Francois BOURRIAUD's page

Hi there. The current kerfuffle (what a delicious word!) in France :

1) is probably much bigger seen on TV from across the Atlantic that on site. They did tag a known monument and burnt exactly 55 cars two weeks ago. Big deal but not civil war, really.
2) is not specifically tied to ecology, but about taxes in general, buying power and distribution of wealth. The issue is being adressed. Among other things, price increases on gas prices have been postponed for one year (see u in 2020) to quiet things down.

Though, it's somehow to the conspiracy themed OP : you should see the BS-storm floating around on the social networks !

No offence taken. Being called an "imperialist stooge" by crypto-trotskysts goblinoid is part of the perk of being a social-democrat.

And, yes, invading Syria in summer 2013 would have been a good idea, when there was still pro-democratic opponents to Al-Assad and still no ISIS (so I guess I still deserve your ravings).

Farewell.

Macron is elected, with...

65,9 % !

Edit: 75% is the worse turnout ever for a presidential élection. We are used to more than 80%.

thejeff wrote:

Captain Battletoad wrote:

Being that I'm an American with a typical American public education, I don't know much about elections in European countries except for in the UK due to having friends living on that side of the pond. Is the French presidential election based on the national popular vote, or is it regionally based?

Direct popular vote. No weird shenanigans (other than the multi-round thing.)

Interesting. So not knowing the general attitude of the average French voter, how much support does a Frexit move have, particularly given Macron's recent statements on the matter? Sorry if these are basic questions. I'm starting to learn French again to stem a tide of boredom and figured it would make it easier if I also learned more about modern France, in addition to generally being concerned about the current state of Europe.

On a recent poll, 70 % of french voters were against going back to the old french money.

Frexit is worse than that, as it implies more than a change of currency. So, barring misunderstanding of the question, dubious logic or sheer ignorance, Frexit supporters must be even less numerous than 30 %.

Greyhawk had two republics, complete with elections, representatives, etc.:
1) Perrenland (loosely based on switzerland, including export of mercenaries) ;
2) and the Yeomanry, with a government of the warrior people by the warrior people.

Not en expert on FR or Eberron, but it seems that "never any republic" in classic D&D settings isn't factually correct.

Ah, yes... I keep forgetting the US and France still use electoral colleges...

Isn't it ironic how the two nations most associated with Freedom and Democracy and the only two democracies in the world to use such an obsolete election model?

Not really relevant, but France don't use an electoral college to elect its president. It used to, before 1958, but the president was basically a figurehead devoid of any executive power (think the british queen, but elected).

Just to put things right, you may go on.

Edit : FYI, we had ten candidates at the last presidential elections (in 2012), and in the previous one (2007) a third-party candidate managed to break through to the second round (surprise protest vote, brexit style. Oops !).

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Far from me...

I'm not trying to say the EU should give a UK that leaves the EU any kind of special deal; I'm saying that, on paper, with so much that should have been lined up in favour of a 'remain' vote, I hope that someone in the EU is thinking 'what the heck just happened?' possibly followed up by 'was that a one-off bizarro situation, or are we going to have to make changes so it doesn't happen elsewhere?'

Sorry, I misunderstood you then.

Alas, what the EU does has little or no bearing on what happened in the UK, as the leave vote campaign had precious little ties with reality.

UK had the best deal of all EU, hands down, but it didn't matter in the end because ordinary people voted according to what they had been fed for years by their local elite and newspapers, that is : 1) nothing good ever comes from Brussels ; 2) we (UK) are freedom fighters pitted against the evil EU empire. Look at our blue sabers! ; 3) all your women are belong to EU.

The EU can work wonders, it won't matter at all if local politicians keep scapegoating it for everything that goes wrong as a convenient way to sweep under the rug their own shortcomings.

Interesting article.

Merkel wants Juncker to go. Of course, she nominated him in the first place!

Funny thought : without UK, the majority at the european parliament would pass from the PPE (right) to the PSE (left), leaning more toward political integration and less toward pure business and finance.

The next European Commission president will have to be designated according to this new majority... Unintended and interesting consequence.

On that topic, which EU countries have [general] elections coming up in the next two years, and how are such events likely to change attitudes to the negotiations?

France and Germany both.

See comments above, about why EU can't offer to UK a better deal that it had in the first place, and how Leave voters and newpsapers will spin to sound like the continent is out for british blood.

Soory, but it's not about punishment. You just can't leave and keep all advantages, without any hindrance.

The Daily Mail front page is about how Europe is beginning to crack, since a French minister (Sapin, Finance) and the Finnish Deputy PM has said there could be a trade deal and we could have control of it's borders. Of course what that trade deal might be in that case isn't mentioned.

It's mostly wishful thinking, alas.

Michel Sapin's speech was only about the Touquet agreement (the one by which the UK border was put on the french side of the Channel, at Calais instead of Dover) which is not tied to UK membership in EU. It would be uncouth and ungentlemanly of us to unleash now the "migratory hordes" on UK (but some major right-wing players and candidates to the coming presidential elections are known to favor its revocation ; so, not now, but maybe next year).

