Thread with photos and accounts:
Twitter Link
Someone is screwing someone for sure. This issue is separate from but related to the one I initially posted about.
Printable View
Thread with photos and accounts:
Twitter Link
Someone is screwing someone for sure. This issue is separate from but related to the one I initially posted about.
Someone is. I hope we find out who.
Twitter Link
Does anyone have access to a longer clip, with the question and the full answer? Because I'm having a hard time accepting that the PM is still this ignorant about NRPF.
NRPF should apply to all non-citizens.
Anyone who wants to come here and fund themselves to do so should be welcomed as far as I'm concerned. But they should do so without public funds.
Once someone has been here contributing to society for years they ought to be entitled to claim citizenship, get the right to vote and recourse to public funds.
My question is why the PM appears to be so uninformed.
Without seeing the full question and answer I couldn't guess.
It's impossible to know what he knows besides what he says. He's a bit of a bumbler isn't he?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsKg6SfX...png&name=small
English media is so fucking weird
Source?
Imagine being shown up by Mike Pompeo of all people
Twitter Link
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-commons-vote
Yes look who has been shown up by Pompeo: https://www.ft.com/content/2d759671-...3-7480990f0438
You've misunderstood the distinction of that vote. The principle debated in Parliament yesterday was not are the Chinese committing genocide, the question was who should be responsible for that. It has always been the case that the executive are responsible here, like Pompeo is.
The UK along with the USA, Canada, Australia and others have been criticising China over what we are seeing with the Uigher and Hong Kong. Shame others haven't joined us in that and have been shown up seeking to cosy up to them with new trade agreements instead. I'm sure you'd agree that is poor and shocking, right?
I presume your broken link goes to some article about the EU's pathetic failure to punish China for its genocidal campaign in Xinjiang, but I'm not sure why you'd view that as a great defense of the UK fighting so hard to fail in the same way.
https://www.ft.com/content/2d759671-...3-7480990f0438
This is the link. Disgusting, I'm sure you'll be condemning it any moment now, rather than trying to criticise the country that has actually been standing up to China. How do you feel about being shown up by Raab, Johnson, Trump, Morrison, Trudeau and Pompeo? :rolleyes:
I have indeed been condemning the EU's stance wrt China on this issue, just as I have previously condemned it for its complacency in the face of the genocide in Myanmar. I've done so on my social media accounts, but it hasn't come up here. You're welcome to start a thread on the issue, and I will happily condemn the EU, because it is clearly in the wrong as far as its stance on China is concerned. The UK can lead the way by forcefully responding to China's genocide in Xinjiang through economic punishments, but, as we can see, it has no desire to. The Chinese govt. doesn't give a rat's ass about the UK's disapproval; what matters are real measures.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
EU has been very disappointing on this issue indeed, especially given the emphasis the EU generally puts on human rights. Good to see some countries are stepping up.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I wouldn't include Trump and Pompeo in the list though, considering they only took action in their last days (i.e. ko consequences for them), and Trump complimented Xi Jinpeng on how he was dealing with Uighurs. My newspaper's analysis even reckons it would have been better for them if this issue was left for the next administration, since Trump and Pompeo lost all credibility and can easily be dismissed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPDTYbozvjY
He forgot to say "what an excellent question" :o
Here's a question though - are UK politicians getting worse at answering questions or had it always been this bad? It seems easy to say it's always been like this, but I wonder whether some of the older members of the board might take a minute to ponder the question.
Twitter Link
LOL.
LSE has published a report on the cost to Scotland's economy were they too leave the UK - as reported by the Guardian.
Though Brexit is bad for Scotland economically as it is for the whole of the UK, Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU would be considerably worse.
Quote:
Independence could cost Scotland's economy £11bn a year, forecast suggests
Economists say impact of leaving UK’s common market would hit two to three times as hard as leaving EU
Scotland’s economy would shrink by at least £11bn a year if it became independent, more than doubling the damaging impacts of Brexit, a team of economists has forecast.
The report from the London School of Economics and City University of Hong Kong found that quitting the UK’s common market would hit the Scottish economy two to three times as hard as leaving the EU, just counting the impact on trade alone.
Suggesting that the worst economic effects would take several decades to take hold, the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance said the impacts on its trade with both the UK and the EU would shrink Scotland’s economy in the long run by between 6.3% and 8.7%.
That was equivalent to a loss of between £2,000 to £2,800 per capita a year: with Scotland’s population estimated to be nearly 5.5 million, that puts the losses at between £11bn and £15.4bn.
The Scottish government, which is currently wrestling with the near collapse of Scottish seafood exports to the EU because of post-Brexit customs controls, currently spends around £14bn on the NHS each year.
The authors stressed their analysis only covered the impacts of increasing trading costs, and excluded other economic or fiscal issues post-independence, such as cuts or increases in inward investment, changes in immigration, currency changes or tax changes.
