British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
according to Krugman there is a chance of northern Ireland becoming an export hub for the EU into the USA to pay 10% instead of 20%
according to Krugman there is a chance of northern Ireland becoming an export hub for the EU into the USA to pay 10% instead of 20%
Seems the goods would have to be substantially processed and finished in NI to qualify, rather than just being routed through. Could be quite a boom for NI if it happens.
The whole UK may get a big influx of European (and other row) manufacturing because the tariffs are so much lower. If starmer get his deal it could be huge.
Who cares about the cost?
Keir Starmer is preparing to rethink key elements of the government’s economic policy in an emergency response to Donald Trump’s tariff blitz, amid growing concern in Downing Street that the US president’s trade war could do lasting damage to the UK.
The prime minister believes, say allies, that “old assumptions should be discarded” in the UK’s response, suggesting he and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, may be preparing to raise taxes again – despite having promised not to do so – or even possibly change their “iron clad” fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and fire up economic growth at home in the event of recession.
Hate to be cynical but i suspect somehow it's going to be the assumptions that the right was in any way wrong, the environment matters, private equity in our public service might not be a great idea etc
The pilock can't forecast the end of his own nose. Might be easier if he wasn't so dishonest
Why do we get such awful people as MPs? Plus, if you had a bit of a dodgy history, why on earth would you enter the limelight??
Because of the threat of media intrusion into personal lives over matters that aren’t anyone else’s business (the watchdog being ineffective) normal people with normal lives and histories are often too scared to stand for parliament, so we get an abundance of sociopaths instead, many of whom are criminals like this guy for example.
Surprised this has not got more traction in the national news or here (imagine if this was London...). I don't always fall on the side of the unions, but they are completely in the right here - why bin men should pay the price for the council f'ing up on multiple occasions and having no money as a consequence is anyone guess, but I hope they get everything they ask for in this dispute.
Surprised this has not got more traction in the national news or here (imagine if this was London...). I don't always fall on the side of the unions, but they are completely in the right here - why bin men should pay the price for the council f'ing up on multiple occasions and having no money as a consequence is anyone guess, but I hope they get everything they ask for in this
Birmingham Council (if that's who is paying them) is bust. So if they do get what they are asking for, it is Joe Public that is taking the pain (after a couple of massive council tax rises in the last two years).
Fifteen people including former Conservative MP Craig Williams have been charged with betting offences by the Gambling Commission.
The investigation was launched last year following bets placed on the timing of the 2024 general election.
The commission said the investigation focused on individuals "suspected of using confidential information - specifically advance knowledge of the proposed election date - to gain an unfair advantage in betting markets".
Before the election was called, Williams was the MP for Montgomeryshire and an aide to then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
The group of those charged includes Russell George, a Conservative Member of the Senedd; Laura Saunders, the former Conservative parliamentary candidate in Bristol North West, and her partner Anthony Lee, a former director of campaigning for the Conservatives; and Nick Mason, a former chief data officer for the party.
Plus a bunch of nobodies from Tory HQ.
All that utterly bonkers woke ideology is dying a death by a thousand cuts, and I'm here for it.
It's a technical legal ruling not a conceptual or political one.
Afaics they also skipped defining biological sex which while probably wise, means its far from the end. As per our previous discussion they're going to struggle with any definition that prevents men having babies by it (or some other issue).
As a slight aside, I'm very pleased that this is not like the usa supreme court nonsense. Parliament can change the law.
It's a technical legal ruling not a conceptual or political one.Afaics they also skipped defining biological sex which while probably wise, means its far from the end. As per our previous discussion they're going to struggle with any definition that prevents men having babies by it (or some other issue).As a slight aside, I'm very pleased that this is not like the usa supreme
Since both government and opposition welcomed the ruling, the law is not going to get changed.
It's a technical legal ruling not a conceptual or political one.Afaics they also skipped defining biological sex which while probably wise, means its far from the end. As per our previous discussion they're going to struggle with any definition that prevents men having babies by it (or some other issue).As a slight aside, I'm very pleased that this is not like the usa supreme
This is like the USA supreme court, if the USA supreme court was asked what the meaning of a word in a law was, and how it applied in society. In that case congress can always rewrite the law as well.
This simply wasn't a constitutional decision, rather an interpretative decision of the text of a law.
All that utterly bonkers woke ideology is dying a death by a thousand cuts, and I'm here for it.
This simply isn't the death of wokism by any mean unfortunately.
The fact itself this had to went to court for years was a win for them, because it was obvious beyond any reasonable doubt and with no shade of ambiguity that woman in that law meant actual biological women.
And as others said parliament can still at any time legislate that people with dicks have to be treated like biological women for this or that purpose in society.
Afaics they also skipped defining biological sex which while probably wise, means its far from the end.
Is it necessary to define what a "human" is before being able to rule on human rights?
Biological sex has been around a lot longer than "humans" have, and will be around for a good few years after we are extinct.
Is it necessary to define what a "human" is before being able to rule on human rights?
Biological sex has been around a lot longer than "humans" have, and will be around for a good few years after we are extinct.
If we get sentient AI and 20+ years of radical political movements hellbent on giving them "human rights" then yes it could become necessary to define what a human is for the purpose of human rights
Is it necessary to define what a "human" is before being able to rule on human rights?
Biological sex has been around a lot longer than "humans" have, and will be around for a good few years after we are extinct.
No it isn't And wise not to. It does mean it's not over.
It's all going to get a lot more complicated.
That doesn't sound vague at all chez.
It's necessarily vague. It's why I seriously doubt they want to precisely define 'biological sex' and wont unless forced to - even if they do it will just what is covered by the what they think the law meant rather than any sort of opinion on reality.
Language and the law are way behind reality. Poeple are going to struggle with just how little any of it means as we master our biology, genes etc
Indeed and thank you. People's need for precision where it doesn't exist is a general problem. Similarly with certainty etc.
It's necessarily vague. It's why I seriously doubt they want to precisely define 'biological sex' and wont unless forced to - even if they do it will just what is covered by the what they think the law meant rather than any sort of opinion on reality.
The Supreme Court only rules on points of law. They say, 'the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.' Further speculative logic-chopping, of the kind employed by trans activists to confuse the issue, is not required. A government spox said, 'This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges and sports clubs. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and always will be under this Government.' (In other words, Sir Keir is now forced to agree with Sir Tony that women don't have penises.) The complication will come in the way service providers retrain their staff and accommodate trans-identified users, now they can't pretend that women's interests don't count and that acquired or preferred 'gender' is actual sex. But already the police say that in future all trans women suspects will have to be searched by male officers (probably because they know that the female officers previously detailed got harassed and intimidated).
Language and the law are way behind reality.
It's trans activists that are way behind reality. Sex isn't a spectrum, men aren't women and humans aren't clownfish.
