Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Hunt makes a leadership move that he says is not a move – politicalbetting.com

1234689

Comments

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited May 2022
    MaxPB said:

    No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.

    The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.

    Well, of course the EU is a regulatory super-power, that's one of the most obvious features of current world trade. In the particular case of food safety, it's even more than that from the UK's point of view, since it accounts for 30% of our entire food supply and of course something like 70% of our vegetables. Most of that comes into Dover, so physical checks are impossible even if we did want to have our own different standards. So the idea we can simply diverge on standard is bonkers - and, in any case, what on earth for? So we can send Conor Burns to the US and try to do a deal, despite reneging on the protocol, that will allow them to send us hormone-laden beef and chlorinated chicken which would be massively unpopular here?

    As I said, yes, regulation of gene editing is one area where I can actually see an advantage of Brexit. In fact, it seems to be the only such advantage anyone has yet come up with, but it's a very temporary one, the EU are going to change their stance.

    As for the 'sensible way forward', getting the NI stuff sorted requires alignment and trust. Wishing the problem away and pretending that if we shout louder the EU will suddenly decide to change the rules of the Single Market is not a solution.

    Of course it would have been even better not to have started from here. But then, told you so back in 2016 and even more emphatically in 2019.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government no only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.

    The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
    1. We are currently aligned with everything. Our standards are their standards are our standards
    2. Having abandoned any efforts to check inbound goods we have de facto ceded control of UK standards to the EU. So whether we formally align with any amended standards they choose or not we will be accepting them without question
    3. The only radical variance to existing UKEU standards would be if we say did a trade deal with the US to allow in hormone beef or weevil corn. As the US have flown in today to put down any remaining fantasy the government had about such a deal, that won't be happening.

    So the truly sensible way forward is accept the reality on the ground. We are aligned, we're not doing deals to diverge, and we can't check standards even if we wanted to. We simply drop the subject and move the mouth foamers onto the next political issue. Irish border fixed because no need to check anything when we're all aligned already.
    In this case then, in the context of your proposal, the problem is the EU not the UK. They are unwilling to settle for anything less than dynamic alignment so your suggestion cannot work. It is not a case of whether we choose to diverge but rather of whether they chose to make changes and force us to remain in alignment. Dropping the subject solves nothing as it will remain an active topic as EU regulations change.
    Given the UK doesn’t want to employ any civil servants to handle our standards, why don’t we just let the EU choose and copy them? We can then cut lots of civil service jobs and make the Daily Mail and JRM happy. ;-)
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,160
    edited May 2022

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government no only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.

    The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
    1. We are currently aligned with everything. Our standards are their standards are our standards
    2. Having abandoned any efforts to check inbound goods we have de facto ceded control of UK standards to the EU. So whether we formally align with any amended standards they choose or not we will be accepting them without question
    3. The only radical variance to existing UKEU standards would be if we say did a trade deal with the US to allow in hormone beef or weevil corn. As the US have flown in today to put down any remaining fantasy the government had about such a deal, that won't be happening.

    So the truly sensible way forward is accept the reality on the ground. We are aligned, we're not doing deals to diverge, and we can't check standards even if we wanted to. We simply drop the subject and move the mouth foamers onto the next political issue. Irish border fixed because no need to check anything when we're all aligned already.
    In this case then, in the context of your proposal, the problem is the EU not the UK. They are unwilling to settle for anything less than dynamic alignment so your suggestion cannot work. It is not a case of whether we choose to diverge but rather of whether they chose to make changes and force us to remain in alignment. Dropping the subject solves nothing as it will remain an active topic as EU regulations change.
    My point was that point 2 - the UK dropping any inbound checks - means we remain aligned with EEA standards whether we want to or not. We can call it what we like, with no ability for the UK to police any other standards we de facto adopt the European one.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government no only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.

    The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
    1. We are currently aligned with everything. Our standards are their standards are our standards
    2. Having abandoned any efforts to check inbound goods we have de facto ceded control of UK standards to the EU. So whether we formally align with any amended standards they choose or not we will be accepting them without question
    3. The only radical variance to existing UKEU standards would be if we say did a trade deal with the US to allow in hormone beef or weevil corn. As the US have flown in today to put down any remaining fantasy the government had about such a deal, that won't be happening.