It is not about future relationships at all, and in particular not about free passage of people in general.

And of course, UK can have a trade agreement ! the question is, which one and what would be the economical and/or political price to pay. Nothing is free.

It's not that its EU partners are mad at UK or can't feel the pain, but giving away all the nice bits of membership without any price tag would simply lead to the disintegration of EU for everybody (what the point of being in, if you get a better deal out ?). UK chose to leave the party early, so be it ; it doesn't mean that all other people have to cut the music.

EDIT : another Michel Sapin declaration, yesterday : "La perte du passeport bancaire qui permet aux banques implantées à Londres d'intervenir dans l'Union est la conséquence obligée et obligatoire du Brexit" ("the loss of the Financial passport is a mandatory consequence of brexit"). It seems that the price tag of this particular offer is the City.

thejeff wrote:

Well, even without a plan, pushing through the formal invocation of Article 50 would reduce uncertainty.

Actually, it wouldn't. No one would be sure if it "took," or whether anyone right now actually has the authority to do so.

Cameron is the Prime Minister, but he doesn't speak for Parliament-as-a-whole; right now, Parliament is controlled (by a substantial majority) by MPs who have gone on record as favoring Stay. If Cameron tried to invoke Article 50 and then was overruled by Parliament, what's the legal status of the declaration? Uncertainty.

Even if Parliament voted to support an invocation of Article 50, legal experts in the UK are unclear about whether it requires the consent of the devolved regional assemblies. In other words, Scotland may have veto power [Uncertainty] until and unless [Uncertainty] Westminster overrides. (If I were a Welsh MP, I'd certainly not vote for an override, because that essentially neuters the Welsh assembly as well.)

And, while I have tremendous respect for the collected wisdom of this forum, the legal question of what would happen if the UK tried to walk back an Article 50 declaration is not at all clear-cut, especially if it appears that the declaration itself was not made with proper authority. (I mean, yes, I personally could write a declaration to the EU that the UK is withdrawing, but no one would blink if the PM told the appropriate European authorities to disregard that letter. But what happens if the PM makes that statement, and then a later Parliament tells the authorities to disregard the now ex-PM?) Uncertainty.

We are all aware that UK has no written constitution, no clear rules regarding to referendums and few precedents. It's why it's widely assumed that PM Cameron would do what he had said he would do before the vote, that is consider the referendum as binding and activate article 50 ASAP.

Surprise, he didn't and moved the posts ! A maybe wise, and certainly sneaky decision from the point of view of the Leave crowd.

The "scottish veto" is based on a very specific interpretation, but hey, who cares if it can be used as a lifeboat ? ("no, put away the forks and torches, we really wanted to quit EU, it's the bad scottish who wouldn't let us"). Putting the blame on somebody else about european matters for one's own decisions is a deeply ingrained habit...

It's that, or BoJo drinking hemlock (figuratively) by declaring that he didn't really meant all the bad things he said about EU and think that after all, leaving wouldn't be bright. If a Sun editorialist can do it, why not him ?

Not really. Do you really think that anyone would believe a statement from the Foreign Office would settle it? Bear in mind, first, that both major parties are in the middle of leadership disputes. Cameron, in particular, is a dead man walking and will be out before Hallowe'en, and the favorite to replace him (thank you Ladbrookes) is Boris Johnson. Bear in mind as well that the Foreign Office has no decision-making authority whatsoever; it merely represents the view and decisions of HMG to the world at large.

Do you really think that Boris Johnson would consider himself to be bound by a statement issued by Cameron's Foreign Secretary, or even Cameron himself? Of course not! He could, and probably would, repudiate it almost immediately, especially if he had just won the Tory leadership by campaigning on an immediate Brexit. Poof! The not-a-bad-dream was all a bad dream! Like that Doctor Who Christmas special with all the dreams within dreams within dreams! Funny joke, eh?

Turning it around, let's say that Cameron actually invoked Article 50, and then a Stay leader (like Theresa May) won the leadership and whipped Boris back to his kennel. The first thing she would try to do is to revoke...

First, let me state that I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, or to win the Internet. I'm just appalled by such a waste of a cosmic scope, and if I used too strong language and offended you in some way, I apologize. Also, keep in mind that I'm not a native english speaker and could miss some nuances.

That said, you are right pointing out that BoJo wouldn't feel constrained by a simple statement made by Cameron ; he would have to take stronger action to derail Brexit (such as asking for a Parliament vote, maybe ?). For the rest, we seem to talk past each other. For the record, FO secretary seem to go BoJo and Brexit way.

If you want to know, I don't think it is very likely, but I know there is people in UK elsewhere that are toying with the idea of a "bad dream" scenario. My bet is on Brexit, but I don't think that stretching the wait is good for anybody.

An article 50 statement can't be taken back, period. It's written as such.

Yes, Marine Le Pen could win, but it's an endgame proposition. I think France would be better off with a one-mile asteroid impacting Paris. The fallout on EU at large would be more or less the same.

I will now take a step back and a deep breath. Maybe I'm taking all of this too seriously. Have a nice day, Orfamay quest.

