diable rouge

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is very good as welL > > https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2020/09/ > 14/britains-reputation-trashed-for-the-sake-of-a-t > hree-word-slogan/ Tom McTague in The Atlantic... The Great British Humbling ?The cretinous stupidity of it!? snaps the tragic hero in Joseph Roth?s The Radetzky March as he faces up to his likely death in a duel over his wife?s honor. He did not want the fight and no longer loves his wife anyway, but the ?stupid, steely law? of honor that bound his cavalry regiment left him no escape. In frustration, he sighs: ?I don?t have the strength to run away from this stupid duel. I will become a hero out of sheer idiocy.? Here we are, then, back to the cretinous stupidity of the Brexit conundrum?a conundrum created by a law as steely as Roth?s code of honor. The law is this: Because Britain is leaving the European Union?s economic zone at the end of the year, an economic border must be erected with the EU?and borders must go somewhere. This reality cannot be escaped. Normally the requirement would not be a problem; borders usually go where one sovereign country ends and another begins. But the land where Britain must place this border with the EU, Northern Ireland, is not normal. Because of its particular history and demography, placing physical border controls between Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, which is a separate country, could, it is claimed, upend the delicate political settlement that exists in this unique corner of the world. Whether this is true or not, the EU has, in any case, decreed that it will not sign any deal with Britain that creates a land border in Ireland. That leaves Britain with the painful option of creating a sea border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In other words, Britain has to either institute an internal border or try to avoid one altogether by staying tied to EU rules in perpetuity, even after it has left the bloc. For four years now, ever since the British public voted in the 2016 referendum to leave the EU, Britain has struggled with this inescapable law. And like some kind of tortuous finger trap, the more London has fought against it, the tighter and more painful the bind has become. The upshot is that Britain is now staring at a diplomatic defeat that would have seemed almost unimaginable just a few years ago. Since the Brexit referendum, the country has somehow contrived to negotiate an economic border within its own territory and the possible loss of all preferential trading rights with its largest market. For a long time, most observers had taken for granted that Britain would end up paying one of these prices for Brexit?but not both. The cherry on top of this diplomatic-failure sundae is that the U.K. will also have to pay billions of euros for the privilege of divorcing the EU. As if this scenario were not chastening enough, Prime Minister Boris Johnson?s government last week made it worse in an attempt to make it better by once again returning to its wrestling match with the finger trap. The British government published legislation, designed to limit the scale of the economic border with Northern Ireland, that it admitted reneged on key sections of the divorce treaty it had signed with the EU, which Johnson himself negotiated last year. Britain claimed that such a drastic step was necessary because the EU was not acting in good faith in the trade negotiations, and the bloc?s behavior risked turning what would ostensibly be a light, barely noticeable internal border into something much thicker. Johnson?s government has claimed that, should this happen, it would be a threat to peace in Northern Ireland, because it would not be acceptable to the unionist community there, which favors remaining part of the U.K. Johnson?s brinkmanship may yet work and result in a more lasting political fix. One of his closest aides told me to withhold judgment, pointing out that Britain had not yet broken any treaty obligation and that negotiations over a trade deal were ongoing. Just the announcement that it was prepared to break the treaty, however, set off explosions of anger across Europe and the United States rarely seen in diplomatic relations. The EU warned that it was prepared to take legal action against Britain; the German ambassador to London said he had never experienced such a rapid deterioration of trust; and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, cautioned that such a move would end any hope of a trade deal with Washington. All of this marks a fitting finale to Britain?s catastrophic mismanagement of