Until we sign the WA we have no obligations thereunder. TheBrady amendment is an attempt to amend or add a codicil to the WA so *can’t* put us in breech of it
you have something against fish ? We import much more than we export so if youre telling me Ill have to suck it up and eat fresh scallops or langoustines, Ill put up with it.
meantime the UK overeats by 20% and compounds this by buying a further 30% of foodstuffs it chucks in the bin. We are a long way off starvation.
You are right, a no-deal Brexit won't lead to starvation. That's OK, then, the government can stop worrying.
Well if youre trying to make an argument based on Conservative competence, be my guest. Personally I think it will be a tough call.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
I'm not sure people are going to be buying panic buying frozen peas when they don't have room in their freezers....because it's full of fish fingers.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
I haven't panic bought a single extra thing, because I think it's bollocks.
No Deal will certainly cause economic and financial challenges but shortages of raw foodstuffs and medicine isn't one of them. It's possible that niche fresh European products, like mozzarella, spike in price which im sure will keep Twitter in righteous fury for weeks.
I always find that people don’t appreciate the value of switching. If the cost of potatoes goes up we will likely eat more rice. I for one don’t need to stockpile. We have so much food in our cupboards and freezer we could live for weeks without noticing. I get it from my mum who could live for months from the stuff she has!
Freezers will be useless without Euro electricity. It will all thaw into a gloop of rancid poison.
May ruling out N O D E A L would almost certainly mean it's now Plan A.
It is, since the official plan looks to be deal without backstop, which means no deal if the EU say no.
No, it means permanent Customs Union which Parliament would almost certainly vote for instead and which Juncker backed at the weekend and which by ruling out No Deal May is not going to block
There have been five or six votes on various forms of "A" or "The" customs union, all of which have failed in the Commons. Why would the result be any different if it were tried again?
The Commons voted down permanent Customs Union by ear majority
And plenty of Con MPs who voted for the deal are not going to vote for the ultimate vassal state outcome, whereby the EU negotiate on our behalf to reduce tariffs on our imports, but we have to negotiate separately with each country to reduce them on our exports.
A whipped CU vote probably leads to the likes of Gove resigning, it would be all the downsides of Brexit but with none of the upsides.
Oh, and customs union, whether "A" CU or "The" CU, still doesn't solve the backstop problem.
Plenty but not enough to stop permanent Customs Union passing given it only needs less than 10 Tory Deal backers to switch to have a Commons majority.
Juncker backed a permanent Customs Union at the weekend as the only basis for renegotiation and said that was the only circumstance the EU might consider dropping the backstop. Permanent Customs Union could of course run alongside the backstop, those who oppose the backstop would not vote for permanent Customs Union anyway but there are not enough of them to stop it
Did Junker actually say he'd consider removing the backstop for a CU deal??
CU doesn't solve the backstop, only CU and SM does that (with the latter including large annual payments and FoM) to avoid regulatory divergence between NI and ROI. There's no way the PM agrees to that.
The PM already has agreed to that with the backstop for Northern Ireland as part of her current Deal and ruled out No Deal it seems. Permanent Customs Union just makes the temporary Customs Union as part of her current Deal for GB permanent
Mr Meeks, AGA is originally a Swedish invention, and indeed mean "oven" in Swedish. It therefore does not qualify for those people who believe in the Brexit religion as it originates from the damn foreigners.
I totally agree. Dig a hole in the back garden, throw some damp twigs in and light a fire over which we can boil a pot of oats. Potatoes, tomatoes and turnips are all of foreign origin and thus cannot be eaten by the pure!
[Odd fact - the tomato was unknown in Europe before the 16th Century. How did the Italians manage?]
Marco Polo also brought the first noodle bushes back to Italy from China. These were later hybridized to produce the spaghetti trees that are now a familiar site in the Italian countryside.
Going back to betting for a moment, I am still struggling to make sense of Betfair's implied probabilities.
Deal not to pass Commons by 29 March: 65% No Deal on 29 March: 14% Referendum this year: 28%
Apparently that leaves 23% covering revocation by 29 March or an extension without the deal having passed the Commons and without a referendum.
It seems the betting markets are allowing for a substantial probability of the EU allowing an extension for no particular reason (or perhaps for a general election, but there's no Betfair market for a general election being called before 29 March). Do people think that's right?
I'd have the referendum a shade higher but I don't think that's *too* far off. Making 23% with numbers out of bum (not an offer to bet): * Extension for GE: 10% * Extension for new negotiation ditching some of TMay's other red lines: 5% * Extension for general faffing - I know they said they wouldn't allow it but see my post way up-thread for why I still think they might: 5% * Extension for black-swan / left-field reason - Death of monarch, suicide of PM, Mueller implicates Farage and brings referendum into question requiring new investigation etc: 3%
Thanks. It all seems a bit unlikely, especially given the need for unanimity. But I suppose that's true of all the options.
Until we sign the WA we have no obligations thereunder. TheBrady amendment is an attempt to amend or add a codicil to the WA so *can’t* put us in breech of it
An unsigned international treaty isn't binding. Is she thick or deceitful ?
I was thinking a second referendum fits May's MO (push the deadline back, keep her deal on life support, avoid needing to show any real leadership), but now I'm thinking a GE might seem more appealing to her. Firstly, no screams of betrayal from Leavers. Secondly, puts Labour in a bind because they'd be campaigning on their vague, confusing, probably-cakeist Brexit policy.
