Forethat

February 19, 2020

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

England will be bankrupt when Scotland leaves. Scotland will do just fine. We will keep free prescriptions and education and our NHS.

Currency? We better start our own because the pound will be trading on par with the Zimbabwean dollar after we leave.

Pretty sure the EU will welcome us back in no problem. After all we will have got rid of the English nationalists and will be a progressive nation not North Korea by the Thames.

February 13, 2020

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Just as what you think bears no weight at all and certainly has no relevance as far as I am concerned.

As such it has no impact whatsoever upon my thinking.

Well, how fitting then that I haven't declared my viewpoint.

What I DID declare was the legal positioning, as dictated by the United Nations (and in case you wonder, they are the authority in this case).

Not me. Not you. The United Nations. UN.

You just have to suck it up.

February 13, 2020

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

There should be and I would have no problem with any government I was governed by spending money on those fleeing violence and poverty.

Poverty is not a valid reason for asylum.

February 13, 2020

The question here, is who decides what constitutes "harmful"....?

Disturbing, to say the very least.

February 12, 2020

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You did say:

Hogwash, as numerous people climbing out of shipping containers and declaring their intent to seek asylum have demonstrated.

Yes, at that point they become asylum seekers. That's my whole point. You should try read my posts, for a change, before firing up your confrontational argument machine.

The difference between US and the UK, from a legal perspective (as I have tried to point out), is that in the US a person is by definition NOT an illegal immigrant if they cross the border with the intention (there's a grey area right there...) to seek asylum. In the UK THEY ARE illegal until they seek asylum. In your example above they did exactly that.

Your failure to recognise the difference between entering a country illegally in combination with intention to seek asylum and to seek asylum is rather humorous. But trust me, those are two different things.

There's an obvious reason why the status is important (I'm sure you have absolutely no clue what that might be), but let's leave it there.

February 12, 2020

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are not sure how it works in the UK either:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: Section 31.

I might not have explained this clearly enough. It is the definition of your status at the point of crossing the border illegally I refer to, not the legal position once you have seeked asylum (you're an asylum seeker in both cases). In the US you are by definition allowed to cross the border illegally if your intention is to seek asylum. In the UK you are not. Once you HAVE seeked asylum it's a different matter.

February 12, 2020

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yup, so a person entering to seek asylum has not broken the law.

Don't actually know how that works in the US. In the UK you are an illegal immigrant if you enter illegally. Intention to seek asylum is overruled.

Personally, I'm not sure I agree with that approach, but that's the legal position and I don't see that changing any time soon.

February 12, 2020

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Please answer the following (I’ll keep it simple):

If somebody enters the US to claim asylum, which law have they broken?

In simple terms...

If you cross the border without the correct paperwork - you are an illegal immigrant and have broken the immigrations laws. Until you seek asylum. Then you are an asylum seeker.
If you show up at the border and seek asylum - you are an asylum seeker.

February 12, 2020

3 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/research-shows-3-day-median-incubation-period-for-coronavirus

I didn't see the medrxiv link there.

Thanks. I found the paper. Pre-peer reviewed, but still incredibly interesting.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.06.20020974v1

February 12, 2020

4 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Wuhan started early in January/late December. Others are still brewing. The incubation time is now thought to be up to 24 days. It's just starting.

Do you have a link to a reliable source where the 24 days incubation can be confirmed?

February 11, 2020

6 hours ago, Expat Brad said:

Exactly..... Oh Dear!!! over 800 global deaths and exceeded SARS 770.

This is hardly the end of mankind is it.

But, it's making and gonna be making certain people billions!!!

This is a SCAM an evil one at that!!!

Obviously there are those who claim that the deaths are grossly understated. In case those people are right we can safely assume that this will have far bigger impact on the world economy than anything seen before. Especially if they need to take extreme measures to control a pandemic.

Quote

Exiled Chinese businessman Guo Wengui recently revealed leaks from Wuhan crematoriums. He claims based on the number of bodies their furnaces are burning, the death toll could be as high as 50,000.

https://www.ccn.com/billionaire-whistleblower-wuhan-coronavirus-death-toll-is-over-50000/

February 11, 2020

3 hours ago, Proboscis said:

Actually incorrect. While SARS may have been more infectious among a particular ethnic group, such as the Chinese, it does not follow that another virus, whether of the same structure or different, would behave in the same manner. There is currently no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.

To clarify: I confirmed the notion that there is scientific evidence that particular genes were associated with susceptibility for SARS-coronavirus. Nothing else.

February 10, 2020

26 minutes ago, Salerno said:

There was a video posted on another thread in the past few days about this that had a rolling list of ethnicity from highest to lowest at risk. From memory Chinese at the top followed by other Asians (Japanese maybe 2nd) so it looks like they lucked out with corona viruses. A sad tangential outcome of this is, IMO, it gives bigots/racists something to twist into their narrative.

"The perfect storm", if you ask me.

February 10, 2020

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

I vaguely remember that after the SARS scare was over, I read something that said the death rate was disproportionately higher among Chinese.   I believe the infection rate was higher as well.   This was about people in Canada who were infected.

It seems that when exposed, Chinese were more likely to actually catch the virus and more likely to die than were other ethnic groups.   I don't know if that was explored further to determine if it was true for specifically Chinese or whether it was broader and included other Asian groups.