the Brexit process, which started with the resignation of the prime minister who called the referendum without any plan for what would happen if he lost it (David Cameron); continued with his successor triggering a two-year countdown to Britain?s final withdrawal without any plan for what future relationship she wanted to negotiate (Theresa May); and was followed by her successor signing an international treaty without any guarantee of a future trade deal, only then to rip up this agreement when its consequences began to reveal themselves (Johnson). Regardless of the merits of Brexit, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Britain?s leaders dealt themselves one bad hand after another?and proceeded to play them badly. It is perfectly possible to defend many of the individual positions successive British governments took during this calamitous period of statecraft and, indeed, to criticize the positions taken by the EU and its member states. Was London right, for example, that too little heed had been paid to the concerns of unionists in Northern Ireland? Perhaps. And did the EU abuse its position of strength to force concessions out of the British that contributed to today?s breakdown in trust? Again, perhaps. It should also be said that Britain has had some achievements, however temporary, these past years. In November 2018, May persuaded Brussels to let the whole of the U.K. remain in the EU?s customs union, an attempt to circumnavigate the border conundrum by avoiding the need for a border altogether. This achievement, however, was refused by members of Parliament on the legitimate grounds that it meant Britain becoming an EU rule follower even after it had left the EU. And a year later Johnson persuaded Brussels to agree to a ?consent mechanism,? giving the elected assembly in Northern Ireland the right to reject the new border regime. This breakthrough, while not circumventing the old border law of Brexit, gave the deal some democratic legitimacy. Yet whatever the merits of such criticisms, and the successes Britain won, the central point remains: The EU is under no obligation to act in Britain?s interests, only its own. It can hardly be blamed for protecting its leverage and trying to negotiate the best possible outcome for its remaining members. If Britain did not like the position it found itself in, it has only itself to blame for voting to leave, for starting the countdown clock, for agreeing to the Johnson deal. No one else did that for the U.K. After clinching his deal, Johnson took it to the country at large in a general election?and returned with an overwhelming majority to ?get Brexit done.? With months to go before Britain?s departure from the EU?s economic zone, though, the prime minister has now decided to once again return to the border problem. And by claiming that the deal he reached last year amounts to a threat to the peace process in Northern Ireland, he risks undermining his most significant diplomatic achievement, the consent mechanism. It was designed for the very scenario he now warns about: in case the people of Northern Ireland find the practical application of the deal he agreed to intolerable. Amid the growing fallout over Johnson?s move, a friend from the U.S. got in touch. Is Johnson?s decision theater or catastrophe? he asked. Is it, in other words, a tactic to wrestle concessions out of the EU, or an implicit acknowledgment of the scale of the diplomatic defeat that has occurred? I replied that, in some ways, the answer doesn?t matter: Both explanations reveal the real story underneath?that through its own choices, Britain has put itself in such a weakened position that it has finally resorted to either threatening or actually breaking international law to reassert some strength. Neither explanation is good. The tragedy, of course, is that like Roth?s duel, this situation has no winners. Should the EU and the U.K. fail to reach a trade agreement and Britain renege on its treaty commitments, one of the most significant trading, military, security, and diplomatic relationships on Earth?between the major powers of Western Europe?will be materially damaged. Yes, Britain will be hurt harder, but that is hardly the point. In The Radetzky March, the duel takes place. ?The regimental doctor raised his pistol,? Roth writes. ?He felt brave and free, yes, for the first time in his life, even a little exuberant.? A short distance away, the doctor?s friend awaits news of the outcome. ?The Major stopped, half turned in his saddle, and merely said: ?Both of them!? Then, as he rode on, more to himself than to the Lieutenant: ?Couldn?t be helped.?? But it could.