I think from her perpsective the risk/reward calculation works out too. From the last election, she's clearly much more interested in her personal power than the party's, so I think for her, not getting her deal and the party being out of power isn't much worse than not getting her deal and the party being in power. And on the upside, if they do well with her deal in the manifesto, backbenchers will have little choice but to fall in line.
BBC news top story has a picture of boris. Maybe just a bad picture, but in it he looks seriously aged all of a sudden.
Boris has reached his mid-50s, when men often start to look suddenly old. Look at the old Top Gear team, for instance. If he had dark hair, he'd be going grey. He has also lost a lot of weight recently so has less subcutaneous fat to smooth his skin, and his hair is rapidly thinning: look at recent clips of Boris in the Commons where the near-overhead camera shots show an awful lot of scalp.
We became used to leaders in their 30s or early 40s: Cameron, Blair, Clegg and so on. Boris too when he became Mayor. Normal service has been resumed.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
It shouldn't. All views and perspectives are welcome. What isn't on is to go talking about a subject like potential food shortages in the UK with "we this" and "we that" when he isn't going to be affected at all.
He’s talking about the British community
I worry about California even though I am rarely there
On trade deals, as in many aspects of life, there is a value in fending for oneself rather than relying on others. OK, so it might take many years of effort and focus to end up with a set of trade deals that are not as good as those we had to start with but we will have done them ourselves.
I can buy a toaster in Tescos for a few quid. It is made thanks to the expertise of others. Alternatively I can spend thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours building my own, less efficient version
The reason we are were we are is because we cooperate and specialise. I am amazed by this attitude, which seems more prevalent on the right, that we must be self-reliant and depend on others less and do more stuff for ourselves.
Sometimes I wish they would live by that attitude. The internet would quieten down for a bit whilst they start mining the ores needed to build their own silicon chip furnaces to allow construction of computers to allow them to access the internet.
De-lurking again to fix this horrible wrong: chips are made in foundries, but not in furnaces. Instead of heat, you need a really clean light source - and in future ones extreme UV light. Oh, and lots of different acids and chemicals to etch and clean the wafers.
If they want a home project, they're much more likely to do something like this: http://www.megaprocessor.com/index.html Of course, there's bit of a problem with the room required.
(initiate lurking mode)
No need to build a toaster. A toasting fork and an open fire and you can have all the delicious toast you want.
And wouldn’t the world be a nicer place if we wrote elegant notes to each other on paper with pens and ink in italic handwriting?
Toasting fork? Pah!
When i were a lad a stick was all you needed
When I was in the Scouts ( many years ago) we used to make dough, twist it round a green stick, and cook it over the campfire.
Mr Meeks, AGA is originally a Swedish invention, and indeed mean "oven" in Swedish. It therefore does not qualify for those people who believe in the Brexit religion as it originates from the damn foreigners.
I totally agree. Dig a hole in the back garden, throw some damp twigs in and light a fire over which we can boil a pot of oats. Potatoes, tomatoes and turnips are all of foreign origin and thus cannot be eaten by the pure!
[Odd fact - the tomato was unknown in Europe before the 16th Century. How did the Italians manage?]
Marco Polo also brought the first noodle bushes back to Italy from China. These were later hybridized to produce the spaghetti trees that are now a familiar site in the Italian countryside.
But were not widely known until rediscovered by Richard Dimbleby
Until we sign the WA we have no obligations thereunder. TheBrady amendment is an attempt to amend or add a codicil to the WA so *can’t* put us in breech of it
An unsigned international treaty isn't binding. Is she thick or deceitful ?
The proportion of those items which are imported must be even higher in early April, before many UK crops are ready.
well just stop throwing half of them away help the BoP too :-)
We'll be throwing away more if there are delays in transport.
No we just wont be eating them, well be eating something else.
Cake, I suppose.
or in your case crow
Daft. Wikipedia tells me eating crow means "humiliation by admitting having been proven wrong after taking a strong position".
The strong position being taken here is that there won't be a problem. My position is that we won't know whether there will be a problem until it happens.
A statement you explicitly agreed with earlier today, if you remember!
The proportion of those items which are imported must be even higher in early April, before many UK crops are ready.
well just stop throwing half of them away help the BoP too :-)
We'll be throwing away more if there are delays in transport.
No we just wont be eating them, well be eating something else.
Cake, I suppose.
or in your case crow
Daft. Wikipedia tells me eating crow means "humiliation by admitting having been proven wrong after taking a strong position".
The strong position being taken here is that there won't be a problem. My position is that we won't know whether there will be a problem until it happens.
A statement you explicitly agreed with earlier today, if you remember!
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Because a community is not just defined by self-identification but also by a willingness to undergo the privations of that community. Otherwise it's just tourism.
Going back to betting for a moment, I am still struggling to make sense of Betfair's implied probabilities.
Deal not to pass Commons by 29 March: 65% No Deal on 29 March: 14% Referendum this year: 28%
Apparently that leaves 23% covering revocation by 29 March or an extension without the deal having passed the Commons and without a referendum.
It seems the betting markets are allowing for a substantial probability of the EU allowing an extension for no particular reason (or perhaps for a general election, but there's no Betfair market for a general election being called before 29 March). Do people think that's right?
I'd have the referendum a shade higher but I don't think that's *too* far off. Making 23% with numbers out of bum (not an offer to bet): * Extension for GE: 10% * Extension for new negotiation ditching some of TMay's other red lines: 5% * Extension for general faffing - I know they said they wouldn't allow it but see my post way up-thread for why I still think they might: 5% * Extension for black-swan / left-field reason - Death of monarch, suicide of PM, Mueller implicates Farage and brings referendum into question requiring new investigation etc: 3%
Thanks. It all seems a bit unlikely, especially given the need for unanimity. But I suppose that's true of all the options.