This corona virus has been in a number of other countries and it has not caught hold anywhere near the way it has in China and although there are precautions being taken, most infectious diseases sneak through better than this one has.

Considering the extreme measures that China has taken and the continued spread in China, I wonder if, as an ethnic group, the Chinese are more susceptible to the virus?

Correct.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19590927

February 7, 2020

27 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I think you missed the point. Most of the stuff you import to England from Scotland is stuff you can't get anywhere else.

Scotland is the only country in the UK which has a trade surplus not deficit.

I guess you're prepared to ignore facts, but you know that last statement of yours? That was complete hogwash.

https://www.scotfact.com/trade-balance-historical

February 7, 2020

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Yes and if you opened a convenience store you would think it was a good idea to ban half your customers and try and get your goods from a wholesaler thousands of miles away rather than the one next door.

Yes, that's the EU principle. Thanks for pointing it out.

February 7, 2020

2 minutes ago, samran said:

Ah, okay gotchya.

So dumping your most natural, closest and seamless trading links with the EU (which via you had trade access to other FTAs - eg EU-Canada - where your combined negotiating power gave you access countries that Australia could have ever dreamed of) is the way to go, so you can venture off to negotiate a bunch of half arsed and partial 'free' trade agreements with countries on the other side of the world.

Australia had no choice but to go far and wide. You did. But it is a choice, and it has been made.

It's a free world. Judging by YOUR principles I could open a convenience store across the street from where you live and then blame you for making "half arsed and partial decision" when you head down to Tesco's for groceries.

But keep chasing your windmills, I think you're doing a great job at that.

February 7, 2020

1 minute ago, samran said:

Didn't realise Beijing, Tokyo, Washington DC or Santiago were our next door neighbours. And you are asking me to look at a map?

Exactly. That was my whole point. Perhaps read up on the comments before firing up the arguing machine? I'll help you out:

In case it's unclear (apparently it is), my opinion is that you can trade regardless of geographical separation. Judging by the Australian free trade agreements, the people of Australia agree. Apparently, @CliffH disagrees.

February 7, 2020

1 minute ago, samran said:

Feeling out in the cold a bit are we?

Free trade agreements in force

The following are Australia’s free trade agreements (listed with the entry into force date):

Australia–New Zealand (ANZCERTA or CER) — 1 January 1983

Singapore–Australia (SAFTA) — 28 July 2003

Australia–United States (AUSFTA) — 1 January 2005

Thailand–Australia (TAFTA) — 1 January 2005

Australia–Chile (AClFTA) — 6 March 2009

ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand (AANZFTA) — 1 January 2010 for eight countries: Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Burma, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam. For Thailand: 12 March 2010. For Laos: 1 January 2011. For Cambodia: 4 January 2011. For Indonesia: 10 January 2012

Malaysia–Australia (MAFTA) — 1 January 2013

Korea–Australia (KAFTA) — 12 December 2014

Japan–Australia (JAEPA) — 15 January 2015

China–Australia (ChAFTA) — 20 December 2015

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) — 30 December 2018

Australia – Hong Kong (A-HKFTA) – 17 January 2020

Peru-Australia (PAFTA) — 11 February 2020

https://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/Pages/free-trade-agreements-in-force.aspx

Would you be OK if I asked you to have a look at a map before entering a discussion involving your next door neighbours?

February 7, 2020

3 hours ago, CliffH said:

Trade with nations on the other side of the world rather than ones next door. Certainly makes a lot of (Brexit) sense.

I hate to be the one to deliver the bad news, but Australia would be a pretty miserable and lonely country (from a trading perspective) if trading was only to be performed with next door neighbours...

February 6, 2020

1 hour ago, samran said:

So the grovel tour of Australia begins. All that is missing is a cap in hand.

For any FTA to be worthwhile access for beef and lamb are probably going to be high up the Australian negotiating list.

I bet the Welsh farmers are going to love that.

How about the Australian farmers?

February 3, 2020

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you sincerely believe that to be the case then you perhaps ought to take a more critical look at the government handing itself draconian powers.

Most would argue that Draconian Powers is by definition exactly what we've freed ourselves from...

February 3, 2020

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As much as I’d like to take credit, I shall not:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/J-curve-hypothesis

You're telling me you read that and STILL don't understand why the UK voters told the EU-elite to take their little federal-state-to-be-club and shove it where the sun doesn't shine?

February 1, 2020

11 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Our beers are not that bad, so is our chocolate.

And as a Belgian pensioner, I am pleased with my monthly 2300 Euro net (Not exceptional in Belgium).

Awesome beers. Awesome!

February 1, 2020

7 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Well, actually not... UK has left the EU -- not the Council of Europe... which they remain a member and which the flag originates from.

"The Council of Europe is an entirely separate body from the European Union. It is not controlled by it. Cooperation between the European Union and the Council of Europe has recently been reinforced, notably on culture and education as well as on the international enforcement of justice and Human Rights."

So the Council of Europe didn't lobby for other European organisations to adopt the flag as a sign of European unity...?

Do you actually read other posts or do you just make it up as you go along?

Profiles

Forums

Downloads

Posts posted by Forethat

Free trade agreements in force