I'd speak to local agents then, see what they think, you might already have hit the ceiling for your type of property in the area...

If you live in a house then an extension can be built under Permitted Development rights, which is straightforward to obtain as long as the extension conforms to the constraints therein. So, PP probably not worth obtaining in this instance...

Week 1 points and table...

From Twitter... ALIEN FROM VENUS: Greetings, Earthling! EARTHLING: I will take you to our leader ALIEN FROM VENUS: * Leaves *

Boris Johnson savaged by Ed Milliband in HoC debate, he won't even make it to Christmas at this rate...

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it?s unlikely. But not unthinkable. gove > has a visceral dislike of GFA and would be happy > to see terrorist grouped kick off around the > border. Throw in escalating U.K. eu tensions and > the need to get goods between Ireland and eu > (historically using U.K. as a land bridge) and I > believe the ingredients are there I suspect this will be the next chapter of the Tories culture war after Brexit is 'done', when they will need some red meat to throw at their base to distract from Covid. Johnson in PMQs has already tried to smear Starmer as a IRA apologist, which backfired, but expect more of the same...

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because I think it's a comforting thought that > people still cling to and I don't know why. For a > start it couldn't happen - May, even with her full > on shrill Brexit means Brexit stance was never > accepted as a True Believer and was thrown > overboard. Her successor was chosen from a list of > headbangers - anyone with even a sniff of "soft > Brexit" about them wouldn't have become leader. > There was no corner from which a soft brexit could > emerge I think there were two opportunities for a soft Brexit. May only became vulnerable to being thrown overboard after losing her majority in 2017, up to that point she didn't need the headbangers, just as she didn't need them when she was elected leader. Their favourites, Gove and Johnson, stabbed each other in the back, leaving Andrea Leadsom as their only choice, and she quickly pulled-out because she had little support from the rest of the party. Happy to be corrected, but my memory says that at the time of the Tory leader election, none of the candidates had a clear vision of what Brexit entailed, and it was only after May won that she came out with the infamous ''Brexit means Brexit'' soundbite, presumably as a reposte to being asked what her plans were. Had she come up with a soft Brexit after being elected I feel sure she would've got it through parliament with more than enough Labour support to counter the ERG mob. With the likes of the ERG, Gove, and Johnson having little political clout at the time, it raises the question why did May go for such a hard Brexit? Personally, I think its because she saw it as an opportunity to go in hard against immigration. This vicar's daughter has quite a nasty xenophobic streak in her, she was the architect of the 'hostile environment' and 'go home vans' after all. The second opportunity she had was after losing her majority at the snap election, a clear indication that the country as a whole wasn't happy with her 'red lines' hard Brexit, and she could've then pivoted towards a softer Brexit and got Labour support. Her decision not to was more to do with her and her party staying in power. > But even if I'm wrong and it was possible - it > would still be lose lose. We lose access to power > we had as a member. Leavers don't get their > "sovereignty". That's democracy for you, you can't please all the people all the time, at some point compromise has to take hold. Instead of compromising we seem to be living in an age of absolutism which never bodes well. At least with a soft Brexit it would've allowed an easy route to rejoining at some point in the future, and equally detaching ourselves from the EU gradually over time if public opinion went that way. Right, football calls!...

There's an EDF fantasy league, full name is ''EDF Premier League'', not sure how newbies join as it automatically added me due to being a previous player...

Start getting the pasta and toilet rolls in... Paul Brand (ITV): BREAKING: Latest data shows Covid-19 cases are now doubling every 7 to 8 days in the UK with an R rate of 1.7. Study by Imperial College found highest rates among 18 to 24 year-olds, with Yorkshire and the Humber, the North East and the North West worst affected.

They'll probably end up increasing it to 8 so that 2 average family households can meet, and if it continues to Christmas, probably temporarily up it to 10 or more...

Theresa May with her red lines made no attempt to propose a Brexit that would reflect the closeness of the referendum, and thereby embrace those that voted Remain. It was a hard Brexit, leaving the Single Market, ending Freedom of Movement etc, and bore little resemblance to what the official Leave campaign said would happen. Unlike Seph I think a soft Brexit would've been accepted both by parliament and the country as a whole. Yes it would've peed off the ERG headbanger types, but there would've been enough on the Labour side to see them off. For remainers to have come up with palatable options they first needed to be invited to the table, that never happened. What May did was to put her party before country...

Source: Sam Lowe So, the thing that?s playing on my mind: If UK really wanted to blow up talks it would have proposed legislation to scrap tests on products of animal origin entering Northern Ireland from GB; import/export declarations for GB goods being shipped to NI; etc. But it didn?t. The issues UK has chosen to focus on: Scrapping exit summary declarations on goods sent from NI to GB b?cos Boris promised something Protocol doesn?t offer. But does EU really care about this in grand scheme of things? Probably not. State aids. Here UK is trying to ensure EU state aid rules only apply in Northern Ireland, not in the rest of the UK. EU definitely cares about this - but GB rules could/should be dealt with via FTA. But man, this is a ridiculously risky approach. Entirely relies on the EU deciding to be the grown up in the room.

Thanks to everyone who's signed up, let battle commence. Week 1 fixtures... Saturday 12th September Fulham v Arsenal Crystal Palace v Southampton Liverpool v Leeds United West Ham United v Newcastle United Sunday 13th September West Bromwich Albion v Leicester City Tottenham Hotspur v Everton Monday 14th September Sheffield United v Wolverhampton Wanderers Brighton & Hove Albion v Chelsea

The Buzzards are having a bit of a 'domestic' after hubby Bob promised his wife they would be the first house in CG to install a lift... I wanted one of those fancy lifts like they have in The Glades in Brommers, not a fecking Stannah stair lift!...