    So the truly sensible way forward is accept the reality on the ground. We are aligned, we're not doing deals to diverge, and we can't check standards even if we wanted to. We simply drop the subject and move the mouth foamers onto the next political issue. Irish border fixed because no need to check anything when we're all aligned already.
    In this case then, in the context of your proposal, the problem is the EU not the UK. They are unwilling to settle for anything less than dynamic alignment so your suggestion cannot work. It is not a case of whether we choose to diverge but rather of whether they chose to make changes and force us to remain in alignment. Dropping the subject solves nothing as it will remain an active topic as EU regulations change.
    My point was that point 2 - the UK dropping any inbound checks - means we remain aligned with EEA standards whether we want to or not. We can call it what we like, with no ability for the UK to police any other standards we de facto adopt the European one.
    No it simply does not.

    If we legalise something that is illegal there, then how are we aligned by not checking their products? 🤦‍♂️

    If we criminalise something that is legal there, and fine any business that uses or sells it in this country, then how are we aligned by not checking their products? 🤦‍♂️
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    EPG said:

    Sandpit said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
    UK has been trying to sign up as many companies as possible who ship goods between GB and NI, to minimise friction caused by the arrangements.

    The authorities in GB, NI and RoI can then target their efforts on actual cases of smuggling.
    Which means entities using brass-plates, or indeed nothing at all, to mask UK-EU trade. A la carte membership with trade and no obligations.
    Trusted trader scheme means just that - the ones we trust. Not a cover for "lets not do any checks at all ever" which is the Tories preferred definition.

    Can we come to an arrangement? Of course - if there is clear alignment between the two regulatory systems then its easy to envisage. And we both have said alignment and, having binned off our plans to have our own different standards, will be keeping it things can't be that hard.

    Until you remember the problem. Its the UK government. Who can't accept that aligned reality. And can't be trusted.
    Trusted trader status should be eligible to any registered company which has not shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

    If any reason is demonstrated why that trader can not be trusted, then action should be taken, but it should be eligible to all in the first place not to a few cherrypicked businesses.
    A significant proportion of trade could be run through it. But not all of them. My industry has pushed for such a scheme for ages so I'm not against it. It just isn't a magic wand to remove the border completely.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    I see Macron has been at it again:

    @KyivIndependent
    ⚡️ Zelensky: Macron offered concessions on Ukraine's sovereignty to help Putin save face.

    President Volodymyr Zelensky said that French President Emmanuel Macron’s negotiations were “in vain,” adding that “we don’t want to save something for someone and lose territory for it.”


    https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1525067585456418816
  • EPG said:

    Sandpit said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
    UK has been trying to sign up as many companies as possible who ship goods between GB and NI, to minimise friction caused by the arrangements.

    The authorities in GB, NI and RoI can then target their efforts on actual cases of smuggling.
    Which means entities using brass-plates, or indeed nothing at all, to mask UK-EU trade. A la carte membership with trade and no obligations.
    Trusted trader scheme means just that - the ones we trust. Not a cover for "lets not do any checks at all ever" which is the Tories preferred definition.

    Can we come to an arrangement? Of course - if there is clear alignment between the two regulatory systems then its easy to envisage. And we both have said alignment and, having binned off our plans to have our own different standards, will be keeping it things can't be that hard.

    Until you remember the problem. Its the UK government. Who can't accept that aligned reality. And can't be trusted.
    Trusted trader status should be eligible to any registered company which has not shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

    If any reason is demonstrated why that trader can not be trusted, then action should be taken, but it should be eligible to all in the first place not to a few cherrypicked businesses.
    A significant proportion of trade could be run through it. But not all of them. My industry has pushed for such a scheme for ages so I'm not against it. It just isn't a magic wand to remove the border completely.
    Why not all of them? Every single registered company needs to file reports, be registered with the authorities and meet other regulations, why can't all of them be registered as trusted traders?

    There is no reason whatsoever to have checks in the border. To take an example that your industry might be familiar with: alcohol. Even pre-Brexit if a business were to drive a van to France, fill it with alcohol, bring it back to the UK and stock a supermarket with it without UK duty paid that would have been against the law and would bring HMRC down on them like a ton of bricks.

    It is the threat of enforcement from HMRC prevents people doing that, not checks at the border.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820



    It’s not acceptable.

    The EU is demanding dynamic alignment to their rules. They have a different approach to the UK.

    The UK wants equivalence with regular review.