Smarnil le couard wrote:

grab down and find a pair (an american expression that sounds so un-british and un-etonian, but nice image).

Did this idiom get lost in translation? "Buckle down and grow a pair" perhaps?

Oops, sorry, it was "reach down your pants and grab a pair". Didn't check it beforehand.

It amused me a lot to employ such rude language about Her Majesty's Government Prime Minister.

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Pun but no disregard intended. The issue will stay murky as long as HMG won't make a clear statement of its intent, between acting on the referendum (out) or ignoring it/asking for a Parliament vote/any other way of circumventing Brexit (in).

Well, yes, the UK --- and England before it -- has a long history of concealing its true intentions in matters diplomatic. So this should be no surprise.

But until and unless it does something, the situation today is no different than the situation from January -- and, for that matter, the situation today with anyone else. Poland or France could very well invoke Article 50 tomorrow,.... so what?

So, while Brexit is still floating around, it's bad for investment (political turmoil is a powerful repellent for money) and it's bad for internal politics of most other EU countries who have their own populist nutcases to shut up.

All of which would be resolved by HMG making up its collective mind. And be a team player, for once, instead of doing evrything to share the misery it called on its own head.

It's not clear to me that Cameron can personally issue a formal declaration. That he can personally invoke Article 50. That needs a vote in Parliament, I believe. Which he could call for, of course.

In one way pushing it off onto the next PM looks like revenge, but in another it seems reasonable. Handing over the implementation to those who actually wanted it to happen. It's certainly good politics. Taking responsibility for the thing your political opponents want to do is rarely a good idea, especially if you think it's going to be painful.

True enough. But it's not about asking him to implement Brexit, just to draw the conséquences of the referendum he himself asked for. As the current PM, he has authority to do so and had announced he would be done at once (before the vote).

UK has no constitution, and there is no written rule or precedent to handle such a referendum. So I guess he could do it by himself, solely on authority of the referendum itself, or ask for a Parliament vote, or whatever else he can think about.

It's just that the house is quite burning, and that he would be nice of him to do something other than waiting for the conservative party pow-wow in october. All that is asked of him is proclaiming the intent of the country he is supposed to lead, to enable negociations (which he could then let the next PM handle). It's a yes/no question, in a time of urgent need.

This won't happen. There is no legal mechanism in the EU for forcing a country out against its will, and introducing one quickly and in a knee-jerk reaction to Brexit would ring alarm bells across Europe, not to mention being tremendously out of character for an organisation that prefers a more measured, careful response to issues. They will instead enact pressure through other means (perhaps a hint of a moderately better deal if we invoke Article 50 sooner). This morning, in fact, they seemed to be saying that they'd be - relatively - happy as long as Article 50 is enacted by the end of this year, two months after when it is being proposed.

Never say never ! It will all dépends on how things turns out in a few months time... The EU is nothing but pragmatic, and the last economical crisis led it to construct on the fly new mechanisms ; even the ECB chose to ignore its own rules to do what was needed. If UK goes out of its collective way to wreck other economies for selfish reasons, nobody will object to its forced exclusion : all in the name of democracy and of the collective will of the british people.

And who said that EU was content to wait ?

As far as I know, Junkers asked for the exit declaration to come "at once", the European Parliament and its president wanted it "as soon as possible" (EDIT: and voted this morning a reolution asking for it "immediately"), and Merkel speaking for all 6 original members of EU saif they were agreed "that no formal or informal negociation about Brexit would take place" as long as HMG didn't declare its intent.

It's the exact opposite of HMG stance, who wanted to negociate first and declare itself later. Niet, said the continent.

A third way of explaining Mr Cameron refusal to issue a formal declaration (despite having said before the vote that he would do so at once) could be that he refuses to personnally assume the responsability of the referendum he asked. Letting the next PM handle the matter could be a way of getting back at his Iago, BoJo. Of course, it can be argued that a continent-wide economical crisis is a harsh price to pay for personal revenge, but hey, politicians can be as insane, immature and mean as any other guy.

The truth is probably a mix between this (a little sweet revenge) and a attempt to put pressure on EU to get a better deal. The bad thing is, the current uncertainty is as devastating to UK that it is to any other EU country.

NEWS Flash : Foreign office has declared that Brexit is a fact and that no second referendum will take place. So long for that hope...

All of this is like a train wreck, all in slow motion.

I do think, though, that there is possibly a different interpretation for Cameron's delay. It's possible that he isn't trying to manipulate the EU, but instead the electorate of the UK. Maybe he thinks that if things go badly for the next few months, the government can say "Look, you were lied to in the run up to the last referendum, you've seen what could happen if we leave. How about we have another vote to check you still want it?" and get a different result...

Your guess is as good as mine. But can we (UK+EU) wait months for him to pull this trick ?

And how will the brexit crowd would react if the PM tries to bury their vote, after having already admitted their victory ? What if the political backlash and general anger leads to another Leave vote ? Economical turmoil is not a fertile ground for well-thought décisions, and the "Elite" denying the people its say on important matters plays exactly in the hands of populists such as UKIP.

