Re: Red Jezzer
|Lupo, a neo-Narxist government is a non starter. If Hilary Benn had not acted in such a crass manner in trying the humiliate Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons by saying he (Benn) would be happy to destroy the world by firing off nuclear weapons, JC would not have had the support he did, The membership have made it clear to the PLP that they will not tolerate the stupidity of manoeuvring to get JC out, but now that this is achieved they will make it clear that they expect him to reflect the party as a whole. You will see that in future internal elections Momentum's hold on the membership is waning.
If I am wrong, the Conseevative's will win the next election. Either way, a neo-Marxist government simply will not happen.
|"A former Labour chief whip has urged Jeremy Corbyn to "reflect" on Tony Blair's approach when party leader by ruling out the de-selection of MPs.
Baroness Hilary Armstrong told the BBC Mr Corbyn was "the greatest rebel ever" as a backbencher but Mr Blair was reluctant to discipline him.
She said the then prime minister felt that Labour was "a broad church".
Amid claims Mr Corbyn's opponents could be forced out, Baroness Armstrong said he needed to show he is "tolerant".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's The Westminster Hour, Baroness Armstrong said she was pleased the Labour party chairman Ian Lavery had said de-selection was not the way forward.
But she added: "I know MPs where basically there is a process of harassment, where at every meeting they are criticised, they are challenged, they are told that they don't represent the people in the room.
"And all this is meant to do is grind them down, is wear them down, and get them to believe they shouldn't be in the Labour party any more."
She said "sectarianism" was "ruling" in some areas.
Baroness Armstrong added: "Jeremy has the opportunity over the summer and at party conference to make it absolutely clear that he is not going to lead a narrow sectarian faction, he's going to lead a broad church that is tolerant.
"And the real test for Jeremy is, is he up to it?"
Mr Corbyn voted against his own government more than 500 times and Baroness Armstrong said at the time there was upset among party members in his Islington North constituency,
"I had a couple of folk from Jeremy's constituency come to see me and say 'People are a bit upset with Jeremy always being against the Labour government, what if we try to de-select him?'".
She advised them they would not be supported by the leadership.
Baroness Armstrong said: "The prime minister was very clear about that when Jeremy was a backbench MP. And he was right, we shouldn't have worked to de-select him.
"But I hope that Jeremy will now reflect on that and I hope that he will be absolutely determined to make sure it doesn't happen under his watch.""
Fat chance love, showing tolerance for others' views won't get Jezzer the neo-marxist government he craves for.
Re: BP. Well design problem analysis
|Won't cost much in lost production. There are more than 800 production wells in Prudhoe Bay.
With 26% interest BP will only be paying around a quarter of the costs
Re: BP. Well design problem analysis
|Probably Less than Ekofisk subsidence cost Phillips.
BP. Well design problem analysis
How much is this going to cost BP?
US weighs financial sanctions to hit Venezuela's oil revenue, sources say
|US weighs financial sanctions to hit Venezuela's oil revenue, sources say
The United States is considering financial sanctions on Venezuela that would halt dollar payments for the country's oil, according to a senior White House official and an adviser with direct knowledge of the discussions.
The move could severely restrict the OPEC nation's crude exports and starve its socialist government of hard currency.
Sanctions prohibiting any transaction in U.S. currency by Venezuela's state-run oil firm, PDVSA, are among the toughest of various oil-related measures under discussion at the White House, the two sources told Reuters.
The administration aims to pressure socialist President Nicolas Maduro into aborting plans for a controversial new congress that critics say would cement him as a dictator.
Venezuela's oil-based economy is in the grip of a brutal recession and a local currency crash, and Maduro has faced months of anti-government unrest that has claimed the lives of about 100 people. Sanctions on dollar transactions would make it even harder for Maduro's government to secure cash for debt payments and finance imports of basic goods.
The White House declined to comment on the sanctions under consideration. PDVSA and Venezuela's Oil Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The U.S. measures under discussion are similar to those that were imposed against Iran over its nuclear program - which halved Iran's oil exports and prevented top crude buyers from paying for Iranian oil.
