Why on earth would you put wikipedia as the source when the wiki page presumably has an actual source for the data.
because actual sources require reading the bottom japan whats the POINT
WHATS
THE
P:OINT
damn kids citing one reference removed from their own work as a primary source
wouldn't have happened in my day, when libraries were repositories of paper &c.
Well... the CIA Factbook isn't a primary source either. I'm pretty sure they compile data from official government and non-governmental sources, as best they can.
Why on earth would you put wikipedia as the source when the wiki page presumably has an actual source for the data.
because actual sources require reading the bottom japan whats the POINT
WHATS
THE
P:OINT
damn kids citing one reference removed from their own work as a primary source
wouldn't have happened in my day, when libraries were repositories of paper &c.
Well... the CIA Factbook isn't a primary source either. I'm pretty sure they compile data from official government and non-governmental sources, as best they can.
Yeah those two sections should be written in full:
In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.
We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats
Losing UK participation in Europol and the Euro arrest warrant weakens the fight against crime and terrorism. It's a bargaining chip, because that's how this process works. It's all or nothing, either there's an agreement or there isn't. As I say, a "no deal" in unpalatable for this reason. I dislike the rigidity of this process. The two year deadline means "no deal" is more likely than it needs to be, and it could threaten European security.
I don't get this though. Doesn't leaving Europol and the Euro arrest warrant system leave Britain far, far more isolated and vulnerable than it would the rest of Europe? Granted, Britain's intelligence gathering is highly sophisticated, but it's not that difficult to emulate, and Europol's intelligence network has a particularly good reputation. Throw in the fact that non-home-grown terrorists tend to migrate across Europe, that US intelligence is shall we say "hampered" by their current tangerine shaded commander-in-chief and that screaming their willingness to abandon Europol across the tabloids means EVERY terrorist knows the best place to set up shop and you're looking at a terribly bleak future for the UK.
And that's before we even get started on what the rising tensions in the North and a potential return to the hard border means for groups like the UVF and IRA that I think we all thought we'd finally seen the back of.
Something like 40% of Europol's information comes from the UK. It facilitates information exchange and analysis, there's no "Europol intelligence network". It would absolutely be damaging to both parties if an agreement wasn't made, as it slows down the mechanism for some types of information to be shared. Only really France and Germany have comparable intelligence services, and the Five Eyes dwarfs any intelligence alliance in the world. Saying UK intelligence gathering isn't difficult to emulate is underplaying it, somewhat. The UK would have more to lose from not being a part of the European arrest warrant, undoubtedly.
Uh... There is a Europol intelligence network? Special Branch in Ireland link in with it for a start. It's not like the UK is the only European country with an intelligence branch. You think France, Germany and the Scandanavian countries don't?
I mean Europol has dozens of departments from Cybercrime to the Financial Intelligence Unit. Do you think the UK covers 40% of it all? Come to think of it, where does the UK's intelligence come from? How much comes from Europe?
There's no Europol intelligence network. For specific crimes, the intelligence services of each member state shares specific information. Our police forces are arguably more important, as criminal records are shared. It's not analogous to an intelligence network, and they would never describe it as such. It has a specific remit with limited tools, and no actual intelligence gathering capability, which is what you suggest when you say the UK contribution isn't difficult to emulate, and the Europol intelligence network has a good reputation. Like it's not the same thing at all.
I mean seriously, you've quoted me saying Germany and France have comparable intelligence services, and say I think France and Germany don't have an intelligence branch? I'm tired of saying this, but please read what I say.
It would be awful if the UK wasn't a part of Europol, so I don't know why you're trying to minimise the importance of the UK in intelligence gathering, of all things?
Sorry but I have kind of a hard time getting past that first line, especially since the rest of what you said contradicts it.
Like... You're STILL saying there's no Europol intelligence network, but you're describing various intelligence services sharing intelligence together in an organised manner. As in, a network.
Hahah, sorry I see now - in my head an intelligence network refers to those that gather the information, not the point at which part of it is collated. So when you say British Intelligence isn't hard to emulate, and Europol's intelligence network has a particularly good reputation, you are referring to the both the states that gather the information, and Europol's ability to put it to good use. So since the main information gatherer is the UK - your comment is that, since British Intelligence gathering isn't hard to replicate, you believe that Europol won't be as affected by the UK leaving, and that the UK will suffer more, because "EVERY terrorist knows the best place to set up shop" in the UK?