In short : if he (PM Cameron) plans to do that, he should and could do it now. Waiting for october will only add to the bill (both in terms of economical damge and loss of goodwill from his EU partners). Of course, to do this he will need some courage and quite a bit of selflessness, but hey, as a politico his goose is already cooked : he will forever be branded as the guy who outdid the Luftwaffe in terms of damage to the City of London !

Smarnil le couard wrote:

las for him and UK, I don't think it would be the sensible thing to do for EU, as it would encourage any and all populists on the continent to go the same way (that is, throw a tantrum and get candies) which would quickly lead to a complete disintegration of the union. There is already talk of ignoring the letter of the article 50 if HMG try to do a slow-motion.

This story has a moral philosophy : be content of what thou have.

If you are saying what I think you are saying...are you talking about stating that Article 50 would be void?

Basically stating that the Overall EU can enforce itself upon the other nations/states of the EU?

That sounds like a dangerous precedent? When that occurred in the US it ended in the bloodiest war the US had ever seen.

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Oh, the drama ! The angst ! Do you seriously consider that UK would first brexit THEN militarily attack all the rest of EU if it doesn't get its way? No kidding ?

I fail to see any relation between this and anything that happened in the USA. You know, you have your specifities and we have ours, and all that happen in Europe doesn't always translate into something that already happened across the Atlantic.

All I'm saying is that if UK aims to use the letter of article 50 to hold hostage all EU, it's not completely impossible that other countries agree to go for the spirit of the text and cut it short. Certainly not tomorrow, but maybe in some months time, especially if the Financial crisis goes deeper and drags all of the continent down.

Getting a clear answer from HMG should not be that long : either they intend to go for brexit according to the referendum, and we can start together on the damage control ; or they plan to ignore it, take some serious political damage at home but cease to rock the european boat for everybody else, which is quite selfish of them.

Nuff' said. The saddest thing is that UK had the best deal of any UE country, and threw it away for bad reasons.

Why the best deal ? Because historically it was hard to get HMG to say yes to anything without a little incentive (between states it's not called a bribe). Along the years, UK hoarded a lot of rebates, preferential conditions and special statuses. The last one allowed it to withdraw british welfare from EU citizens working in UK, while UK citizens working elsewhere in the EU would still get it, for reasons (mostly to satisfy a xenophobic fringe of its electorate).

Even if Brexit-UK got the same favorized partnership as Norway and Iceland (that is, membership in the EEA), it would be worse off than it is now. It's not a punishment, just the normal thing, but it will probably be felt like one.

It seems that Cameron is willing to let all of EU wait for the conservative party congress in october, and the hell with economic conséquences. I guess he hopes to "push" all of us into giving him an even better deal, which would justify a second referendum (or let him just ignore the first one). Alas for him and UK, I don't think it would be the sensible thing to do for EU, as it would encourage any and all populists on the continent to go the same way (that is, throw a tantrum and get candies) which would quickly lead to a complete disintegration of the union. There is already talk of ignoring the letter of the article 50 if HMG try to do a slow-motion.

This story has a moral philosophy : be content of what thou have.

DM Wellard wrote:

Europe is NOT a country and it was the habit of treating it as such adopted by so many EU lawmakers that actually started this sad sorry mess in the first place.

Exactly. The EU was never meant to be an actual nation. But it's been moving further and further towards that, and I sympathize with those that do not want their national identities watered down to the point of non-existence.

Huh, historically, quite the contrary. From the start, the common market was meant by Schumann and its other founders as a way to United Nations of Europe.

One of the big stumbling blocks is that UK and other countries had other ideas when they joined the club, and wished for a purely economic union. It's why EU got stuck in stasis between a trade union and a federation : Euro was meant as a way of pushing toward greater political integration, as a common currency would create the need for an economic common policy... which we still wait for.

Werthead wrote:

In addition, Britain helps pay for a migrant camp in Calais to stop illegal migrants crossing the Channel to Britain. To make that work legally, the border between Britain and France is at the edge of the migrant camp (as a bit of legal busywork to ensure that Britain has to pay for it, not just the French government). France has said that this arrangement - which can be terminated by either side - is no longer in their interest post-Brexit and they could choose to terminate it, which would allow migrants to enter the Channel Tunnel or even legally hitch a lift in vans to the far side at Dover, where a new migrant camp would have to be set up, 100% at the British taxpayer's expense.

Werthead, the agreement (about the border) is the result of a bilateral agreement and won't change, even as a result of Brexit. Here's a link to the relevant story.

The french government has already said that this particular and very controversial treaty will go down the drain, along with UK membership in EU. Not now, but it won't survive brexit.

EDIT : of course, we could reconsider... it will only cost UK Jersey and Guernesey. Barter time ! :)

Honestly, I like what has happened because I can have more time to prepare. Brexit does, indeed, lead to a Donald Trump (or Gary Johnson) win. However, that could last for four years. I know a lot of people disrespect Donald Trump now, but the UK breaking away from the EU is good. It may present some terrible consequences in the short run, but in the long run it will be good for the UK.

Maybe, maybe not : opinions and experts diverge wildly on that topic (with a gloom and dooom dominant theme, though).