The measures were seen as among the most effective economic sanctions ever imposed and paved the way for a deal that curbed Tehran's nuclear activity.
Measures on financial transactions would give President Donald Trump's administration the power to escalate pressure on Venezuela by threatening punishment of any U.S. firm doing business with PDVSA or U.S. banks processing any of its transactions in dollars.
The financial restrictions have been "raised repeatedly" in recent discussions about options for actions against Maduro's government, said the senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The administration is also discussing a ban on U.S. oil imports from Venezuela, but no final decisions have been reached, the official said.
Sanctions on dollar transactions could be more punitive than an import ban because they would make it much more difficult for any refiner or trader to buy Venezuelan oil - not just customers in the United States.
The impact of sanctions on PDVSA would ripple across oil markets, forcing refiners to buy alternative supplies. The U.S. could use crude from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to blunt the impact of any short-term supply shortage, the policy adviser told Reuters.
The United States bought 780,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Venezuelan crude and refined products in the first four months of 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration,
nearly 8 percent of total imports. PDVSA is a major supplier to Valero Energy, Phillips 66, Chevron Corp and PBF Energy.
PDVSA's refining unit in the United States, Citgo Petroleum, last month was the second largest recipient of Venezuelan crude.
It is unclear how Citgo, being wholly owned by Venezuela, would be impacted by U.S. sanctions. Citgo operates three refineries, pipelines and a fuel distribution network in the United States.
The threat of sanctions against Venezuela was a key reason for talks this week between PDVSA and Rosneft, Russia's leading state-owned oil firm, which is already under U.S. sanctions. The negotiations in Moscow, reported by Reuters earlier this week, focused on a proposed swap of Rosneft's collateral stake in Citgo for a host of other Venezuelan oil assets - a move to avoid legal complications.
Barter deals create cash crunch
The White House said earlier this week that Trump's administration could take what it called "strong and swift economic actions" against Venezuela as soon as July 30.
Other options under consideration by Washington include putting more Venezuelan officials and PDVSA executives on its sanctions list, the two sources told Reuters.
Maduro intends to create a superbody called the constituent assembly this year that would have the power to rewrite the country's constitution. It would supersede other institutions and replace the democratically elected National Assembly.
Maduro has decried what he calls "imperialist meddling" by U.S. officials.
Several governments in Latin America also have called on Maduro to abandon the assembly plan.
But officials in neighboring countries also expressed concern that U.S. economic sanctions would trigger famine in Venezuela, which is already reeling from shortages of food and medicine.
PDVSA's cash flow has plummeted in recent years, in part due to the Venezuelan government's deals to barter its oil to other nations in exchange for fuels, services and loans.
Chinese and Russian entities currently take about 40 percent of all PDVSA's exports as repayment for more than $50 billion in loans to Venezuela and its oil company in the last decade, according to a Reuters analysis of its sales.
PDVSA also barters with Caribbean nations, Indian refiner Reliance and its unit Citgo.
Almost all of PDVSA's cash-paying customers are in the United States and India, and the preferred currency for oil transactions worldwide is the U.S. dollar.
PDVSA currently collects most payments from oil exports using China's Citic Bank, but customers making dollar transfers require a correspondent bank in the United States to guarantee the money arrives in China.
The Venezuelan oil firm has been struggling to find correspondent banks in the United States since Citibank a year ago suspended providing that service. It would have even fewer options to collect dollars if the sanctions are levied.
The company could seek payment in euros through European bank accounts, or use other non-dollar denominated transactions.
But the European Union could also take similar measures to prevent transactions in euros, following the lead of the United States.
Sanction threat rattles US refiners
The crude import ban has been strongly opposed by oil companies and crude processors because of the impact it could have on the refining sector, especially on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Administration officials have heard from U.S. refiners on the hardships an import ban could have on their businesses and "are now measuring its potential impact on prices, market movement, inventories," the policy adviser to the White House told Reuters.
Phillips 66 - the third largest buyer of Venezuelan crude in the United States this year - said on Thursday that the administration should "carefully consider" sanctions that would affect U.S. refiners and not prevent the sale of Venezuelan crude elsewhere.