Like I say up-thread I think the unanimity thing is less of a hurdle than it sounds: If there's a general consensus among the member states, I think any weak opponents will tend to fall in line: Firstly because there's peer pressure among the other national leaders, and secondly because nobody wants to be the guy who gets blamed for the car crash; Every country has businesses and citizens who will get screwed.
Very relevant - there is a continuous stream day and night of lorries from souhtern Spain heading back and forth to northern Europe laden with tomatoes, etc grown here. I believe arounf half or more are heading to the UK. The impact of disruption would be catastrophic and not just in the UK - Spain would be severely affected.
If the ERG reject even the Brady amendment then the Deal will fall again and as Margot James' comments suggest this morning there will be a flood of Tory Remain MPs and Deal backing Tory MPs towards permanent Customs Union
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Citizens of Nowhere Tessy seems to think it has some bearing.
If the ERG reject even the Brady amendment then the Deal will fall again and as Margot James' comments suggest this morning there will be a flood of Tory Remain MPs and Deal backing Tory MPs towards permanent Customs Union
Its almost like there is a negotiation going on about the content of the amendment..
If the ERG reject even the Brady amendment then the Deal will fall again and as Margot James' comments suggest this morning there will be a flood of Tory Remain MPs and Deal backing Tory MPs towards permanent Customs Union
I'm just not seeing how the customs union thing works out. It won't win many Labour votes for the deal, and it won't sort the backstop.
I think there's a killing to be made investing in UK-manufactured vitamin pills.
How long before Mark Francois starts suggesting we can all "Dig For Victory/Brexit". Fuck business, fuck foreigners, get an allotment.
It does open up an obvious slogan for post-Brexit Britain: "Dig Your Own Hole".
Sadly I have a friend here in southern Spain who reveres the Francois line whilst milkimg the Spanish NHS for all it's worth. To compound the felony he even looks a bit like him. On a personal level a good friend but on this issue those bonds are heavilty strained.
BBC news top story has a picture of boris. Maybe just a bad picture, but in it he looks seriously aged all of a sudden.
Boris has reached his mid-50s, when men often start to look suddenly old. Look at the old Top Gear team, for instance. If he had dark hair, he'd be going grey. He has also lost a lot of weight recently so has less subcutaneous fat to smooth his skin, and his hair is rapidly thinning: look at recent clips of Boris in the Commons where the near-overhead camera shots show an awful lot of scalp.
We became used to leaders in their 30s or early 40s: Cameron, Blair, Clegg and so on. Boris too when he became Mayor. Normal service has been resumed.
Peter Capaldi in the first series of "The Thick Of It" in 2005 was 47. In his last series of Doctor Who in 2017 was 58. His aging is dramatic.
This really is stupid...so many players on loan they have to have their own management team to handle all the loanees!
Take Manchester City, who have close to 20 players out on loan, requiring a team of staff to work with those leaving the club on a temporary basis.
Among those reporting to pathways manager Fergal Harkin and the club's head of football administration Brian Marwood, is former City and England defender Joleon Lescott, a two-time Premier League winner whose career spanned more than 600 games.
Sir Nick Clegg, the company's head lobbyist, said that Facebook will begin vetting political advertisers in Europe and displaying who paid for specific ads from March. This means political parties must register themselves as advertisers in all EU member states.
The proportion of those items which are imported must be even higher in early April, before many UK crops are ready.
well just stop throwing half of them away help the BoP too :-)
We'll be throwing away more if there are delays in transport.
No we just wont be eating them, well be eating something else.
Cake, I suppose.
or in your case crow
Daft. Wikipedia tells me eating crow means "humiliation by admitting having been proven wrong after taking a strong position".
The strong position being taken here is that there won't be a problem. My position is that we won't know whether there will be a problem until it happens.
A statement you explicitly agreed with earlier today, if you remember!
you had to look that up ?
sheesh
Yes, I had to check. Maybe because I didn't go to public school or something.
But you do see the point? You agreed with me that we don't know what will happen, but then carried on talking as though we do. Is that a rational way of behaving?
BBC news top story has a picture of boris. Maybe just a bad picture, but in it he looks seriously aged all of a sudden.
Boris has reached his mid-50s, when men often start to look suddenly old. Look at the old Top Gear team, for instance. If he had dark hair, he'd be going grey. He has also lost a lot of weight recently so has less subcutaneous fat to smooth his skin, and his hair is rapidly thinning: look at recent clips of Boris in the Commons where the near-overhead camera shots show an awful lot of scalp.
We became used to leaders in their 30s or early 40s: Cameron, Blair, Clegg and so on. Boris too when he became Mayor. Normal service has been resumed.
Peter Capaldi in the first series of "The Thick Of It" in 2005 was 47. In his last series of Doctor Who in 2017 was 58. His aging is dramatic.
As a fiftysomething, it is depressingly so.
I was out for a leaving do at the weekend, and felt and looked very old in the inevitable group photo.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Because a community is not just defined by self-identification but also by a willingness to undergo the privations of that community. Otherwise it's just tourism.
I think Sandpit would like to be back in the U.K. I simply object to at IanB’s suggestion that his comments are invalid because he currently lives elsewhere
Until we sign the WA we have no obligations thereunder. TheBrady amendment is an attempt to amend or add a codicil to the WA so *can’t* put us in breech of it
You're technically right, but unless we think the EU will agree to amend the WA (which nobody with a vague interest does), any amendment will put us in breach of it (and therefore unable to finalise it).