@Gorbacz : whatever, it is now a soveriegn decision of the english and welsh people, and it is something to be respected. The comparison with 1933 Germany is somewhat excessive and insulting. If some people voted "leave" and didn't really want to, it was appallingly stupid of them.

Cameron is mainly to blame for the whole mess, as the matter was probably too important and complex to be summarized in a single question...

I don't know. First there was the Croatian War of Independence, in which the newly formed Croatian state fought the rump Yugoslavian state and then there was the involvement, as I recall, of the Albanian state in the Kosovo War.

But it sounds like the answer is that, for a variety of questionable reasons, many (all?) commentators have decided to ignore those wars, whatever name you want to call them, in order to say that the EU has guaranteed peace on the continent.

You are misreading, or people are making the same EU-Europe confusion as you did.

One of the original motivations of EU was to prevent a new war between its member states by sharing ressources and growing trade relations. It's not a magical gizmo generating peace-waves able to prevent war outside of its borders.

Some of the splinter states born from Yugoslavia are now EU members, but it happened AFTER the yugoslavian civil war.

I'm not sure we're really disagreeing. What you said above is pretty close to what I said about the EU not having the motivation, strength, or good will to offer the UK the kind of lifeline that would enable this crisis to be averted at this point.

There's nothing legally that prevents offering the UK even more advantageous "shinies"; as you point out, it would merely be "political suicide" for the politicians to do so. There's also nothing legally that prevents Cameron from saying "Oops, just kidding, wasn't that a good joke?" other than the fact that in the ensuing general election, the Tories would place somewhere behind the Whigs in terms of popular vote -- and, of course, Cameron himself wouldn't be able to get a job in a kebab shop.

So one of the questions is simply "is anyone, on either side, statesman enough to commit suicide for the Greater Good?" (To which the answer is probably, but not certainly, no.)

We are not disagreeing, but you are missing the point. EU is supposed to be to the benefit of everybody, on an equal footing. UK already got a lot in way of rebates, opt-outs, etc. because of previous crises during which it was felt a convenient way to get its agreement on something. Maybe, there is a point where it isn't worth it anymore, and giving away more privileges isn't the solution.

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Balgin wrote:

Treppa wrote:

I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.

Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.

Typical Eu bureaucracy there I'm afraid :(.

Oh no, not at all. A deliberate political decision, to make an exit as strenuous, hazardous and unpractical as possible.

Except it didn't work.

That's not clear yet. HMG is under no obligation actually to leave the EU as a result of the referendum. Cameron could stand up in the Commons tomorrow -- or whenever they next meet -- and say "Sorry, chaps, we finally got around to reading the treaties, and leaving is a REALLY BAD IDEA and I'm just not going to do it."

Of course, he'd almost instantly face a vote of no confidence, and I'm not sure God Himself knows what the outcome of a general election would be under these conditions, but it's no worse than some of the things that have happened in Spain and Italy recently.

There's a possibility that (someone thinks that) now that the UK has painted itself into a corner, the EU may suddenly decide to throw them a lifeline and offer a revised set of treaties that will enable HMG to save face and not demand an exit from the EU (because "conditions have changed since the referendum happened"). Again, this would probably involve the PM falling on his sword and a new general election, but it might preserve the EU.

As I read it, to some extent this has turned into a game of "chicken." The EU still has the power to save the UK from itself by offering the UK new terms for EU membership. And, of course, the UK has the power to save itself from itself by simply ignoring the referendum. I don't think, though, that any of the politicians (on either side) have the motivation (or the strength, or the good will) for it. Which means, as in far too many games of chicken, the result is likely...

I wish, but I really don't think so. EU had already given a lot of shinies to Cameron before the referendum, and it didn't suffice (including the right to withhold welfare for foreign workers in UK, wheras UK workers get it fully in all other countries).

Frankly, there is a time where enough is enough : bending over to offer even more advantageous terms to UK for its membership would be political suicide in most countries. UK has still the 2/3 rebate THatcher got in 84, which was meant to be a five-year thing... if contributing to the european budget only a third of what you should be with your GNP isn't doing the trick, nothing will.

Rogar Valertis wrote:

Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).

Well, apart from the parentheses stuff being a blatant lie, we don't need to do the same to GB. They made themselves irrelevant by voting for the Brexit and no one needs to care about their opinions from now on.

The best they can get is to come in the same position like Suisse or Norway, meaning they have to pay for the right to partake in the european market without having any influence on european dicisions to come.

THAT would be fun, as the countries which are part of the European Economic Area (including Norway) had to accept rules more binding that the ones that UK managed to get (no opt-out, no rebate, nada, zip). That includes Schengen among other brexit-mongerers nightmares.

Swiss is more or less in the same position but through bilateral treaties.

Smarnil le couard wrote:

You have already your answer, as Hollande, Merkel, Renzi and Tusk all asked the UK to settle the brexit "as soon as possible". Maybe UK will get Spain's support, if Gibraltar is thrown in trade...