Valero did not respond to a request for comment. Chevron declined to comment.
Chet Thompson, chief executive of trade group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), has been calling and writing White House officials, urging they consider something other than an Venezuelan oil import ban.
Some refineries get up to half their supply from Venezuela, he said in an interview Friday.
"It's not easily replaced," he said, adding that the sanctions also may not have their intended effect.
"Venezuela," he said, "will just sell it to someone else."
About time, too! - drones.
|The EU aims to have rules in place by 2019. For a while I thought that governments would await a serious drone/airliner incident, or two, before taking action.
"The UK government has announced plans to introduce drone registration and safety awareness courses for owners of the small unmanned aircraft.
It will affect anyone who owns a drone which weighs more than 250 grams (8oz).
Drone maker DJI said it was in favour of the measures.
There is no time frame or firm plans as to how the new rules will be enforced and the Department of Transport admitted that "the nuts and bolts still have to be ironed out".
The drone safety awareness test will involve potential flyers having to "prove that they understand UK safety, security and privacy regulations", it said.
The plans also include the extension of geo-fencing, in which no-fly zones are programmed into drones using GPS co-ordinates, around areas such as prisons and airports.
'Protect the public'
"Our measures prioritise protecting the public while maximising the full potential of drones," said Aviation Minister Lord Martin Callanan.
"Increasingly, drones are proving vital for inspecting transport infrastructure for repair or aiding police and fire services in search and rescue operations, even helping to save lives.
"But like all technology, drones too can be misused. By registering drones and introducing safety awareness tests to educate users, we can reduce the inadvertent breaching of airspace restrictions to protect the public." (And that should include sound controls and outlawing/preventing their use over private property - Lupo)
There has not been a significant accident involving a drone yet, but there have been several reports of near misses with commercial aircraft. There have also been incidents of drones being used to deliver drugs to prison inmates.
"Registration has its place. I would argue it will focus the mind of the flyer - but I don't think you can say it's going to be a magic solution," said Dr Alan McKenna, law lecturer at the University of Kent.
"There will be people who will simply not be on the system, that's inevitable."
Similar registration rules in the US were successfully challenged in court in March 2017 and as a result are currently not applicable to non-commercial flyers.
Dr McKenna said there were also issues around how a drone's owner could be identified by police and whether personal liability insurance should also be a legal requirement in the event of an accident.
DJI spokesman Adam Lisberg said the plans sounded like "reasonable common sense".
"The fact is that there are multiple users of the airspace and the public should have access to the air - we firmly believe that - but you need systems to make sure everybody can do it safely," he said.
"In all of these issues the question is, where is the reasonable middle ground? Banning drones is unreasonable, having no rules is also unreasonable.
"We're encouraged that [the British government] seems to be recognising the value drones provide and looking for reasonable solutions."
|BBaron, I stand by what I wrote. I'm well aware of the present situation and the improvement to the environment, but when (hopefully) subsidies go, and EU requirements go, are we going to return to a free for all?
You wrote, "Got to be done very slowly."
I wrote, "Agriculture's going to have to be managed carefully, initially, to allow farmers to adapt to the new environment."
Much the same thing, m8.
I also wrote, "SOME SORT of government intervention". You should have noted that I'm against government interference, but even free markets require a degree of oversight. Farming is no different in that respect to any other industry, and farmers vary in their concern for the environment and livestock - as, I suspect, you well know.
So to say, "...you're not getting away with that" was unnecessary.
That's all from me on the subject. Have a nice day, and I hope the wet weather doesn't last too long.
Good Evening Lupo.
'with the proviso that the environment has to be protected and enhanced, and that would need some sort of government intervention.'
No offence but your not getting away with that. For many years now we have been participating in numerous green schemes. 3 metre fallow strips next to all hedges... 6 metre fallow strips next to all watercourses and ditches, even dry ditches. Set a side ......and watch every known weed pollute your ground. (never seen so much wildlife). We don't cut our hedges until all the nesters have left. New hedges being planted everywhere.