Of course, everyone's hope is that the UK stays in Europol, it's the largest contributor of information to it, and it was quickly clarified that the UK would continue to share intelligence with Europe - especially with France, as both intelligence branches have built a strong relationship. Europol is a small but vital part of antiterrorism in Europe - it would be catastrophic if the UK were to leave it, as Europol would be operating without a vital stream of information. It's not just replaced or emulated. But it's also worth reiterating that Europol itself only sees a fraction of the data gathered by state driven intelligence branches - there isn't enough trust for any more to be shared with such a large number of states.
Ahhhh okay I getcha now. Boy that makes way more sense!
It's not that I think Europol would shrug off the UK leaving - far from it - but I just cannot fathom how it wouldn't be far more damaging to the UK. Their staff and sources still need to operate freely in Europe and abroad, unless they're planning to just do without any data from Europe whatsoever, or look it up online or something. Their relationship with American Intelligence is going to be fraught with difficulty while the Mango Mussolini is in office since he doesn't seem to want to take them seriously unless they're telling him what he wants to hear and sure, if a criminal wants to do criminal things and knows that 26 countries are exchanging intelligence with each other and one isn't, how are they NOT going to want to take full advantage of that? It's no different than the UVF taking advantage of the then poor relationship between Special Branch and the RUC to get away with bombing Dublin and Monaghan in 1974.
Is the UK the largest contributor of information to Europol? Where does the 40% figure come from? What percentage of data does British Intelligence receive from Europol or European based intelligence services? What intelligence sources does the UK have that, given time and money if they were forced into a corner, other intelligence services can't emulate? Is it just data from Britain and its territories or is it technology that Britain have access to or is it combination of the two? Are the UK going to stop working with Interpol? Are they going to demand that Interpol refuse to share information from Britain with Europol? As far as I know the difference between Interpol and Europol is largely structural. How can the UK work with one and not the other? And if they abandon both, isn't that RIDICULOUSLY damaging to the safety of the UK?
Oh, Cornwall. You really didn't think this through, did you?
edit for serious response: I'm pretty sure this is the kind of thing the "Great Repeal Bill" is supposed to protect - EU legislation that we're unlikely to want to change. On the other hand, if someone like Greggs wants to start making Cornish pasties, they'll now be able to lobby for a change in the law to allow them to do so. So, back to my flippant response...
Oh Cornwall. You really didn't think this through, did you?
A couple of interesting points, having just had a read:
Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately
Strikes me as bad news for EU nationals worried about their status? If my interpretation is correct, that's bad form really.
After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.
Any future agreement that impacts Gibraltar can be vetoed by Spain?
Heh. Yeah. Spain made their first play for Gibraltar... what, was it two hours after the results came in? Less? When they started suggesting "joint governorship." I fully expect them to make it a big deal of it when negotiating with the UK.
Mind you, given Gibraltar's Remain vote (98% wasn't it?) they might choose Spain. If May pushes the Hard Brexit agenda they're completely shafted anyway.
Spain has said that if Gibraltar wants out of the EU, alongside the UK, they are free to do so and Spain will not question that. However, I suspect Spain is secretly hoping the Brexit deal is so obviously damaging to Gibraltar that the UK starts asking for special provisions for the rock, at which point Spain turns round and says: they're either in or they're out. There's no in between and threatens its veto at that point.
A seismic shift is needed for Corbyn to win in 2020. But it could happen.
Guardian column headline from a man whose optimism apparently knows no bounds. "It could happen" is also what the lottery tells people. Chances seem similar.
A seismic shift is needed for Corbyn to win in 2020. But it could happen.
Guardian column headline from a man whose optimism apparently knows no bounds. "It could happen" is also what the lottery tells people. Chances seem similar.
The same chance that Corbyn could win the lottery by 2020.
A seismic shift is needed for Corbyn to win in 2020. But it could happen.
Guardian column headline from a man whose optimism apparently knows no bounds. "It could happen" is also what the lottery tells people. Chances seem similar.
Whereas John Harris for the Guardian puts it far more bluntly:
A YouGov poll this week found that – and read this slowly – more people who voted Labour in 2015 would choose May as prime minister than Jeremy Corbyn: across the population as a whole, the idea of the latter as the best option for PM is supported by a miserable 13%.