It's perfectly compatible to seek to put conditions on the political agreement, but that's not the issue.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Citizens of Nowhere Tessy seems to think it has some bearing.
Sir Nick Clegg, the company's head lobbyist, said that Facebook will begin vetting political advertisers in Europe and displaying who paid for specific ads from March. This means political parties must register themselves as advertisers in all EU member states.
This really is stupid...so many players on loan they have to have their own management team to handle all the loanees!
Take Manchester City, who have close to 20 players out on loan, requiring a team of staff to work with those leaving the club on a temporary basis.
Among those reporting to pathways manager Fergal Harkin and the club's head of football administration Brian Marwood, is former City and England defender Joleon Lescott, a two-time Premier League winner whose career spanned more than 600 games.
It probably does seem stupid, until you realise how valuable all those "assets" are, and the kind of return the elite clubs make on developing young players and selling the ones who don't quite make it.
The Cooper-Boles amendment will pass, and the Gov't has said that it will be duty bound to seek an extension on Brexit. Now the EU shouldn't give us more time to fanny about, but they are keen to avoid a no deal Brexit; so they will. Why deal with now what you can kick down the road later. Once it's been kicked down the road once, it will be kicked down the road again and again till eventually some sort of deal or another referendum (Either possibly after a GE) is passed. For the moment it'll be Hotel California Brexit though.
...I'm just not seeing how the customs union thing works out...
As previously discussed, Parliament is not a competent body and is perfectly capable of choosing a stupid option, provided it can blame somebody else.
It being a stupid option wasn't part of my reasoning.
Also I'm going to use your wording as a jumping-off point for a rant I've been meaning to have for a while: why does so much of the language about Parliament here treat it like a team that's attempting to collaborate to reach some shared goal? Parliament is a group of people with different- often directly opposing- goals and interests, whose sole aims are for their agendas to succeed and their opponents' to fail.
It is rather spooky how closely the BBC report echoes what I posted earlier: "Retailers have been reluctant to intervene in the Brexit debate but are doing so now as the UK's departure date from the EU approaches. Their letter says that stockpiling fresh food is impossible and that the complex, 'just in time' supply chain through which food is imported into the UK will be "significantly disrupted" in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It adds it is difficult to stockpile any more produce as "all frozen and chilled storage is already been used"." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028748
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Citizens of Nowhere Tessy seems to think it has some bearing.
She was talking about tax dodgers
And suggesting that if you voted Remain you were privileged and out of touch.
For the referendum was not just a vote to withdraw from the EU. It was about something broader – something that the European Union had come to represent.
It was about a sense – deep, profound and let’s face it often justified – that many people have today that the world works well for a privileged few, but not for them.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Because a community is not just defined by self-identification but also by a willingness to undergo the privations of that community. Otherwise it's just tourism.
I think Sandpit would like to be back in the U.K. I simply object to at IanB’s suggestion that his comments are invalid because he currently lives elsewhere
It’s a deeply unpleasant form of nativism
You are doing that of which you accuse me. I never said his comments or views were invalid; indeed in the response I said precisely the opposite.
What is objectionable is people living abroad like Sandpit (and Archer before him) advocating pain for the country and talking about the consequences in first person plural tense when they are safely set up thousands of miles away.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Because a community is not just defined by self-identification but also by a willingness to undergo the privations of that community. Otherwise it's just tourism.
I think Sandpit would like to be back in the U.K. I simply object to at IanB’s suggestion that his comments are invalid because he currently lives elsewhere
It’s a deeply unpleasant form of nativism
As previously discussed, I disagree. Innocence and beauty may be born in custom and in ceremony, but patriotism depends on an attachment to the patria. Identification is not enough.
Cameron's Govt. he joined (2010 Coalition) didn't call the Referendum - that was after the 2015 election, where the LibDems got so mullered they couldn't even have enabled a minibus....
This really is stupid...so many players on loan they have to have their own management team to handle all the loanees!
Take Manchester City, who have close to 20 players out on loan, requiring a team of staff to work with those leaving the club on a temporary basis.
Among those reporting to pathways manager Fergal Harkin and the club's head of football administration Brian Marwood, is former City and England defender Joleon Lescott, a two-time Premier League winner whose career spanned more than 600 games.
*if* you accept that they're likely to have many players on loan - which given the size of youth set-ups etc, is not so stupid, then having people to organise and manage this process - and also any difficulties with settling in, particularly if loaned abroad is not stupid.
Furthermore, they are likely to be aiming the loans to deliver a specific learning experience.
For example, I just checked and the lowest shirt number out on loan is #24, Tosin Adarabioyo. He's an England U-19 getting a season's experience in the division below where he's played almost every league game.
(That said, Anthony Cáceres deals jump out and don't look quite legit tbh).
However, if you don't think they should have the players on loan or that many players in the first place, yeah, fine, fill your boots sweetcheeks.
Mr. Richard, is permanently handing over sovereign powers to an organisation we voted to leave your idea of respecting democracy?
I share your lack of faith in Fox. That doesn't mean we should aspire to ignore the referendum and permanently hand over authority over our nation to the EU, having just voted to leave it.
I'm afraid you're just blathering MD whereas I'm looking at things in a real world perspective.
Give us some names of people you think could conduct successful trade negotiations.
Because if you can't then you're willing to accept worse trade deals as a symbol of national virility.
And nothing is 'permanent' in this country's relationship with the EU.
Anyone.
In the real world Australia and many other nations have successfully struck trade deals. When it comes to negotiating deals we will be the worlds 5th largest economy after the US, China, Japan and EU itself. The idea we will be incapable of conducting successful trade negotiations is insane.