I've been to Gibraltar; it's just a tiny little spire of a place, with special monkeys and tourist facilities and some nice caves (that nonetheless don't hold a candle to Carlsbad Caverns); what am I missing that would make Spain consider it worth shearing the EU for? Besides the locals are evidently quite keen on remaining British in spite of everything....

It was mostly meant as a joke. That said, Gibraltar voted at 90+ % for remaining in the EU, and Spain already extended an offer to do so as a joint anglo-spanish dominion...

Probably gets frustrating to have a major portion of the world rely on your projection of strength, then mock you for how much you spend on your military.

I wonder what that's like?

Not sure you are on topic, here...

But brexit could be a good thing from your point of view, as UK was placing NATO first and european defence initiatives very far behind.

Currently (World Bank statistics for 2014), USA invest 3.5 % of its GNP in military pursuits. European countries are way behind, with 2.2 % for France (and 2.3 % for Greece, surprisingly), 2 % for UK, 1.9 % for Poland, 1.5 % for Italy ... and only 1.2 % for Germany, Spain, Denmark, etc.).

UK and France would very much like to have more european help to police the african countries where the US army doesn't want to go (no oil, I guess). See, I can do some needling too !

I could also remind you that in 2013, Al Hassad crossed the so-called "red line" and used chemical weapons on its own population... and nothing happened, because at the last moment POTUS chose to ignore all that messy trouble and looked the other way. The pro-democracy opposition got steamrolled, things became desparate for the syrian population... hence ISIS, hence bad things. So, stay assured that we are VERY interested in building our own defense, as the sheriff doesn't always answer the phone, sadly.

Smarnil le couard wrote:

UK and EU have two years (according to the treaties, no more and no less) to nail down a settlement for brexit. A bit short to count on a massive culling of the brexit crowd, isn'it ?

The two years doesn't start until the official notification of intent to leave is given to the EU, so it's likely to be more than that. Not saying it'll be decades, but I wouldn't be expecting us to be leaving on 24th June 2018.

On top of that, if all EU member states agree, the 2 years could be extended.

Personally (and somewhat jokingly), I'm wondering whether Canada would accept the UK as a new province.

You have already your answer, as Hollande, Merkel, Renzi and Tusk all asked the UK to settle the brexit "as soon as possible". Maybe UK will get Spain's support, if Gibraltar is thrown in trade...

Seriously, it's not in the interest of anyone to extend this period of uncertainty any longer than strictly necessary. Maybe PM Johnson will try to diddle away and stretch negociations, but I doubt he will find any help doing so across the Channel. If so, there is always the option of cancelling all EU agreements with UK and going from a blank slate in two years time.

We will trade UK for Québec, any day ! Waffles for everyone !

Welcome back to the Commonwealth, we missed you!

When did they left ?

On the down side, the Commonwealth just lost its main champion and point of entry on the EU market... Maybe it's bad news for Commonwealth too.

The Sword wrote:

I am in the UK and very sad about it.

75% of under 25's wanted to remain.
53% of under 50's wanted to remain.

63% of over 65's wanted to leave.

We have basically been pulled out by retirees that have their great pensions and paid for houses while those having to deal with the ramifications got out voted.

Double cosmic irony... by the time the details of separation are worked out (along with the complications from Scotland and Northern Ireland potentially staying IN the EU)... enough of the people who voted 'leave' will have died off that a majority of those being forced to Brexit will have wanted to stay.

If you are lucky, the process will drag out long enough that another vote can be held before the split happens. Otherwise, Britain is going to leave the EU and immediately have a majority of citizens who want back in.

UK and EU have two years (according to the treaties, no more and no less) to nail down a settlement for brexit. A bit short to count on a massive culling of the brexit crowd, isn'it ?

My closest neighbour is a welsh retiree, who settled in France and opened a little business. With the pound nosediving, he is already economically devastated, and will probably have to close down or get a work permit as any foreigner (which I bet he will get hands down, but it a matter of principle). He had a budding cancer two years ago and got swiftly treated here, because of european health programs ; next time, he would probably have to pay for it or go back to UK.

Globally it's a shameful waste, but for some individuals it's a very direct disaster.

On the positive side, all the agreements that made the french police stop all immigrants at Calais (among other places) on behalf of the UK will go belly up. Maybe that some people who wished for less immigration will be disappointed... Oh the irony ! :)

The EU was originally created to prevent a new war between its members. It has been so successful at this that its people forgot that war in Europe was even a possibility. Hence this result

Note that it succeeded in this by constantly finding compromises between its various members' ideologies. Not by sticking to a single one such as the free trade only or the full political or fiscal union ideas. Even though both have proponents that will tell you that their favorite view was the one that was not implemented strongly enough.

The sad truth is that economical crises breed mistrust which strengthens nationalism and communautarism. Which are prime breeding grounds for war.