While it would be slightly better for an independent Scotland to rejoin the EU compared with staying outside both it and the UK, it would be extremely hard for EU trade to make up for all the substantial losses in UK trade.
The UK is Scotland’s largest and most important trading partner, the report said, accounting for 61% of its exports and 67% of its imports – around four times greater than its trade with the EU. Independence would increase trading costs with the rest of the UK by 15% to 30%.
...
Can't put a price on sovereignty, right? :rolleyes:
These economic arguments won't win the day, nor should they. Just like with Brexit it isn't just about the economy.
If you want the union to survive (I don't) then make the argument for why Britain is best together. Not just dry economics.
Otherwise, head apart and manage as best as can be done.
One has to wonder what kind of consultations preceded the British threat of triggering article 16 of the NIP. Are UK media going to be as upset as when the Commission considered its necessity?
The ones that are happening today and are ongoing. Article 16 hasn't been triggered yet, consultations are still ongoing right now. Gove was in talks with Serkovic (sp?) today and they released a joint statement saying they will continue.
Saying "we have a problem, we need to discuss it and if we don't reach a solution A16 may be triggered" is different to blowing up without discussion and triggering it without discussion or consultation.
This is funny.
Twitter Link
https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/...52229223096321
And the followup:
https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/...51689932427269
(someone educate me on how to make Embeds out of these)
put the number sequence in the URL between [tweet]-tagsQuote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
This man is an actual clown, writing for clowns:
Twitter Link
[ tweet ] 1367851689932427269 [/ tweet ]Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Excellent, well written article. Did you actually read the article you chose to share or did you react in outrage to a Tweet and not read the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
As we have already established, unlike you—a functionally illiterate clown—I read the things I link to, before linking to them. Asylum seekers in the UK have a legal right to apply for asylum in the UK even if they have passed through other "safe" countries, and nations are not permitted to discriminate against asylum seekers on the basis of "illegal" entry or "failure" to apply in the first "safe" country. This non-penalization principle is one of the clearest principles in international humanitarian law, and the UK is bound—by treaty, by domestic law, and by basic human decency—to abide by it. You and other racist Trumpist clowns might disagree, but, as we have already established, you disagreeing with something is usually a very strong indicator that it's right—both factually and morally.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You're responding to the snippet of the Tweet. Did you read the article?
If you had read the article, you would've realized I am addressing something that is in the article. Have you read it? Or have you "read" it in your usual fashion?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes the entire article and if you had read the entire article it is very good news from start to finish matching what I have said here for years.
But you went off halfcocked from a Tweet quite typically.
No RB, unlike you, I actually read things, and that's one reason why I don't believe the UK gearing up to break international humanitarian law is "very good news". Jfc your functional illiteracy just gives and gives doesn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
:rolleyes:
Quite clear you've ran halfcocked yet again. Getting people not to flee France in dangerous boats in deadly conditions is a good thing not a bad one.
But the whole point of the article if you'd actually read it is about how much more liberal our immigration is now compared to before. Yet you ran off because of a snippet on Twitter without reading it. :rolleyes:
Like I said, one of us—namely you—has a well-established record of not reading, and one of us—namely me—has a well-established record of reading. You and I both know that you didn't read the article carefully before responding, and, consequently, didn't realize I was addressing something in the article; you merely skimmed it—even though it is a very short text!—just long enough to see what you expected to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Whether or not you—a functionally illiterate idiot—think the consequences of a policy is good is irrelevant to the question of whether or not that policy is legal. As to your point about your immigration being more liberal, that is, of course, nonsense—your immigration laws remain incredibly restrictive for the vast majority of LMIC migrants, presenting a significant burden to many families, and you have imposed much greater restrictions on the very substantial migration from EU countries. The net result is a more restrictive migration policy—not a more liberal one. I don't expect a compulsive bullshit-peddler such as yourself to acknowledge this, but facts don't lie.
I did read the article which is why I knew the snippet from the Tweet was only a tiny part of the article and not the point of it - yet you ran off screaming like a headless chicken because of the snippet from the Tweet and entirely missing the point.
Unsurprisingly.
Our immigration laws are getting liberalised on a global level considerably compared to what they were pre-referendum and concerns over immigration have evaporated, which was the point that you missed.
Saying Europeans can enter but fuck everyone else is not "more liberal".
As for what is legal, that depends upon what laws our Parliament passes. If Parliament passes a law, it is legal. We've been over this before.
I can't imagine this is a good month for anyone who enthusiastically defended Johnson's dodgy friendship with a Russian oligarch and the crook's extraordinary decision to reward said oligarch with a peerage, against advice from MI6 and assorted civil servants. Kinda looking forward to seeing the papers explore this relationship, over the coming months, given the Johnson govt's puzzling incompetence at sanctioning oligarchs.