So how far has Liam Fox got in negotiating trade deals ?
Its also one thing negotiating a trade deal but very much another to negotiating a trade deal better for both sides than what they currently have.
And finally any trade deals wont any new trade deals have to be approved by Parliament ? Given recent events that's going to be far from a formality.
...I'm just not seeing how the customs union thing works out...
As previously discussed, Parliament is not a competent body and is perfectly capable of choosing a stupid option, provided it can blame somebody else.
It being a stupid option wasn't part of my reasoning.
Also I'm going to use your wording as a jumping-off point for a rant I've been meaning to have for a while: why does so much of the language about Parliament here treat it like a team that's attempting to collaborate to reach some shared goal? Parliament is a group of people with different- often directly opposing- goals and interests, whose sole aims are for their agendas to succeed and their opponents' to fail.
BBC news top story has a picture of boris. Maybe just a bad picture, but in it he looks seriously aged all of a sudden.
Boris has reached his mid-50s, when men often start to look suddenly old. Look at the old Top Gear team, for instance. If he had dark hair, he'd be going grey. He has also lost a lot of weight recently so has less subcutaneous fat to smooth his skin, and his hair is rapidly thinning: look at recent clips of Boris in the Commons where the near-overhead camera shots show an awful lot of scalp.
We became used to leaders in their 30s or early 40s: Cameron, Blair, Clegg and so on. Boris too when he became Mayor. Normal service has been resumed.
Peter Capaldi in the first series of "The Thick Of It" in 2005 was 47. In his last series of Doctor Who in 2017 was 58. His aging is dramatic.
As a fiftysomething, it is depressingly so.
I was out for a leaving do at the weekend, and felt and looked very old in the inevitable group photo.
Now has anyone seen my Werthers Originals?
You put them down by your tartan slippers. When you were watching Countdown.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has said Jeremy Corbyn gives the impression that 'he is, deep-down, somebody who doesn't like Jewish people'.
What is objectionable is people living abroad like Sandpit (and Archer before him) advocating pain for the country and talking about the consequences in first person plural tense when they are safely set up thousands of miles away.
Jeesh. This is very very unfair on @Sandpit, he wishes to return to blighty but due to the immigration rules he is unable to with his family ! This doesn't render his arguments moot.
Cameron's Govt. he joined (2010 Coalition) didn't call the Referendum - that was after the 2015 election, where the LibDems got so mullered they couldn't even have enabled a minibus....
Well, quite, and he joined Facebook long after the referendum, so hardly an 'enabler' on that front either.
In other words, it's a bloody stupid question which he rightly treated with contempt.
It is rather spooky how closely the BBC report echoes what I posted earlier: "Retailers have been reluctant to intervene in the Brexit debate but are doing so now as the UK's departure date from the EU approaches. Their letter says that stockpiling fresh food is impossible and that the complex, 'just in time' supply chain through which food is imported into the UK will be "significantly disrupted" in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It adds it is difficult to stockpile any more produce as "all frozen and chilled storage is already been used"." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028748
Just let this sink in.
We are talking about food shortages as a direct result of government policy.
What is objectionable is people living abroad like Sandpit (and Archer before him) advocating pain for the country and talking about the consequences in first person plural tense when they are safely set up thousands of miles away.
Jeesh. This is very very unfair on @Sandpit, he wishes to return to blighty but due to the immigration rules he is unable to with his family ! This doesn't render his arguments moot.
For the last time, he is entitled to put his arguments. What he is not entitled to do is pretend that he is in the same boat.
Cameron's Govt. he joined (2010 Coalition) didn't call the Referendum - that was after the 2015 election, where the LibDems got so mullered they couldn't even have enabled a minibus....
Cameron and Clegg’s government allowed cabinet ministers to say leaving the EU was a good idea without being disciplined. Hammond even got promoted for it.
It is rather spooky how closely the BBC report echoes what I posted earlier: "Retailers have been reluctant to intervene in the Brexit debate but are doing so now as the UK's departure date from the EU approaches. Their letter says that stockpiling fresh food is impossible and that the complex, 'just in time' supply chain through which food is imported into the UK will be "significantly disrupted" in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It adds it is difficult to stockpile any more produce as "all frozen and chilled storage is already been used"." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028748
Just let this sink in.
We are talking about food shortages as a direct result of government policy.
No, we are talking about food shortages as a direct result of MPs declining to support government policy.
Cameron's Govt. he joined (2010 Coalition) didn't call the Referendum - that was after the 2015 election, where the LibDems got so mullered they couldn't even have enabled a minibus....
Well, quite, and he joined Facebook long after the referendum, so hardly an 'enabler' on that front either.
In other words, it's a bloody stupid question which he rightly treated with contempt.
The first part is also incorrect, Clegg had no part in the 2015-16 Cameron Gov't that decided to go for the referendum.
*if* you accept that they're likely to have many players on loan - which given the size of youth set-ups etc, is not so stupid, then having people to organise and manage this process - and also any difficulties with settling in, particularly if loaned abroad is not stupid.
Furthermore, they are likely to be aiming the loans to deliver a specific learning experience.
For example, I just checked and the lowest shirt number out on loan is #24, Tosin Adarabioyo. He's an England U-19 getting a season's experience in the division below where he's played almost every league game.
(That said, Anthony Cáceres deals jump out and don't look quite legit tbh).
However, if you don't think they should have the players on loan or that many players in the first place, yeah, fine, fill your boots sweetcheeks.