What happens next ? I expect intense diplomatic activity spearheaded by France and Germany to prevent rocking the EU boat even further. And then designing a special status for the UK so that economically speaking things stay mostly the same while it will officially not be part of the EU anymore. Which should not be that difficult considering the many exceptions it already benefited from

So bad news, real possibility of yet another financial crisis, but not the end of the world. Not yet

EU was and is still torn apart between two visions : a federalist one, and a pureley economic one, so far spearheaded by UK. Most of the sand in the wheels came from that basic divergence, as UK opposed anything giving more control and power to the UE and promoted a wider UE (more and more members) by opposition to a deeper UE (more powers, closer to a central government). It also asked for and got a lot of privileges and exemptions (I remember Mrs Thatcher declaring "she wanted her money back" at the Dublin summit and getting a cut, just so she didn't veto the whole Euro treaty for the other countries). It didn't work out for anybody in the long run. At least, things are clearer now : they had only one foot on the continent, they chose to get it back.

Not sure about the compromise part, alas. It can be argued that the vested interest of UE is now that the brexit doesn't go well for UK, to discourage others to do exactly the same. If you could have all the advantages of UE and none of the rules just by breaking off, what would be the point of staying ? My bet is on a full return of customs rules for UK, just the same as any foreign country.

To be precise, the present "state of urgency" (état d'urgence) is quite small potatoes. More stringent gun control (permits can be revoked), expulsion of troublemaking foreigners (already possible, just speedier), possibility of curfew (but none put in place)...

The change to the constitution would be (no details yet) to extend some military powers reserved for time of war to the current situation. Or it could be pure motivation speech, pep talk, as the president is already chief of all armed forces and use them at his discretion under parlementary control.

It's first and foremost a show of national unity. They didn't decide anything today, President Hollande just made a speech about what he intended to do in the next months (strike Daesh, a three months state of urgency, what I said before).

It quelled the people who were clamoring for more security, as if it could change anything and prevent kamikazes from blowing themselves up with homemade explosives.

Nota bene : a state of urgency can be put in place by presidential decree for twelve days only : extending it is only possible with a parliament vote.

To bar entry to one guy in ten thousand (who would enter anyway, as he doesn't really care about legal niceties and has the backing of a terrorist organization), you would leave 9999 to the tender mercies of Daesh ? Hell, no !

To be precise, the present "state of urgency" (état d'urgence) is quite small potatoes. More stringent gun control (permits can be revoked), expulsion of troublemaking foreigners (already possible, just speedier), possibility of curfew (but none put in place)...

The change to the constitution would be (no details yet) to extend some military powers reserved for time of war to the current situation. Or it could be pure motivation speech, pep talk, as the president is already chief of all armed forces and use them at his discretion under parlementary control.

Hi. I don't know if they made press overseas, but last friday wasn't by far the first alert since the Charlie shootings in January.

Let' see... We had a guy who planned a shooting in a church, killed first a woman without clear reasons, ended up shooting himself into the foot and got arrested while seeking medical assistance in an hospital. Then another guy (a delivery man) decapitated his boss and put his head on a fence pike (litterally) before trying unsuccesfully to cause an explosion in a chemical plant. And of course the recent case of the Thalys train where american soldiers shined. More got arrested before getting really started. Basically, they were young morons with guns and a cause.

And it's only the cases that the public know of. The government explicitely stated that there were others, kept under wraps for security reasons.

So, they got lucky this time, but it's definetly not a surprise : for months we have been told that a new strike wasn't an "if" question, but a "when" one.

The probable official reaction is that we will continue to the Syria strikes and see who will win the race and bomb the other into oblivion : DAESH/ISIS or the rest of the world ?

The common people will react the same way as in January, by closing ranks and go on as usual, as a big up-finger to the bad guys who want to sow fear everywhere. It's quite impossible to stop kamikaze attacks in an open society, and becoming a police state isn't really our cup of tea.

Of course the nutjobs and far-right will ask exactely that, more security and less scapegoats-of-the-week.

@Stebehil : I'm not sure what you meant by "trying to undestand the conflict"... Strikes in Iraq and Syria began (last year and last september, respectively) because of bombings and threats, not the other way around. Furthermore, discussing with ISIS isn't a real option. For peace talks, you need in face of you someone who is willing to play nice and let you live the way you want, not a totalitarian crackpot unwilling to accept any point of view but his own. Tried in Munich in 33, didn't work at all.

For my part, I consider it's included in the DC 15 Heal check to stabilize someone.

I do not roll for stabilization until someone bother to check on the state of health of their fallen friend, I just count the time elapsed. It's only when someone remember to play medic that the fallen PC is allowed to roll N times to see if he managed to stabilize himself or died from exsanguination.

Same thing in case of magical healing : when the cure is applied we roll to see how far below the character went.

The only exception is an ongoing Status spell, which gives real time info on the matter.

This way, we entirely avoid metagame thinking ("no need to check on him, he rolled a 20 !"). A downed PC is still seen as an emergency, as no one (including the player) knows how he fares.

Maybe I am an extreme outlier. Even so based on the first survey people who have to drive 70 miles plus aren't an insignificant part of the car driving population. Being told that I don't count because all of my job options pay too little to live in same city that I work is still pretty s%+*ty. It also doesn't help if you have the occasional day where you need to travel significantly further than normal, and just not bein abel to at all because your car can't make it would be a really awful situation. I'd vastly prefer a model that can make it as far as a gasoline car can on one tank of gas before needing to recharge or at least take me between major cities in the midwest. Getting from Lincoln to Omaha is rather important to me and 12ish miles isn't a whole lot of spare change for getting around both cities.