    From a purely rational, food safety based approach the UK piece is sufficient. But the EU thinks it’s a point of political leverage

    The UK can want whatever it likes, but 27 sovereign countries aren't going to change their treaties and the operation of the Single Market irrespective of what we want. Why on earth should they?

    I'm not quite sure what on your point about 'political leverage' is. Leverage for what? They are not asking us for anything.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government no only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.

    The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
    1. We are currently aligned with everything. Our standards are their standards are our standards
    2. Having abandoned any efforts to check inbound goods we have de facto ceded control of UK standards to the EU. So whether we formally align with any amended standards they choose or not we will be accepting them without question
    3. The only radical variance to existing UKEU standards would be if we say did a trade deal with the US to allow in hormone beef or weevil corn. As the US have flown in today to put down any remaining fantasy the government had about such a deal, that won't be happening.

    So the truly sensible way forward is accept the reality on the ground. We are aligned, we're not doing deals to diverge, and we can't check standards even if we wanted to. We simply drop the subject and move the mouth foamers onto the next political issue. Irish border fixed because no need to check anything when we're all aligned already.
    In this case then, in the context of your proposal, the problem is the EU not the UK. They are unwilling to settle for anything less than dynamic alignment so your suggestion cannot work. It is not a case of whether we choose to diverge but rather of whether they chose to make changes and force us to remain in alignment. Dropping the subject solves nothing as it will remain an active topic as EU regulations change.
    My point was that point 2 - the UK dropping any inbound checks - means we remain aligned with EEA standards whether we want to or not. We can call it what we like, with no ability for the UK to police any other standards we de facto adopt the European one.
    No it simply does not.

    If we legalise something that is illegal there, then how are we aligned by not checking their products? 🤦‍♂️

    If we criminalise something that is legal there, and fine any business that uses or sells it in this country, then how are we aligned by not checking their products? 🤦‍♂️
    You got your example the wrong way round. Lets say we set a standard bar higher than now - we're only going to increase standards are we not?

    So the inbound EU stock is below our standards and thus out of spec. But as we are not checking standards then their below standard stuff is acceptable to us.

    Thats the reality. They can do what they like with food standards. We can say "these are not acceptable" but as we're not checking then in practice they are.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,160
    edited May 2022



    It’s not acceptable.

    The EU is demanding dynamic alignment to their rules. They have a different approach to the UK.

    The UK wants equivalence with regular review.

    From a purely rational, food safety based approach the UK piece is sufficient. But the EU thinks it’s a point of political leverage

    The UK can want whatever it likes, but 27 sovereign countries aren't going to change their treaties and the operation of the Single Market irrespective of what we want. Why on earth should they?

    I'm not quite sure what on your point about 'political leverage' is. Leverage for what? They are not asking us for anything.
    They don't need to change their treaties and operation of the market within their sovereign borders. Who said they do?

    They can however recognise equivalence and keep an open border with Northern Ireland due to the special arrangements there - and if they're not willing to recognise equivalence when we are then that is their fault, not ours. If their stubbornness is threatening diversions of trade or cohesion of Northern Ireland then international law gives us the right to suspend the Protocol via A16 until the problems are 100% resolved.

    We are no more required to be aligned to them, than they are to be aligned with us. The fact you're still trying to run an end-run around Parliament to get the EU setting regulations instead of Parliament is frankly pathetic.
  • MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    EPG said:

    Sandpit said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
    UK has been trying to sign up as many companies as possible who ship goods between GB and NI, to minimise friction caused by the arrangements.

    The authorities in GB, NI and RoI can then target their efforts on actual cases of smuggling.
    Which means entities using brass-plates, or indeed nothing at all, to mask UK-EU trade. A la carte membership with trade and no obligations.
    Trusted trader scheme means just that - the ones we trust. Not a cover for "lets not do any checks at all ever" which is the Tories preferred definition.

    Can we come to an arrangement? Of course - if there is clear alignment between the two regulatory systems then its easy to envisage. And we both have said alignment and, having binned off our plans to have our own different standards, will be keeping it things can't be that hard.

    Until you remember the problem. Its the UK government. Who can't accept that aligned reality. And can't be trusted.
    Trusted trader status should be eligible to any registered company which has not shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

    If any reason is demonstrated why that trader can not be trusted, then action should be taken, but it should be eligible to all in the first place not to a few cherrypicked businesses.
    A significant proportion of trade could be run through it. But not all of them. My industry has pushed for such a scheme for ages so I'm not against it. It just isn't a magic wand to remove the border completely.
    Why not all of them? Every single registered company needs to file reports, be registered with the authorities and meet other regulations, why can't all of them be registered as trusted traders?