Except that isn't how it is working. A few top few teams are buying up all the players they can, often messing with their development.
Take Patrick Roberts. Was in the Fulham team, doing well, in the England youth setups. Now on his 4th season out on loan, and can't get in England U21 team.
They are are hoarding talent and also they buy players who they can't get work permits for, before loaning them for years on end. There is lots of dodgy things going on, in attempts to bypass financial fair play etc.
There is a reason why we are seeing the likes of Jandon Sancho go to Germany, Hudson-Odoi is probably going to. The talent isn't being developed by this constant shifting around year after year on loan.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Citizens of Nowhere Tessy seems to think it has some bearing.
Peter Capaldi in the first series of "The Thick Of It" in 2005 was 47. In his last series of Doctor Who in 2017 was 58. His aging is dramatic.
Men start to 'go over' at about 52. Certainly at 58 they are gone. They can still carry on if they really want to and many do - being CEOs, being Dr Who, staying in the cabinet, presenting documentaries on TV, running for president - but IMO it is all a bit uncalled for.
Cameron's Govt. he joined (2010 Coalition) didn't call the Referendum - that was after the 2015 election, where the LibDems got so mullered they couldn't even have enabled a minibus....
Cameron and Clegg’s government allowed cabinet ministers to say leaving the EU was a good idea without being disciplined. Hammond even got promoted for it.
Really?
"Coalition Agreement:
9. Relations with the EU We agree that the British government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners....."
"before being elected vice president of the National Union of Students in 2017."
So he was one of the idiots reasonable for busting them. Insert joke about always running out of other people's money.
He had to apologise last year for anti-Semitic tweets. Sent in 2012 when he was a teenager, one read “It’ll cost u a pound #jew”, and another implied Israel’s similarity to the Nazi regime (“oppression is something your people should know about”).
Its seems like that is a requirement of being a Labour candidate these days.
I was thinking a second referendum fits May's MO (push the deadline back, keep her deal on life support, avoid needing to show any real leadership), but now I'm thinking a GE might seem more appealing to her. Firstly, no screams of betrayal from Leavers. Secondly, puts Labour in a bind because they'd be campaigning on their vague, confusing, probably-cakeist Brexit policy.
I think from her perpsective the risk/reward calculation works out too. From the last election, she's clearly much more interested in her personal power than the party's, so I think for her, not getting her deal and the party being out of power isn't much worse than not getting her deal and the party being in power. And on the upside, if they do well with her deal in the manifesto, backbenchers will have little choice but to fall in line.
Could you please draft the paragraph on Brexit in the Tory manifesto? I can just about see how Labour write theirs. Everyone else has it easy. But how on earth do the Tories have any policy that even more than half of them actually believe in?
Congratulations to Casino and Mrs Royale.
I think the scenario tomorrow where all amendments fall and the motion falls is probably what we need. Looking at what's on the table it's still shadow-boxing and unicorns when the only amendments we need are things like: -Revoke -Extend for referendum with these questions -Extend to renegotiate customs union.
Even the Cooper amendment which at least moves in the right direction, has no reason for EU to agree, it's not a policy just a delay.
Peter Capaldi in the first series of "The Thick Of It" in 2005 was 47. In his last series of Doctor Who in 2017 was 58. His aging is dramatic.
Men start to 'go over' at about 52. Certainly at 58 they are gone. They can still carry on if they really want to and many do - being CEOs, being Dr Who, staying in the cabinet, presenting documentaries on TV, running for president - but IMO it is all a bit uncalled for.
Maybe I should go to Switzerland - to have my 59th birthdy party later this year at Dignitas?
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Cameron's Govt. he joined (2010 Coalition) didn't call the Referendum - that was after the 2015 election, where the LibDems got so mullered they couldn't even have enabled a minibus....
Cameron and Clegg’s government allowed cabinet ministers to say leaving the EU was a good idea without being disciplined. Hammond even got promoted for it.
Really?
"Coalition Agreement:
9. Relations with the EU We agree that the British government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners....."
...I'm just not seeing how the customs union thing works out...
As previously discussed, Parliament is not a competent body and is perfectly capable of choosing a stupid option, provided it can blame somebody else.
It being a stupid option wasn't part of my reasoning.
Also I'm going to use your wording as a jumping-off point for a rant I've been meaning to have for a while: why does so much of the language about Parliament here treat it like a team that's attempting to collaborate to reach some shared goal? Parliament is a group of people with different- often directly opposing- goals and interests, whose sole aims are for their agendas to succeed and their opponents' to fail.
My name is viewcode and I approve this rant. +1
It is precisely for that reason that in British English Parliament are plural.
Putting Venezuela’s crisis and US intervention in historical context
The far-right governments of Trump and Bolsonaro offer no hope to Venezuela or to the majority of people in Latin America (US puts ‘full weight’ behind regime change in Venezuela, 24 January).
Whatever views people hold on Venezuela, there is no justification for backing the US attempt at regime change under way, which, if successful, could go the way of the disastrous interventions in Iraq and Libya.
Instead, the way forward is the call for dialogue from the Mexican and Bolivian presidents.
Until we sign the WA we have no obligations thereunder. TheBrady amendment is an attempt to amend or add a codicil to the WA so *can’t* put us in breech of it
You're technically right, but unless we think the EU will agree to amend the WA (which nobody with a vague interest does), any amendment will put us in breach of it (and therefore unable to finalise it).
It's perfectly compatible to seek to put conditions on the political agreement, but that's not the issue.
It’s not a breach - this is just a matter of English
Until Parliament approves it it’s not in force.