Downfall parodies are back. Boris Johnson discovers he's breaking the law... https://www.captiongenerator.com/1959302/Boris-Johnson-discovers-hes-breaking-the-law

I'm only breaking the lockdown rules in a limited and specific way, officer...

NewWave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think its late 1900's Did you mean to say late 1800's? If so I agree it's more likely to be from around that time, the curves are Art Nouveau-ish. I'm sure it's not mid 20th century, probably just a label given to it by the seller to attract interest as it's en vogue. It's quite clunky and a mish mash of styles, so could be a one-off, e.g. a chair that's been modified or a design student's piece of work. I'd email antique experts and get their thoughts...

This is a very good Q&A on where we currently are with Covid, as some of you don't like clicking on links I've copied and pasted the info, but this is the link f you want to see the original source... Like I suspect a number of scientists I've been quizzed by a variety of friends and family on COVID, and its gone up recently because (a) school is back and so people can feel change around them and (b) there is a change in stats in across countries in Europe. Q: Has the virus gone away? There are very few deaths now. A: Sadly no. The virus stop circulating in the population because we restricted how many people on average each person meets during lockdown. This worked, but the virus is still present in the population and can come back Q: Has the virus got less deadly? Or hospital treatment better? A: The virus has not obviously got less deadly inherently. Due to excellent clinical research across the world treatment has got better; we now know of a handful of drugs which do work and a number which dont >> Although the treatments are better, it is nowhere close to a "cure" - perhaps 20% to 40% fewer people are dying in hospital than early on, but not enough to fundamental change the progress of the disease Q: The cases have gone up to the same level as April of this year, and yet deaths have not risen. Surely something has changed? A: Yes. The main thing that has changed is most countries have far more testing capacity and they offer tests to far broader range >> The other thing is that younger people are being less careful (older people have remained careful) so the cases and transmission are happening more in the young, in particular in France and Spain Given that it looks like we have cases and few deaths that's ok right? Why not keep on like this? A: Frustratingly epidemics have two modes: "growing" and "shrinking". It is basically near impossible to have something "just ticking along" at a steady relatively high rate. Q: OK. Can't we just let the young people get it, and then they will all be immune A: Although the rate is higher in the young it is still in the 1 in 1,000 or so (say in France) - there is plenty further it can get to and at some point it will likely go into the older population To make a segregation work to be confident that you just let rip in one part of the population without infecting another part you really have to have basically no contact - anywhere, any context, any shop, any school, any hospital and any family. It's basically unfeasible. Q: What about just letting everyone have it at some controlled rate now? Isn't this what Sweden is doing? A: Just letting the virus circulate will mean somewhere around 0.5% (perhaps a little lower) of people dying and many more people having a debilitating disease >> If we did this at the virus' natural rate it would mean the health systems would have to become dedicated to palliative care for many months as well as just a large number of people dying. >> Sweden's strategy is more nuanced than the headlines make out elsewhere. There was early on a higher acceptance of natural progression of the virus, but in many ways Sweden has ended up in a similar place to much of Europe - low viral transmission due to behavioural changes Q: So - should I get worried about my friend in Madrid? Or Lyon? Or Sevilla? Other places in Europe? A: If they are young, likely not. If they are old... then location matters. Spain has strong growth of cases and hospitalisation rates have climbed, in particular in Madrid >> France the cases have climbed but the hospitalisations have just nudged up. Belgium had a mini 2nd wave outbreak which they tamed by reintroducing local lockdowns and more mask wearing. Q: Will schools going back increase transmission? A: We don't know. What we do know is that schools going back is also a big shift in contact patterns post holidays - people moving around, more workplace visits, different visits by different people. It is not just about schools. Q: Is there any risk to my children? A: It is low, and it was low in the holidays when your children were somewhere else (likely ... having ice creams, visiting seaside cafes etc). Children need education and peers - they will be happier and safe in schools. Q: Why are people so concerned about schools reopening? A: Partly I think it is the unknown and genuine concern, I think unfounded, for risk to children. Partly it is the risk for the staff (though the evidence is thin that teaching staff are more at risk); however >> The main concern though is that