    There is no reason whatsoever to have checks in the border. To take an example that your industry might be familiar with: alcohol. Even pre-Brexit if a business were to drive a van to France, fill it with alcohol, bring it back to the UK and stock a supermarket with it without UK duty paid that would have been against the law and would bring HMRC down on them like a ton of bricks.

    It is the threat of enforcement from HMRC prevents people doing that, not checks at the border.
    You do understand that a trusted trader scheme needs a shit ton of paperwork to operate?

    No, you don't.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government no only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.

    The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
    1. We are currently aligned with everything. Our standards are their standards are our standards
    2. Having abandoned any efforts to check inbound goods we have de facto ceded control of UK standards to the EU. So whether we formally align with any amended standards they choose or not we will be accepting them without question
    3. The only radical variance to existing UKEU standards would be if we say did a trade deal with the US to allow in hormone beef or weevil corn. As the US have flown in today to put down any remaining fantasy the government had about such a deal, that won't be happening.

    So the truly sensible way forward is accept the reality on the ground. We are aligned, we're not doing deals to diverge, and we can't check standards even if we wanted to. We simply drop the subject and move the mouth foamers onto the next political issue. Irish border fixed because no need to check anything when we're all aligned already.
    In this case then, in the context of your proposal, the problem is the EU not the UK. They are unwilling to settle for anything less than dynamic alignment so your suggestion cannot work. It is not a case of whether we choose to diverge but rather of whether they chose to make changes and force us to remain in alignment. Dropping the subject solves nothing as it will remain an active topic as EU regulations change.
    My point was that point 2 - the UK dropping any inbound checks - means we remain aligned with EEA standards whether we want to or not. We can call it what we like, with no ability for the UK to police any other standards we de facto adopt the European one.
    No it simply does not.

    If we legalise something that is illegal there, then how are we aligned by not checking their products? 🤦‍♂️

    If we criminalise something that is legal there, and fine any business that uses or sells it in this country, then how are we aligned by not checking their products? 🤦‍♂️
    You got your example the wrong way round. Lets say we set a standard bar higher than now - we're only going to increase standards are we not?

    So the inbound EU stock is below our standards and thus out of spec. But as we are not checking standards then their below standard stuff is acceptable to us.

    Thats the reality. They can do what they like with food standards. We can say "these are not acceptable" but as we're not checking then in practice they are.
    Absolutely we can set a higher bar than we do now. We don't need to do checks at the border though, in order to achieve that objective.

    Keep the border open, but say that any business seen to be selling products that are against our standards will be subject to heavy fines and potentially imprisonment for executives of the company.

    If any business takes illegal products across the border and puts them on the shelves here, then they have committed an offence that can result in imprisonment or hefty fines.

    Precisely as we already treat UK duty-paid alcohol or tobacco and have done for decades. Nothing has ever prevented people crossing the border from France to England, but there was no obligation to check the boot of every car for smuggled booze and fags. But any business selling booze that isn't UK duty-paid isn't meeting our higher standards for that and that product is illegal even if you were able to smuggle it across the border.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    Northern line?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    Sounds a bit like a health and safety reason.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,100
    edited May 2022
    EPG said:

    MattW said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
    Is that not about anticipated by whom?

    Why can't such companies be a trusted trader? IMO they need to be traders to NI, not have a presence there.
    Pity that your opinion is not what the UK committed to - though of course the EU would never have agreed to one-way free trade with no agreement.
    I think the meaning of "Trusted Trader Scheme" is up for grabs. UK would like it covering 95-99% of trade; EU more like 60-80% perhaps.

    But the meaning is not defined by any one side.

    Our eurogubbing lobby are keen to pretend that whatever Brussels says is canonical, is canonical, but istm that whilst we have a (1800 page iirc) treaty, the interpretation is up for agreement to be reached, and the key body in that is the dispute resolution group.

    See for example the differing understandings of the various fishery agreements wrt France and the immense posturings of Mons Macron. That did not go to the dispute resolution group either.

    As far as I know that has never been invoked, so we are still basically shadow-boxing.
  • Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    Great. I am glad we agree that EU alignment could be democratic if that was a manifesto promise.

