horsefly

I've heard that normal subtitles will be too difficult for them, so they have hired the guys from Sesame Street to explain them

First, what has this got to do with Brexit? Second, there are significant people in the military who are concerned about it too. If you had bothered to read the whole article (which you clearly haven't) you would have noticed the following: "The bill itself has also been criticised by some senior military figures including General Sir Nicholas Parker Commander in Chief, Land Forces 2010-2012. He said he was worried the bill would risk the UK being perceived as "setting double standards". War crimes don't suddenly disappear after a 5 year time lapse. Or do you think all the Na*i war criminals should have been absolved in 1950?

What a shame for you that the reality is that before the threat of Brexit London was well ahead of NY: https://www.theweek.co.uk/101446/new-york-overtakes-london-as-world-s-financial-capital New York has superseded London as the pre-eminent global financial capital because of turmoil caused by Brexit, leading financial services executives have said in a survey. Consultancy firm Duff & Phelps released its 2019 Global Regulatory Outlook survey yesterday, having asked 183 leaders in private equity, hedge funds, asset management, brokerage, banking, and policy/government their opinion on the location of the world’s top financial centre. As CNBC reports “London and New York switched places in the ranking from 2018, with 52% of respondents choosing New York as the globe’s financial hub, while 36% chose London. Last year, 42% chose New York and 53% chose London.” “Last year, Brexit cast a shadow of uncertainty over the United Kingdom’s economy; it has now escalated to a full-blown crisis,” the report said. (etc ,etc. Please read the whole article at the link) And the present reality of the failing negotiations is: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/jp-morgan-switches-200bn-to-germany-before-brexit-fallout-gl290n6v0 JP Morgan switches €200bn to Germany before Brexit fallout JP Morgan is transferring about €200 billion (£184 billion) from Britain to Germany as it prepares for Brexit, it was reported yesterday. The transfer of assets, which is due to be completed before the end of the year, will make the US bank one of the largest in Germany based on the size of its balance sheet, Bloomberg News said. JP Morgan, valued at $290 billion, is America’s largest bank and has a history in the UK dating back to the mid-1800s. London is its headquarters in Europe, the Middle East and Africa and it also has offices in Bournemouth, Glasgow and Edinburgh. International banks in London are boosting their European operations as the prospect fades for an accord on financial services between Britain and ..." Sit back and watch many more follow. Oh! and do please provide us with a reference or link to your cut and paste (wouldn't be Brexit factsfortw*ts by any chance?)

F**k Knows. Certainly not claimed in the originally loony rant. Only someone seriously lacking basic cognitive ability could think Starmer would say this. The man needs some remedial help.

This is not from the labour leader ****-for-brains. You need to cite the real website from which you cut and paste this, otherwise you are committing plagiarism. I'll do it for you again: https://getbritainout.org/how-the-withdrawal-agreement-could-pull-us-back-into-the-eu/ You, and the idiots who originally posted this really are Brexsh*t buffoons in chief. You say: "DESPITE BRUSSELS stating time and again the Withdrawal Agreement cannot be reopened to changes, the European Union has proposed its own amendments to the treaty" Then you say: "There is an operational function written into the Withdrawal Agreement which enables either side to propose amendments to the Treaty" Duh!!! ffs can't even you (with your admittedly limited intellectual capacities) see that the second statement completely negates the first. Under the WA each side is able to propose amendments. But that's not what Johnson is doing DFB, he's proposing to break the agreement altogether and thereby break international law. Do at least try to understand the difference. All you do with each of the posts you submit is confirm to all of us that Brexiteers really are as dumb as we thought

