and the U.K. is going to have to figure out what it is for, and who it’s allies are.
This ain’t Kansas anymore.
Is it possible that what we are seeing here is evidence that the U.K. is no longer routinely sharing sensitive intelligence with the US because of a fear that to do so might represent a security risk (or at least only sharing on condition that it isn’t shown to the White House)? See previous instances post terrorist incidents. After all in this sort of situation you wouldn’t expect governments to automatically accept the analysis of others without doing their own assessment. However the US would normally have almost exactly the same access as the U.K. and would therefore usually be expected to draw their own conclusions. However if we are not sharing intelligence with the White House then they could be completely in the dark.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
To be fair, I don’t think there are many Trumpers on here.
Although there are many who don’t realise just how similar Trumpery and Brexiteering are.
Seriously, can anyone remember the last time a US President so conspicuously failed to support us in public? We really are in new geopolitidal waters and the U.K. is going to have to figure out what it is for, and who it’s allies are.
This ain’t Kansas anymore.
Eisenhower and our adventure in the Suez canal might be the last time a US President failed to support us publicly.
I think we're used to very pro UK Presidents in recent times, such as Reagan and Weinberger offering to loan us an Aircraft Carrier during the Falklands.
More recently than Suez, Wilson refused to get involved with America's little Vietnam adventure.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
There is no clear evidence yet Trump will not exempt us from trade sanctions as he has done with Australia and unlike Obama who said we would be 'at the back of the queue' for any trade deal post Brexit Trump has said we will be at the front.
Trump has also appointed Mike Pompeo as his new Secretary of State who has a history of a tough anti Kremlin line and even Trump himself has said the US will condemn Russia if proved they were responsible for te attack, even May has said it was 'likely' they were responsible but not as yet confirmed
Of course. And there are no American tanks in Baghdad.
The Russians launch an attack on British soil. The US president has yet to speak to our PM about it, having recently imposed trade sanctions on the UK. If Obama had acted in the same way there would have been uproar.
Come on give Trump a chance to weigh all the evidence before coming to a well thought out rational response - this is, of course, what he is known for.
Comments
For an assassin's weapons, it would not take too much effort to create an effective delivery means, but it gets increasingly more difficult as the subject is more unwilling and more so again if you want the deliverer to go unnoticed and complete delivery unharmed himself or herself.
concreting Kent?
We probably can't expect too much support from the EU either, given the gas supply situation.
Irony is finally dead and buried.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-43385049
They have not forecast any major changes in borrowing as a result of government in any years, and none for 2017/18 makes sense, as we are much too late for that.
Their forecast for 2017/18 amounts to a suggestion that whilst the first ten months of the year have been lower than last year, and receipts among the best ever, February and March will be some of the worst months for the Exchequer in years. I do not believe it for a moment.
In respect of other years, they say this: "On the receipts side, relatively little of the higher 2017-18 starting point is assumed to persist, as most of the unexpected strength in SA income tax and onshore corporation tax appears to reflect timing changes rather than genuinely higher underlying liabilities." If true that would be interesting, but I have not seen the detail.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-29949698
The suspected killer of Markov 1978 only emerged after 35 years, so he may still go to his grave legally an innocent person: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9949856/Prime-suspect-in-Georgi-Markov-umbrella-poison-murder-tracked-down-to-Austria.html
That was 'only' the Bulgarian secret service in action, not the KGB.
Growth suddenly slowed in Q2 2016, apparently. I wonder why.
Page 18 details our "divorce bill" at £37.1bn, including £16.4bn in contributions to the budget until 2020, i.e. until we actually leave.
The rest, c.£20bn is really for the withdrawal.
That is what the Government told us but some doubted...
There are no methodological changes (see p.98) and no new spending commitments.
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/973548545763610624
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/05/ben-carson-egyptian-pyramids-were-grain-stores-not-pharoahs-tombs
Depends how low a bar you want to set.