The industry is loosing a lot of active ingredients in its chemical arsenal. To be blunt, the good ones are being withdrawn so we have to use more of others. Good on one hand and not on the other. Roundup chemical (glyphosate) is on the cusp of being withdrawn. For quality purposes in food production that would be a disaster. But hey, we would adapt and have been for many years. We have been doing what you want for years now and we like doing it.
Please, no more government intervention. Dropping the sub quickly would bring down quality and cripple the industry. Got to be done very slowly.
Re: Our friends across La Manche...
|...and how what do you expect the UK audit of the effects of Brexit to be in 5 years time?
Very, very bad I expect.
Frog in a tree
Re: Our friends across La Manche...
| ...and the yearly EU audit?
|Should say a ton of barly making #47 .50 p
How much does a ton of barley cost?
Re: Our friends across La Manche...
|The way I see it, the radical Conservative Right - Vote Leave - dominated the Leave campaign, seeing their future careers as leaders in a Brave New Free Trade World. Didn't have much effect on the voters though - it was 50/50 before and throughout and Leave lucked out on the day.
So what then? Ideally, in an Oirish sort of way, we wouldn't have been in the EU we'd have just been able to send Liam hopping around picking up all the deals on offer and all would be luvverly.
Sadly though what had been a tad overlooked was our half-century of free trade in the European Internal Market with no tariff and non-tariff barriers at the point of trade. This has only come about as companies in all EU countries are subject to strict, enforced regulations in all aspects of production, state contributions and transport to create a level playing field throughout.
There is just no simple way to withdraw from all this -and why would we give up free trade to have free trade - as Spock may have said 'illogical'.
It took May and her Con Right minions/controllers several months, with the legal objection/appeal of course to surmount, to produce an Article 50 document with abolition of Freedom of Movement and the ECJ as the sine qua non - both on odd grounds.
We'd never applied FoM using it's inbuilt balancing provisions and the ECJ is neither good nor bad - as any court should be it is, for me, neutral.
Anyway this immediately cut off useful alternatives to leaving with minimum economic damage.
I hope we see sense and attempt the EFTA/EEA route but I won't hold my breath - and it will all take many years (by interim think 10 years as one guy said, just before taking an early bath).
To control the febrile actions of our politicians - far right and far left - maybe just staying in the EU if a few face -saving reforms could be agreed - would be in fact the best medicine for us (oh no I'm agreeing with Blair, shucks).
|Should say a ton of barly making #47 .50 p
NZ got rid of farm subsidy some years ago so we can examine the effect of that action. NZ farmers are now one of the most efficient in the world. For example they can produce lamb and sell it cheaper than EU farmers despite EU subsidies. 5% of EU farmers went broke after subsidies were removed but in the long run subsidy encourages inefficiency.
Yes NZ did abolish agricultural subsidies in the early 80s under PM David Longue and his finance minster Roger Douglas. They coined a name for this new system, Rogenomics, and it was not all it turned out to be by any standard. However if agricultural efficiency is measured in the notion, that a farmer and his wife and say two kids need to be milking up to 1000 cows to make a living, well then that is efficient.The U.K.is a bit different to most other E.U. countries and the afore mentioned stud farms owned by Middle Eastern billionaires do pull in a nice packet, but that is not the way in other countries where you have family farms who would simply go out of buisness if subsidies are removed
If Ton of barly was making #4750 back in 1974, and now this year it is making 120 euro, how does that make any sense.
I think about the cost of a familys food per week when I was a boy, and ask myself how much of a weekly income did it take to purchase this, Now I ask the same question and i find that the percentage going towards the cost of food nowadays is a fraction of the old amount. Food and clothing were major items, no mobile phone bills and foreign hols and all the rest of it. So anyone out there that might think food will become cheaper had better think again , it just won't happen.
Food can be imported for sure but then that is another story,
I was born on a farm and have been a farmer for at least half my life, i still own and live on a farm and I can humbly say i know the buisness inside out, There is no profit in farming producing food at todays prices, the vast majority of farmers need farmers need the income from subsidies to stay going, End of.