From the Financial Times: France has dismissed this week’s dire British warnings about post-Brexit transport delays across the Channel as tactical posturing and warned that the EU would not yield to “intimidation” to reach an agreement on the future relationship between the two sides. “Of course the signals that have been sent in the past few days are damaging,” said France’s Europe minister Clément Beaune, portraying as a likely deal-breaker the draft UK law undermining key parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement signed by Boris Johnson in January. “Anything which disrupts, disturbs or increases tensions in the negotiations is regrettable and we won’t fall for a kind of intimidation at the European level,” Mr Beaune, a confidant of President Emmanuel Macron and co-architect of his Europe policy, told the Financial Times. Asked about statements from Michael Gove, the UK cabinet minister responsible for Brexit implementation, about access permits for international lorries to enter the county of Kent and the likelihood of queues of up to 7,000 vehicles waiting to cross the Channel, Mr Beaune said he saw them as a way of putting pressure on the Europeans. “It won’t work,” he said. “So let’s not waste time with these unfortunate tactical games and let’s negotiate fairly.” French officials and executives who do business with the UK are aghast at the British government’s attempt to rewrite an international treaty signed less than a year ago after fraught negotiations. They are also baffled by the UK’s apparent lack of technical preparation for new customs arrangements that will apply from January 1, whether or not there is an outline agreement on the future relationship. Mr Beaune said France and the EU were keen to reach a deal, but he reiterated that it would not be possible to grant the UK broad access to the EU market unless it agreed to respect the bloc’s health and environmental rules and restrictions on state aid for companies so as to ensure a “level playing field”. Doesn't quite sound like they're ready to cave in SwindleCanary (Do reveal your source that says otherwise). And would you like to tell us why it is in the interests of the UK population to accept lower standards for health and environmental rules?

I guarantee they all know how to use a spell checker.

We all know that Brexsh*teers end up contradicting themselves at some point in their rantings, but to manage it within the confines of a single sentence takes real dedication to stupidity and linguistic incompetence. Bravo!

I think NFN NC is spot on, you really must be: "smashing face repeatedly into keyboard then pressing 'submit reply' " You really must try giving that old motto, "Think before you speak" a go. You don't even have to do both at the same time, which would clearly be beyond your capacity.