It might also be possible to read that Gibraltar provision another way - namely that Spain won't veto any agreement so long as it doesn't apply to Gibraltar, that the UK doesn't have to sort out Gibraltar before Spain is willing to talk. It sucks for Gibraltar of course since they'd be thrown under the bus eventually or left in limbo for ages after negotiations are finished.
0
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
edited March 2017
Edit: Never mind, old link
Brovid Hasselsmof on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
A seismic shift is needed for Corbyn to win in 2020. But it could happen.
Guardian column headline from a man whose optimism apparently knows no bounds. "It could happen" is also what the lottery tells people. Chances seem similar.
Whereas John Harris for the Guardian puts it far more bluntly:
A YouGov poll this week found that – and read this slowly – more people who voted Labour in 2015 would choose May as prime minister than Jeremy Corbyn: across the population as a whole, the idea of the latter as the best option for PM is supported by a miserable 13%.
Hell, now that Article 50 has been triggered, May might actually be a better choice for PM. If, in some strange bizarro land, Corbyn had taken over as PM prior to Article 50, you could at least hope that he'd not Brexit. Now that the horse is out of the barn, May is probably the best bet on trying to salvage at least some modicum of something out of the mess.
I can't even imagine how useless Corbyn would be at the Brexit negotiations, and that's after seeing how useless May has been at prepping for them.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
A seismic shift is needed for Corbyn to win in 2020. But it could happen.
Guardian column headline from a man whose optimism apparently knows no bounds. "It could happen" is also what the lottery tells people. Chances seem similar.
Whereas John Harris for the Guardian puts it far more bluntly:
A YouGov poll this week found that – and read this slowly – more people who voted Labour in 2015 would choose May as prime minister than Jeremy Corbyn: across the population as a whole, the idea of the latter as the best option for PM is supported by a miserable 13%.
Hell, now that Article 50 has been triggered, May might actually be a better choice for PM. If, in some strange bizarro land, Corbyn had taken over as PM prior to Article 50, you could at least hope that he'd not Brexit. Now that the horse is out of the barn, May is probably the best bet on trying to salvage at least some modicum of something out of the mess.
I can't even imagine how useless Corbyn would be at the Brexit negotiations, and that's after seeing how useless May has been at prepping for them.
Judging by his interview on Wednesday, his plan involves collecting just as many underpants as hers, just from entirely different sources.
We've got 3 more years of Corbyn.. at least. And even then, the voting rules will probably have changed and Labour will end up with Corbyn-lite for the next five years.
I saw that too, and it's a neat encapsulation of the main things that frustrate me about Corbyn's operation:
1. Not engaging with the press because they're trying to promote a new way of doing things (somewhat laudable but really hampers them in practical terms), which leads to...
2. Claiming that the press don't air their views or are negative about them, which leads to...
3. Corbyn fans believing he's doing the right thing by not engaging with the press, which leads to...
it seems like it's very easy to imagine that she's competent. she looks like a certain idea of what a competent person would look like
She comes off as composed and professional. All that means is that when the UK bus goes over the cliff the driver will have her seat belt on, both hands on the wheel (at the 10:00 and 2:00 positions), and all her mirrors will be properly adjusted. Won't stop the passengers from screaming in panic though.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Another element of this that I struggle with - Spain are given veto of anything in relation to Gibraltar, but Ireland isn't given veto on anything relating to the Good Friday Agreement?
It's a good point and maybe it's a question of whether Ireland demanded one. I can't imagine the Council just gave Spain an explicit veto like that just because.
Another element of this that I struggle with - Spain are given veto of anything in relation to Gibraltar, but Ireland isn't given veto on anything relating to the Good Friday Agreement?
Yes we are. We have a veto on any deal the UK makes with the EU.
*edit* IT GETS BETTER! If said deal has an impact on any past EU treaty, or involves writing a new one, we will put it to a referendum
Posts
because actual sources require reading the bottom japan whats the POINT
WHATS
THE
P:OINT
damn kids citing one reference removed from their own work as a primary source
wouldn't have happened in my day, when libraries were repositories of paper &c.
Well... the CIA Factbook isn't a primary source either. I'm pretty sure they compile data from official government and non-governmental sources, as best they can.
Probably Wikipedia
whoops, sorry.
Ahhhh okay I getcha now. Boy that makes way more sense!
