Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Duque de Bragança]

Said document, in Castilian, says nothing about the change to the (Islas) Malvinas "exonym/toponym" just that the EU has taken into account the historical position of CELAC. Whatever that means.
Enough to trigger the Dailly Mail? Possibly.

The Argentine government does not push for the French to say Les Malvinas instead of Malouines or the Portuguese government to (L)As Malvinas.
Do they even try go get the Germans to switch to Malvinas Inseln instead of Falkland Inseln?

exo/toponym choice ≠ sovereignty recognition

[Sheilbh]

A lot of diplomacy is spin - all that protocol, which level of minister went to meet x leader off the plane, seating plans etc. If Argentina's government is spinning something as a "triumph" over the Falklands you can fully expect the Mail and Telegraph etc to splutter.

Also names obviously matter - see Mumbai, Kyiv, Derry, Pinyin v Wades-Giles in PRC and ROC respectively

[Duque de Bragança]

We have been through this before, haven't we? 

Kyiv or Kiev are not a reliable indicator, at best virtue signalling, in foreign languages.
Besides, Kiev is not pronounced the Russian way. On a different note, I'm rather skeptical of the Γ = H transliteration.


As for Mumbai, Bombay is still the preferred form in French, same goes for Pékin (nobody says Beijing it's EFEO here besides). What's next, the Türkiye nonsense? Turquie, Turquia, Turkey are still more likely to be used. Easier than Zhōngguó though. 

ROC, that's Formosa right? 

I see the point about diplomatic lingo but it is outside the scope of the Mail or the Telegraph, which are not Foreign Office publications last time I checked.
It's like still using Federal Republic of Germany, formal name but hardly used these days except at the embassy and consulate (no need to distinguish from the German Democratic Republic).

Only Derry I can see some merit for the argument.

[Tamas]

Ok stuff like refusing to use Mumbai instead of Bombay is not something to be used as proof that it is fine to stick with old names ("we've been doing that forever so if we continue it's fine"), but not a huge deal I don't think.

At least English speakers have no ground to complain with their endless list of Munichs, Florences and "Blenam" Palaces and whatnot.

[Duque de Bragança]

Ok stuff like refusing to use Mumbai instead of Bombay is not something to be used as proof that it is fine to stick with old names ("we've been doing that forever so if we continue it's fine"), but not a huge deal I don't think.

Forever no, of course. Bombaim Bombay is from the 17th century, from the Portuguese.

At least English speakers have no ground to complain with their endless list of Munichs, Florences and "Blenam" Palaces and whatnot.

It's not their list actually. Munich and Florence are French exonyms. 
Not to mention their outdated spellings of Reims and Marseille.   

I love the Italian exonym for München, Monaco.  Monaco di Baviera more often than not gets shortened.
Not to mention the fancy Latin-origin toponyms such as Augusta, Basilea, Aquisgrano, Lipsia etc.

[garbon]

I saw about permission denied to M&S to demolish that landmark ugly building. I wonder if M&S could decide to abandon it and let it out to one of those American candy companies.

[Gups]

I saw about permission denied to M&S to demolish that landmark ugly building. I wonder if M&S could decide to abandon it and let it out to one of those American candy companies.

They will judicially review the decision. The Inspector recommended approval despite concerns about carbon. Gove overturned on heritage grounds.

[Sheilbh]

I saw about permission denied to M&S to demolish that landmark ugly building. I wonder if M&S could decide to abandon it and let it out to one of those American candy companies.

I don't really get it. Loads of 20th century buildings that deserve some protection but I'm not sure it's one, also I think if you're in a big commercial bit of a city like Oxford Street then we should only really protect the absolutely outstanding. Let the rest churn away.

[Josquius]

Do they consider environmental matters in preservation too?
Demolishing such a substantial building just for being ugly sits uneasy

[garbon]

Do they consider environmental matters in preservation too?
Demolishing such a substantial building just for being ugly sits uneasy

That's not why they wanted to demolish it.

[Gups]

Do they consider environmental matters in preservation too?
Demolishing such a substantial building just for being ugly sits uneasy

Yes, they do these days. Embedded carbon was the inspector's main concern (although he recommended approval anyway). It's become a really big issue in urban regeneration.

[Tamas]

So what we just end up sitting in in increasingly ruinous ruins forever because of bats and carbon?

[HVC]

The embedded carbon thing is weird to me. Wouldn't a new building of the same footprint sequester an equal amount of carbon?

[Sheilbh]

The embedded carbon thing is weird to me. Wouldn't a new building of the same footprint sequester an equal amount of carbon?

Isn't the problem the carbon intensive construction materials - like steel, concrete etc? So we're demolishing an amount of carbon intensive materials and will then replace it with more. If possible retrofitting should be the preferred option.

But obviously that needs to be fitted in with overall climate goals and a growing population/increased demand for space and services. I lean more to the build everything camp. But there we are

In part this is another thing where I think the story of our climate is basically Asian because the world's two largest producers of steel and concrete are China and India (I think at about 60% of each) - there may be a lower carbon solution to those materials but I suspect it's most likely going to develop or emerge there.

[HVC]

I agree that could be a consideration, but that's seperate from embedded carbon. Which from Reading the comments is a consideration criteria.