Oh dear! The EU has a very large number of free trade agreements in place (WTO rules will only apply to their trading with the UK). The UK will have to renegotiate all of these that follow in the chart below. But you can at least tick Japan off this list (0.07% of our GDP). Trade agreements in force[edit] State Signed Provisional Application In Force Notes Relations Akrotiri and Dhekelia 2003 2004[3] Customs union Albania 2006 2006[a] 2009[4] SAA Negotiating for EU accession Algeria 2002 2005[5] Euro-mediterranean AA Andorra 1990 1991[6] Customs union Andorra–EU relations Bosnia and Herzegovina 2008 2008[a] 2015[7] SAA Potential candidate for EU accession Chile 2002 2003 2005[8] AA[9] Egypt 2001 2004[10] Euro-mediterranean AA Faroe Islands 1996 1997[11] Autonomous entity of Denmark Faroe Islands-EU relations Georgia 2014 2014 2016[12] AA incl DCFTA Georgia–EU relations Bailiwick of Guernsey 1972 1973[13] Customs union Iceland 1992 1994[14] EEA Iceland–EU relations Isle of Man 1972 1973[13] Customs union Israel 1995 1996[a][15] 2000[16] Euro-Mediterranean AA Israel–EU relations Japan 2018[17] 2019[18] Economic Partnership Agreement [19] Japan-EU relations Bailiwick of Jersey 1972 1973[13] Customs union Jordan 1997 2002[20] Euro-Mediterranean AA Jordan–EU relations Kosovo 2015 2016[21] SAA Potential candidate for EU accession Lebanon 2002 2006[22] Euro-Mediterranean AA Lebanon–EU relations Liechtenstein 1992 1995[14] EEA Liechtenstein–EU relations Mexico 1997 2000[23] FTA[24][25] Mexico–EU relations Moldova 2014 2014 2016[26] AA incl DCFTA Moldova–EU relations Monaco 1958 Franco-Monegasque Treaty (customs union) Montenegro 2007 2008[a] 2010[27] SAA Negotiating for EU accession Morocco 1996 2000[28] Euro-Mediterranean AA Morocco–EU relations North Macedonia 2001 2001[a] 2004[29] SAA Negotiating for EU accession Norway 1992 1994[14] EEA Norway–EU relations EU's Overseas Countries and Territories 2001 2001[30][31] Association of the OCTs with the EU Palestinian Authority 1997 1997[32] Euro-Mediterranean AA Palestine–EU relations San Marino 1991 1992 2002[33] Customs union San Marino–EU relations Serbia 2008 2010[a] 2013[34] SAA Negotiating for EU accession Singapore 2018[35] 2019[36] FTA[37] South Africa 1999 2000[38] 2004[39] ATDC[c] South Africa–EU relations South Korea 2010 2011 2015[40] FTA[41] South Korea–EU relations Switzerland 1972 1973[42] Trade agreement Switzerland–EU relations Tunisia 1995 1998[43] Euro-Mediterranean AA Turkey 1995[d] 1995[44] Customs union EU–Turkey relations United Kingdom 2020[45] 2020 Transitional arrangement until 31 December 2020 UK–EU relations Ukraine 2014 2016 2017[46][47] AA incl DCFTA Ukraine–EU relations Vietnam 2019 2020[48] Free Trade Agreement[49] Vietnam–European Union relations Agreements provisionally applied[edit] Signed Provisional Application Ratification Notes Relations CARIFORUM States 2008 2008 35 / 44 [50] EPA - Croatia acceded to the agreement on 28 November 2017 Eastern and Southern Africa States Comoros Madagascar Mauritius Seychelles Zambia[51] Zimbabwe 2009 2012, 2019 5 / 35 [52] Interim Agreement for establishing a framework for an EPA Central America Costa Rica Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama El Salvador 2012 2013 32 / 34 [53] AA Côte d'Ivoire 2009 2016 22 / 30 [54] Stepping Stone EPA Colombia Peru 2012[55] 2013 28 / 30 [56] FTA[57] Cameroon 2009 2014 21 / 30 [58] Interim agreement with a view to an EPA Pacific States Fiji Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands 2009 2009, 2014, 2018, 2020 4 / 5 [59] Interim Partnership Agreement South African Development Community members Botswana Lesotho Mozambique Namibia South Africa Swaziland 2016 2016 16 / 35 [60] Economic Partnership Agreement Ghana 2016 2016[61] 7 / 30 [61] Stepping Stone EPA Ecuador 2016[62] 2017[63] 26 / 32 [64] Accession to EU-Peru-Colombia Free Trade Agreement[65] Canada 2016 2017[66] 15 / 30 [67] Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement[68] Agreements signed (awaiting application)[edit] Agreements finalised (negotiations concluded, but not signed)[edit] Negotiations Concluded Signed Provisional Application Ratification Notes West Africa Benin Burkina Faso Cabo Verde Côte d'Ivoire Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Liberia Mali Mauritania Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Togo 6 February 2014 Signed by 15 out of 16 West African partner countries and the EU[69] Economic Partnership Agreement[70][71] Eastern African Community members Burundi Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Uganda 16 October 2014 Signed by 2 out of 5 East African partner countries and the EU[72] Ratified by Rwanda and Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement[73] Mercosur Argentina Brazil Paraguay Uruguay 28 June 2019[74] No European Union–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement. Part of an Association Agreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements#:~:text=The European Union negotiates free trade deals on,has an "exclusive competence" to conclude trade agreements. Good luck you Brexsh*t buffoons!

Do tell us what this has to do with the utter F***up of the current Brexsh*t negotiations. You wouldn't be trying to distract attention from that by any chance

yep! looks like Barca are using Aarons in the same way that Liverpool used Lewis to get their real target for a cheaper price.

Barca have agreed a deal for Dest. looks like Aarons interest is over. Maybe Bayern will come in for him.

So deluded, but if that keeps you happy so be it. We certainly don't agree and the fact that you might think that demonstrates your lack of understanding. I understand the statistics you don't . The NHS accept these stats, the government accept these stats but you don't (perhaps you might think about that).

Read my whole statement accurately and you will see there is absolutely no contradiction in my position. If it helps you out let me amend the first statement that you have taken out of context to the following: "No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions other than they would not have died (of those underlying conditions)at the moment they did if they had not caught Covid-19." In other words Covid-19 killed them, and we do not speculate at all how long they would have survived with their underlying conditions if it had not. No doubt future studies utilising statistical analysis will seek to do just that, but this set of statistics doesn't. If this isn't clear enough for you then I'm afraid I do not know how to make it any simpler.