It may be the amendments mean no agreement is possible but that’s so ethi g entirely different
"before being elected vice president of the National Union of Students in 2017."
So he was one of the idiots reasonable for busting them. Insert joke about always running out of other people's money.
He had to apologise last year for anti-Semitic tweets. Sent in 2012 when he was a teenager, one read “It’ll cost u a pound #jew”, and another implied Israel’s similarity to the Nazi regime (“oppression is something your people should know about”).
Its seems like that is a requirement of being a Labour candidate these days.
The requirement for being a Student Union president too.....
Or maybe just becoming president of anything exposes you as a tosser?
I have long been confused by the mysterious success of Patisserie Valerie. Surely there is a relatively limited market for gateaux?
Luke Johnson is a very smart guy and it’s a shock to see he seems to have been so thoroughly hoodwinked.
I think the source of the confusion has just revealed itself to be some rather dodgy accounting, rather than the innate success of the business!
The question is how it managed to go on for so long without anyone noticing? As you say, Johnson's a smart guy and you think he'd have been asking the right questions.
All rather weird, I guess there will be books written about it for the next generation of business and accounting students to study, and probably a few court cases for the law students to study too!
When I’ve sat on a board you are dependent on the numbers they throw up. Absolutely you look at the KPIs and trends and any issues. But if the numbers are made up - provided they are consistent - then you assume they are correct.
The auditors seem to have messed up in a big way if the cash balances were wrong. That’s a basic reconciliation
Reading up on the details, it’s astonishing that no one involved in the business but not involved in the fraud didn’t ask some basic questions. The markings were better than Starbucks, with no dip in margins or profits per store in any year as the business grew. Simply not credible.
Even less so, had anyone is senior management bothered to visit a couple of their outlets. I had the misfortune to go into their Stratford on Avon unit a couple of years back. Almost deserted - in one of the busiest tourist towns in England - and the food offering was worse that the average motorway service station. And it was obvious that very, very little money had been spent on fitting it out.
Had I been a shareholder, I would have sold immediately.
so you knew PatVal was underperforming and did nothing about it ? You are clearly complicit in this whole scandal.
And in any event, I posted something to this effect on here about a year ago. If shareholders had been paying attention, they could have come to the same conclusion.
As it is, I can't understand why directors and/or auditors couldn't have paid surprise visits to two or three randomly selected locations just to check the figures for themselves.
However, it will be progress, of a sort, if all the amendments fail. Maybe, just maybe, we can count on MPs to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
Off you go again with your fake "we's". I doubt food supply in Dubai will be significantly affected, other than perhaps that the Marmite and HP Sauce might not be getting through.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Citizens of Nowhere Tessy seems to think it has some bearing.
She was talking about tax dodgers
And suggesting that if you voted Remain you were privileged and out of touch.
For the referendum was not just a vote to withdraw from the EU. It was about something broader – something that the European Union had come to represent.
It was about a sense – deep, profound and let’s face it often justified – that many people have today that the world works well for a privileged few, but not for them.
Eh? She’s talking about Leavers feeling left behind there.
Why should geographic location determine whether you are a member of a community or not?
Because a community is not just defined by self-identification but also by a willingness to undergo the privations of that community. Otherwise it's just tourism.
I think Sandpit would like to be back in the U.K. I simply object to at IanB’s suggestion that his comments are invalid because he currently lives elsewhere
It’s a deeply unpleasant form of nativism
As previously discussed, I disagree. Innocence and beauty may be born in custom and in ceremony, but patriotism depends on an attachment to the patria. Identification is not enough.
Sandpit wants to come to live in the UK. Unfortunately because his wife is not an EU citizen he is discriminated against.
Putting Venezuela’s crisis and US intervention in historical context
The far-right governments of Trump and Bolsonaro offer no hope to Venezuela or to the majority of people in Latin America (US puts ‘full weight’ behind regime change in Venezuela, 24 January).
Whatever views people hold on Venezuela, there is no justification for backing the US attempt at regime change under way, which, if successful, could go the way of the disastrous interventions in Iraq and Libya.
Instead, the way forward is the call for dialogue from the Mexican and Bolivian presidents.
Comments
Until we sign the WA we have no obligations thereunder. TheBrady amendment is an attempt to amend or add a codicil to the WA so *can’t* put us in breech of it
I think from her perpsective the risk/reward calculation works out too. From the last election, she's clearly much more interested in her personal power than the party's, so I think for her, not getting her deal and the party being out of power isn't much worse than not getting her deal and the party being in power. And on the upside, if they do well with her deal in the manifesto, backbenchers will have little choice but to fall in line.
We became used to leaders in their 30s or early 40s: Cameron, Blair, Clegg and so on. Boris too when he became Mayor. Normal service has been resumed.
I worry about California even though I am rarely there
The strong position being taken here is that there won't be a problem. My position is that we won't know whether there will be a problem until it happens.
A statement you explicitly agreed with earlier today, if you remember!
sheesh
Now they are worried about getting lettuce in March. A nutritionally worthless food.
Better news for metro types - avocados come from central america - no issues getting those to smash for your open sandwiches.
The way we eat is killing us – and the planet
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/28/global-food-killing-humans-planet-climate-change-obesity
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47021264
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/01/28/sir-nick-clegg-facebook-will-track-political-ads-globally-combat/
But you do see the point? You agreed with me that we don't know what will happen, but then carried on talking as though we do. Is that a rational way of behaving?
I was out for a leaving do at the weekend, and felt and looked very old in the inevitable group photo.
Now has anyone seen my Werthers Originals?