Hi! Of course, you count. Nobody said otherwise. It's just that at the moment, in the current state of EV technology, they are not the best choice for you (except maybe the Tesla model S, if you have got the cash).

Nobody will force you to buy an EV if you don't want to...

I'm going to ask you something... Do you have proof from within their text that their goal is not elimination?

What you ask is called "negative proof", and is by hypothesis impossible.

Nobody can "prove" that the IPCC has no hidden agenda. Even if its text stated "we have no agenda, promise !", you wouldn't believe it.

That's why the burden of the proof usually belongs to the claimant : prove us that the IPCC really want more that it says it wants, that is transport mitigation.

As for it being only in my mind: Norway, UK Democrats, and Scotland all seem to agree.

So, some mayors/politicos ask for ban = IPCC wanted it all along ? <head explosion>

How does something Mr A did for various reasons (local pollution, pleasing his electorate, whatever) translates into "so you see it was Mr B plan from the start" ?

As for the report, here's what they say clear up at the top:

"Without aggressive and sustained mitigation policies being implemented, tr ansport emissions could increase at a faster rate than emissions from the o ther energy end‐use sector and reach around 12 Gt CO2eq/yr by 2050."

Not my words. Their's. Now, what's one of the four things they suggest to do?

"reducing carbon intensity of fuels (CO2eq/MJ) – by substituting oil‐based  products with natural gas, bio-methane, or biofuels, electricity or hydroge n produced from low GHG sources ."

Reducing isnt't eliminating. Period. Their words, not mine, not yours, written plainly for all to see.

IMHO, you are simply reading things that aren't there.

And how a government could entice people to drive EV instead of IC? Simple : make them cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate.

They are a blast in Norway (10 % of sales !) because they were made VAT-free. It's starting to take hold in France because of fiscal advantages too : gas-hungry cars pay a tax which serve to subsidize the more efficient ones (a zero-sum system).

It also means a breakdown of immigration and general overland travel, which means that communities will become more isolated from each other. Enough traffic does flow that distance often enough that a significant percentage of modern society, including the modern economy, depends on it. Removing that capacity is going to negatively impact just about every community in the United States, completely isolate quite a few, and cause massive economic damage across the entire nation. Not to mention the potential negative impacts it will have on business and the job market as employers find themselves constrained in where their employees can live.

Blatant strawman alert ! As if electric cars would replace all the thermic ones...

The point is using the most efficient means of travel for your transportation needs. That is, EV for commuting and local travel, thermic ones for cargo hauling, long range travels and so.

Nobody will remove your gas-guzzling car's driving wheel from your dead cold hands ! <wink, wink>

@Caineach : the energy mix is a real factor. Here, the fossil fuel represent only something like 10 % of electricity production, but I realize it can be much more elsewhere. Depends also on the quality of your power grid. Studies have been made, and tend to show a positive result though.

No surprise here : locally produced EV cars running on locally produced electricity can't do much worse than thermic ones running on imported gas.

For the record, we are grateful for all the help we got from anybody, including the aussies fighting along the brits.

Just take a serious look at the giant comemorating ceremonies coming for the 70th anniversary of D-Day if you want a proof.

BUT, having a good memory and being grateful doesn't mean that the USA get a free ride for everything. "Old Europa" does remember the Bush administration too.

(and also, historically, the first ones to turn the nazi tide were the russians, not the americans. Operation Torch in 1942 wasn't a big success in that instance).

In France, you usually hug very close friends (of the same sex) and kiss all other people in informal circimstances.

Handshakes for strangers, first meetings and business occasions.

Ah, and the number of kisses (on the cheek) varies wildly from a place to another. Here is a link to an Internet site used to determine the proper number of kisses to bestow on people you meet when abroad.

Speaking of Cuba, here is a reminder of why the US government should cut on the false indignation and outrage when some other country refuse to aknowledge its extradition demands : Luis Posada.

Here is a full blown terrorist, guilty of dozens of civilians deaths (the most emblematic being the bombing of Cubana Flight 455, 78 victims) who currently is living in Miami despite the fact that various foreign countries actively and continuously ask for his extradition.

But hey, he was a CIA agent ! How can't they see the obvious difference ?

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I support hanging Blair, too.

Is there anybody who you would be against hanging?

Bush Jr. I believe I recall Anklebiter saying that he should be quartered, instead of hanged.

"The Pope, how many divisions ?" (out of context citation)

Keep cool, the brits will keep the Falklands for the time being (until someone stronger take them, the same way they became part of the british empire in the first place).

Seriously, have you nothing else to worry about ?

Off course the fact that 99% of the Falklands population just voted to stay British will be ignored..after all that was a democratic process.

And of course, as argentinians were ousted and therefore didn't vote, the result is quite surprising. <wink, wink>

99 % of british settlers are pro-UK, really ? Not 100 % ?

You are all millionnaires. Just depends of the currency you are using, duh !