YES! exactly! if they had not got Covid-19 they were not expected to die from those underlying conditions at the point at which they died. That is why the doctor concerned records the death as caused by Covid-19. I think you're missing the point that a doctor's recording of death is an indexical statement. It rightly makes no reference to what they might have died of later if they hadn't died of Covid-19 (just think about this for a moment and you will see that it would be absurd to do so)

I have already dealt with this earlier, for e.g. "We are all expected to die of old age at some indeterminate point in the future but if you get run over by a bus this afternoon it will be the injuries thus caused that kill you not old age. And if old age was destined to kill you precisely 1 second after you were actually killed by your bus accident injuries, it will still be those injuries that killed you not old age." No one is claiming anything at all about the life-expectancy of those with underlying conditions. The statistics do not attempt in any way to do this. Thus your examples do not in anyway shape or form undermine the fact that they record circa 29,000 deaths from Covid-19. They are entirely consistent with accepting the point of your examples, because of this.

I see your point now. Certainly the statistics in the chart we are considering do not deal with such cases

Thanks for the apology, but it's not that I just "think" you misrepresented me, it's that you "actually" misrepresent my claim. And I'm afraid you are continuing to misrepresent the statistics shown in the chart. You say: "your point as I understood it was that nobody was expected to die of anything else if they hadn’t caught covid. The point is that you cannot possibly know that from the data in Jools’ chart. It doesn’t give you any information on the severity of the other conditions. It doesn’t tell you whether they might have died a day later from something else. If covid is the thing that finally stopped the organs from working, it doesnt mean that whatever else they had wouldn’t have stopped their organs from working a week later." The point is that the statistics are not remotely attempting to make such claims and I certainly don't either (just re-read my contributions). It is not the point of the statistics to make any sort of claims about the life-expectancy of the individuals recorded as a result of their underlying conditions. The statistics simply record that the individual died from the effects of Covid-19. That's it, period.

Sorry but I just don't get what your trying to say here or what is supposed to be its significance

I appreciate your effort to explain yourself but I'm afraid you're still making a fundamental mistake. I think the best way to demonstrate this is as follows: You said: "Horsefly’s initial post stated nobody who died with covid on the death certificate was expected to die from anything else." Now let's look at what I actually said: "They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus." By NOT quoting me accurately and missing out the crucial conditional "...if they had not caught the virus..." you radically misrepresent the point I made and thus confuse the statistics. The point is they were not expected to have died from the effects of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus. Thus in the example I presented, the individual was not expected to die from angina, and while the angina contributed by making it harder for him to recover from Covid-19, it was the Covid-19 that killed him and not the angina. If he had not had Covid-19 he would not have died. That is why the doctor correctly recorded the death as caused by Covid_19 and not angina.

Perhaps the easiest way to grasp it is think from the perspective of the doctor filling in the death certificate. She is effectively saying that if the patient had not contracted Covid-19 then she wouldn't have died (i.e. Covid-19 killed her). It's worth remembering that death certificates are a legal document and filling them in falsely can result it severe punishment.

so you don't have an answer then?

Sorry but you really are being quite silly now. I'm not sure whether you are just trying to be provocative or genuinely don't understand how to read health statistics. You say "if they make no prediction about the potential longevity of the patient concerned, how do you know they weren’t expected to die from their underlying health conditions?". Whether they were expected to die from their underlying conditions or not is utterly irrelevant. The relevant point is that it was Covid-19 that killed them. I really fail to see what is so hard to grasp here. We are all expected to die of old age at some indeterminate point in the future but if you get run over by a bus this afternoon it will be the injuries thus caused that kill you not old age. And if old age was destined to kill you precisely 1 second after you were actually killed by your bus accident injuries, it will still be those injuries that killed you not old age. I really don't know how to make this any easier for you to understand. You need to stop conflating underlying conditions and life expectancy with the actual cause of death. Even this Government is not crass enough to do that and quite rightly accepts the statistics the NHS provides. It's simply a matter of science.

I think you're probably right about this, because it really shouldn't be that hard to understand these statistics (Even the Government is not stupid enough to conflate underlying conditions with the actual cause of death).