It’s a deeply unpleasant form of nativism
It's perfectly compatible to seek to put conditions on the political agreement, but that's not the issue.
It probably does seem stupid, until you realise how valuable all those "assets" are, and the kind of return the elite clubs make on developing young players and selling the ones who don't quite make it.
The Cooper-Boles amendment will pass, and the Gov't has said that it will be duty bound to seek an extension on Brexit. Now the EU shouldn't give us more time to fanny about, but they are keen to avoid a no deal Brexit; so they will.
Why deal with now what you can kick down the road later. Once it's been kicked down the road once, it will be kicked down the road again and again till eventually some sort of deal or another referendum (Either possibly after a GE) is passed.
For the moment it'll be Hotel California Brexit though.
Also I'm going to use your wording as a jumping-off point for a rant I've been meaning to have for a while: why does so much of the language about Parliament here treat it like a team that's attempting to collaborate to reach some shared goal? Parliament is a group of people with different- often directly opposing- goals and interests, whose sole aims are for their agendas to succeed and their opponents' to fail.
"Retailers have been reluctant to intervene in the Brexit debate but are doing so now as the UK's departure date from the EU approaches.
Their letter says that stockpiling fresh food is impossible and that the complex, 'just in time' supply chain through which food is imported into the UK will be "significantly disrupted" in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
It adds it is difficult to stockpile any more produce as "all frozen and chilled storage is already been used"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028748
For the referendum was not just a vote to withdraw from the EU. It was about something broader – something that the European Union had come to represent.
It was about a sense – deep, profound and let’s face it often justified – that many people have today that the world works well for a privileged few, but not for them.
What is objectionable is people living abroad like Sandpit (and Archer before him) advocating pain for the country and talking about the consequences in first person plural tense when they are safely set up thousands of miles away.
*if* you accept that they're likely to have many players on loan - which given the size of youth set-ups etc, is not so stupid, then having people to organise and manage this process - and also any difficulties with settling in, particularly if loaned abroad is not stupid.
Furthermore, they are likely to be aiming the loans to deliver a specific learning experience.
For example, I just checked and the lowest shirt number out on loan is #24, Tosin Adarabioyo. He's an England U-19 getting a season's experience in the division below where he's played almost every league game.
(That said, Anthony Cáceres deals jump out and don't look quite legit tbh).
However, if you don't think they should have the players on loan or that many players in the first place, yeah, fine, fill your boots sweetcheeks.
Its also one thing negotiating a trade deal but very much another to negotiating a trade deal better for both sides than what they currently have.
And finally any trade deals wont any new trade deals have to be approved by Parliament ? Given recent events that's going to be far from a formality.
Christ.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6640115/Jeremy-Corbyn-gives-impression-doesnt-like-Jewish-people-says-former-Archbishop.html
In other words, it's a bloody stupid question which he rightly treated with contempt.
We are talking about food shortages as a direct result of government policy.
Take Patrick Roberts. Was in the Fulham team, doing well, in the England youth setups. Now on his 4th season out on loan, and can't get in England U21 team.
They are are hoarding talent and also they buy players who they can't get work permits for, before loaning them for years on end. There is lots of dodgy things going on, in attempts to bypass financial fair play etc.
There is a reason why we are seeing the likes of Jandon Sancho go to Germany, Hudson-Odoi is probably going to. The talent isn't being developed by this constant shifting around year after year on loan.
Nowhere = not a place
"Coalition Agreement:
9. Relations with the EU
We agree that the British government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners....."
Not much scope for Leaving there......
“We no longer want the Hollywood show”: Meet the 24-year-old Muslim trying to unseat Boris Johnson
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/01/we-no-longer-want-hollywood-show-meet-24-year-old-muslim-trying-unseat-boris So he was one of the idiots reasonable for busting them. Insert joke about always running out of other people's money. Its seems like that is a requirement of being a Labour candidate these days.
Congratulations to Casino and Mrs Royale.
I think the scenario tomorrow where all amendments fall and the motion falls is probably what we need. Looking at what's on the table it's still shadow-boxing and unicorns when the only amendments we need are things like:
-Revoke
-Extend for referendum with these questions
-Extend to renegotiate customs union.
Even the Cooper amendment which at least moves in the right direction, has no reason for EU to agree, it's not a policy just a delay.
Anywhere = where-ever the money allows
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22500121
I could do with a new pack of wine gums.
The far-right governments of Trump and Bolsonaro offer no hope to Venezuela or to the majority of people in Latin America (US puts ‘full weight’ behind regime change in Venezuela, 24 January).
Whatever views people hold on Venezuela, there is no justification for backing the US attempt at regime change under way, which, if successful, could go the way of the disastrous interventions in Iraq and Libya.
Instead, the way forward is the call for dialogue from the Mexican and Bolivian presidents.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/putting-venezuelas-crisis-and-us-intervention-in-historical-context
Signed by many of the usual suspects, including Owen Jones, Ken Livingstone and top Corbynista MPs, Stop the War, etc.
I'm talking about the tendency of men to hang on for too long - to positions not to life itself.
Until Parliament approves it it’s not in force.
It may be the amendments mean no agreement is possible but that’s so ethi g entirely different
Or maybe just becoming president of anything exposes you as a tosser?
And in any event, I posted something to this effect on here about a year ago.
If shareholders had been paying attention, they could have come to the same conclusion.
As it is, I can't understand why directors and/or auditors couldn't have paid surprise visits to two or three randomly selected locations just to check the figures for themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/fate-of-castles-in-the-air-in-turkeys-151m-ghost-town