schools and universities going back means lots of potential new and more contact patterns - basically, teenagers + young adults going to pubs and clubs, adults going work place + pubs. More contacts, more at risky locations Q: So we shouldn't go to pubs? Or clubs? A: Beer gardens / outside seem fine. Inside - keep the windows open, wash everything obsessively and get back outside. Personally I think it's just best not to go to clubs. Q: This is not going to work well when it is raining A: Agreed Q: So - is there a plan? A: Broadly yes, though one does have to piece it together. The main plan in most European countries, UK included, is have enough control of viral transmission until there is a good enough vaccine for the at risk (elderly) population. The development of vaccines have gone far far faster than anyone expected (I have been on a Phase II/III trial for the Oxford vaccine since the summer); more vaccines are being made and at a faster rate than ever expected. There are now consistent noises of readouts for the vaccine results later this autumn (some partly politically driven in a slightly depressing way) but some vaccines probably will have reasonable data then. BUT >> even if the vaccines are "good enough" they still have to be made at scale and distributed. This means we've got to navigate at least the autumn and start of winter *without* a vaccine, and might have to do it until spring/early summer 2021. Q: That sounds depressing. Can we do this? A: We don't know but a number of countries have consistently kept transmission pretty low - South Korea, Germany and Japan are 3 examples. Two things seem to be important >> 1. Testing. One needs to be able to test a lot and test quickly. 2. Contact tracing, in particular back to sites of high risk infection. Most European countries have now some mixture of both of these. We need these working at the highest level to keep the infection under control Q: If Germany, Japan and South Korea can do it, why can't all countries? A: They probably all can - it is just really far hard to operationalise and organise. Tweeting these things - easy. Doing them - far far harder. Q: Is UK / France / Spain / Italy / Germany doing this? A: Nearly all countries have the same fundamental components in their strategy. Operationalising it is complex and improving in most places. The country I know best is the UK: testing depth has come on hugely since May >> Track and Trace in the UK had a far bumpier summer but seems to be working at some level - still plenty of improvements that can be made. The French testing has improved alot, and track and trace is good. The Spanish situation is made more complex to track because it is organised mainly region by region. I have to admit I find it hard to track the details, and I think even good Spanish journalists find it hard to keep track. Q: Are there anything more we can - should - be doing? A: A surprising thing at first glance is testing sewage to spot specific outbreaks early. This seems to work and more places are using it. This helps find outbreaks quicker. >> The other thing is to take testing to the next level: More capacity, different technologies (so less single supply chain risk) and more portable formats. And from spit rather than swabs. (Here I have to *yawn* point out that I am a long established consultant to Oxford Nanopore which makes one of the new, more portable, tests - LamPORE) Q: So should I be worried? A: Probably worry a little less than you are now. Organised, motivated and clever people are worried about it in most governments / health organisations in Europe and they are being held to scrutiny by organised and clever people in the press. Right now, I worry at the moment about my colleagues in Madrid, and I hope Madrid can find a path through this. I'm so impressed by the people who work in the different public health, clinical research + COVID facing research - they work their socks off everyday in my experience Stepping back, we understand what is going on at far far better level than in March and April. Sadly we can't snap our fingers and make the virus go away, but we do understand far more of the moving parts. Q: What can I do? A: Follow health advice: ask for a test if you get the slightest hint of symptom; don't go to a high risk area (pub, club, karoke bar) unless you have to; wear a mask in all medium risks (shops, public transport etc); love yourself and your family

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pugwash, when I lived in Scotland I think the > owner had to pay for the survey and it be made > available to all prospective purchasers. A lot > less messing about, a lot less surprises, a lot > less money into hands of surveyors doing repeat > surveys on same property. The Scottish system of selling/buying, although not perfect, is still way better than England & Wales', the biggest plus being the sealed bid system rules out gazumping...

Anyone else getting a feeling of deja vu?...

While hubby is away in Wales channeling his inner Withnail and I, Mrs Bob decides it's now a good time to stimulate the local building economy into action with her own version of Rishi's Dishis while respecting social distancing... Is this the queue for Mrs Bob's 'Meat out and I'll help out'? inquired Pavel...