It’s rather odd to be so lacklustre given the strength of our peers and trading partners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43378290
All the best neurotoxins are from nature - evolution is still the best inventor, whether it is medicines, biotech tools or weapons you are after.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cia-chief-pompeo-slams-putin-election-meddling-claim-false-article-1.3868366
If anything he will be even more anti Putin than Tillerson, Tillerson at least had had previous business dealings in Russia
Anyway, Trump has now lost Big Oil....
Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are said to have a pact - one goes, the lot go. If true, and if exercised, I think that would be real implosion time for the Administration and wet knickers time for the GOP.
These forecasts will look silly in 8 days when we get the February deficit figure and it becomes obvious that the out turn will be significantly lower than £45bn. The next day we will get the upward revisal of GDP for 2017. In April we will get Q1 of 2018 which I would guess will be 0.4 or 0.5%. And so on and so forth.
"In his role in the White House, McEntee did tasks such as giving the president messages and making sure the clocks were correctly set for daylight-saving time."
As I've said before, there's a lot of bullshit spoken about Brexit on here.
Edit: not very much of it, indeed it is very slightly lower than the Treasury (page 215 and following)
I am wondering if the timing has to do with Trump's intentions for the North Korean negotiations. If so, bad news indeed.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936688444046266368
A bit like Roger Hollis, Tom Driberg, and Harold Wilson.
But Trump gets a free pass from the Brexit loons because he put a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. Imagine if Barack Obama had imposed trade sanctions on the UK and then failed to condemn a Russian attack on British soil. There would have been uproar.
He must have given mere President Trump an inferiority complex.
"I'll get my coat..."
"...no, you won't."
Trump has also appointed Mike Pompeo as his new Secretary of State who has a history of a tough anti Kremlin line and even Trump himself has said the US will condemn Russia if proved they were responsible for te attack, even May has said it was 'likely' they were responsible but not as yet confirmed
I imagine if someone was working in the Cabinet Office and was suddenly found to have failed his vetting he would be out the door pretty sharply, possibly even precipitously depending on the reason of the failure.
Although there are many who don’t realise just how similar Trumpery and Brexiteering are.
Seriously, can anyone remember the last time a US President so conspicuously failed to support us in public? We really are in new geopolitidal waters and the U.K. is going to have to figure out what it is for, and who it’s allies are.
This ain’t Kansas anymore.
"On future financial flows and the financial settlement terms described in the joint report published by the UK Government and the European Union on progress during phase one of the Article 50 negotiations, the Government directed us to the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Select Committee of 24 January 2018 setting out the Treasury’s estimate of the total cost of the settlement. "
I think we're used to very pro UK Presidents in recent times, such as Reagan and Weinberger offering to loan us an Aircraft Carrier during the Falklands.
The Russians launch an attack on British soil. The US president has yet to speak to our PM about it, having recently imposed trade sanctions on the UK. If Obama had acted in the same way there would have been uproar.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/973559988412125185
All of a sudden, it’s not a good time to be giving two fingers up to our European allies. Putin is testing NATO, and we can be pretty sure we can’t count on the US so long as Trump is at the controls.
Cameron was widely deplored by the PB armchair gang for scaremongering.
Who in their right mind would work for him or deal with him?
Most of the references in the annex are to the joint report.
Mr. Walker, both the UK and EU, before this nerve agent incident occurred, both said they wanted to maintain intelligence and security co-operation.
Brexit does not owe its existence to President Donald Trump. It may owe much more to the tin-eared efforts of "back of the queue" Obama - although All Out War suggests that George Osborne may have had a hand in that little episode.....
https://twitter.com/joshledermanap/status/973542076456538118
https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/973555958428381185
Is it to cause as big a scene as possible? Maximum suffering of the victim?
Of course we will retain those formal arrangements. But formal agreements - even NATO - ultimately rely on sentiment and willing.
Brexit - and certainly the way we have gone about it - is about destroying goodwill and trust.
Again, very similar to Trumpism in that respect.