It's not that I think Europol would shrug off the UK leaving - far from it - but I just cannot fathom how it wouldn't be far more damaging to the UK. Their staff and sources still need to operate freely in Europe and abroad, unless they're planning to just do without any data from Europe whatsoever, or look it up online or something. Their relationship with American Intelligence is going to be fraught with difficulty while the Mango Mussolini is in office since he doesn't seem to want to take them seriously unless they're telling him what he wants to hear and sure, if a criminal wants to do criminal things and knows that 26 countries are exchanging intelligence with each other and one isn't, how are they NOT going to want to take full advantage of that? It's no different than the UVF taking advantage of the then poor relationship between Special Branch and the RUC to get away with bombing Dublin and Monaghan in 1974.
Is the UK the largest contributor of information to Europol? Where does the 40% figure come from? What percentage of data does British Intelligence receive from Europol or European based intelligence services? What intelligence sources does the UK have that, given time and money if they were forced into a corner, other intelligence services can't emulate? Is it just data from Britain and its territories or is it technology that Britain have access to or is it combination of the two? Are the UK going to stop working with Interpol? Are they going to demand that Interpol refuse to share information from Britain with Europol? As far as I know the difference between Interpol and Europol is largely structural. How can the UK work with one and not the other? And if they abandon both, isn't that RIDICULOUSLY damaging to the safety of the UK?
The story is actually about the EU rules on specific foods being tied to an area, so you can't call something a Cornish pasty if it's made Devon.
edit for serious response: I'm pretty sure this is the kind of thing the "Great Repeal Bill" is supposed to protect - EU legislation that we're unlikely to want to change. On the other hand, if someone like Greggs wants to start making Cornish pasties, they'll now be able to lobby for a change in the law to allow them to do so. So, back to my flippant response...
Oh Cornwall. You really didn't think this through, did you?
But I guess that you'll soon be able to if it's made in Paris.
"You're already jumping off the cliff, why the hell would we want to push you?"
A couple of interesting points, having just had a read: Strikes me as bad news for EU nationals worried about their status? If my interpretation is correct, that's bad form really. Any future agreement that impacts Gibraltar can be vetoed by Spain?
Mind you, given Gibraltar's Remain vote (98% wasn't it?) they might choose Spain. If May pushes the Hard Brexit agenda they're completely shafted anyway.
Guardian column headline from a man whose optimism apparently knows no bounds. "It could happen" is also what the lottery tells people. Chances seem similar.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The same chance that Corbyn could win the lottery by 2020.
Whereas John Harris for the Guardian puts it far more bluntly:
Can anyone rescue Labour from this deep irrelevance?
Hell, now that Article 50 has been triggered, May might actually be a better choice for PM. If, in some strange bizarro land, Corbyn had taken over as PM prior to Article 50, you could at least hope that he'd not Brexit. Now that the horse is out of the barn, May is probably the best bet on trying to salvage at least some modicum of something out of the mess.
I can't even imagine how useless Corbyn would be at the Brexit negotiations, and that's after seeing how useless May has been at prepping for them.
Judging by his interview on Wednesday, his plan involves collecting just as many underpants as hers, just from entirely different sources.
Steam | XBL
Sent by a Momentum staffer, because there's no way Corbyn knows what YOLO means.
1. Not engaging with the press because they're trying to promote a new way of doing things (somewhat laudable but really hampers them in practical terms), which leads to...
2. Claiming that the press don't air their views or are negative about them, which leads to...
3. Corbyn fans believing he's doing the right thing by not engaging with the press, which leads to...
Having a lower favourability rating in London than Paul Fucking Nuttall.
Journalist: On Saturday there will be a celebration. The leaders of 27 member states will be there.
Juncker: Unfortunately yes, not 28 only 27
Journalist: That surely is going to be the elephant in the room isn't it? The fact that Theresa May is not there on Saturday?
Juncker: She's not an elephant
Also:
TLDR: Dear Tess, It's on like Donkey Kong, Sincerly Nic.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
it seems like it's very easy to imagine that she's competent. she looks like a certain idea of what a competent person would look like
She comes off as composed and professional. All that means is that when the UK bus goes over the cliff the driver will have her seat belt on, both hands on the wheel (at the 10:00 and 2:00 positions), and all her mirrors will be properly adjusted. Won't stop the passengers from screaming in panic though.
When the opposition's competence level is lingering far behind Frank Spencer, it's easy to look good at your job.
Yes we are. We have a veto on any deal the UK makes with the EU.
*edit* IT GETS BETTER! If said deal has an impact on any past EU treaty, or involves writing a new one, we will put it to a referendum