    How do you feel about a democratically elected government making decisions not in their manifesto to reflect changing circumstances? This Government has done all sorts of things that weren’t in its manifesto. (I mean, I think sticking to the Northern Ireland Protocol was in the manifesto!) If the democratically elected Government, supported by a vote in the Commons, went for alignment, would democracy be in danger then?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them.
    But we *are* aligned with them. No difference in standards between us.

    And when they change their standards? We are still aligned because we have scrapped all inbound checks.

    You talk theory. We talk reality.
  • MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916
    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    Chances of black cabs not causing any incidents, given the way that cabbies drive, is zero.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    LOL! The problems are ours, not theirs. They are quite happy exporting food to us with no checks, and not particularly dischuffed that our suppliers are disadvantaged in exporting to them.
  • Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them.
    But we *are* aligned with them. No difference in standards between us.

    And when they change their standards? We are still aligned because we have scrapped all inbound checks.

    You talk theory. We talk reality.
    We aren't aligned with them. We are equivalent to them.

    We've already changed standards. And if they lower theirs and we don't lower ours, then we are not aligned even if we have scrapped all inbound checks. If they make it legal to sell a product that is illegal here, then even if we have no checks, it would still be illegal for Tesco's to put the illegal product on their shelves.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them.
    But we *are* aligned with them. No difference in standards between us.

    And when they change their standards? We are still aligned because we have scrapped all inbound checks.

    You talk theory. We talk reality.
    "theory" is a kind way of putting it, well done.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    MattW said:

    EPG said:

    MattW said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
    Is that not about anticipated by whom?

    Why can't such companies be a trusted trader? IMO they need to be traders to NI, not have a presence there.
    Pity that your opinion is not what the UK committed to - though of course the EU would never have agreed to one-way free trade with no agreement.
    I think the meaning of "Trusted Trader Scheme" is up for grabs. UK would like it covering 95-99% of trade; EU more like 60-80% perhaps.

    But the meaning is not defined by any one side.

    Our eurogubbing lobby are keen to pretend that whatever Brussels says is canonical, is canonical, but istm that whilst we have a (1800 page iirc) treaty, the interpretation is up for agreement to be reached, and the key body in that is the dispute resolution group.

    See for example the differing understandings of the various fishery agreements wrt France and the immense posturings of Mons Macron. That did not go to the dispute resolution group either.

    As far as I know that has never been invoked, so we are still basically shadow-boxing.
    Whatever percentage of trade it covers, the trade border will remain because:
    1. Paperwork requirement of any trusted trader scheme. None of the TT proposals our own included remove this
    2. Handling of companies not compliant with TT rules / new companies not yet accepted

    Its a workaround of the worst effects of the border. But it doesn't remove the border.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
  • Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    LOL! The problems are ours, not theirs. They are quite happy exporting food to us with no checks, and not particularly dischuffed that our suppliers are disadvantaged in exporting to them.
    That's protectionism and that's their problem.

    Protectionism is a bad thing and it is self-harming. If they want to engage in protectionism, then more fool them, we should not do the same thing.
  • Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916

    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    Sounds a bit like a health and safety reason.
    Cycling in Central London would feel a lot safer without Black Cabs and their dick drivers.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Largest lead for Labour over Conservatives on the economy that we have recorded.

    Which party do Britons trust the most to manage the economy? (8 May)

    Labour: 34% (–)
    Conservative: 24% (–)
    Don't know: 23% (+2)

    Changes +/- 1 May

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-35/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1525060799366144000/photo/1
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
  • MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them.
    But we *are* aligned with them. No difference in standards between us.

    And when they change their standards? We are still aligned because we have scrapped all inbound checks.

    You talk theory. We talk reality.
    We aren't aligned with them. We are equivalent to them.

    We've already changed standards. And if they lower theirs and we don't lower ours, then we are not aligned even if we have scrapped all inbound checks. If they make it legal to sell a product that is illegal here, then even if we have no checks, it would still be illegal for Tesco's to put the illegal product on their shelves.
    Fascinating. Nobody is lowering food standards. So its only ever increasing them. And if you knew anything about how food standards work in reality you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself.

    A few real world examples. Supermarkets set their own standards. One set a bar for Gluten Free. It would only accept products that could demonstrate les than 5ppm (vs the legal 20ppm standard). It then had to acquiesce because food science was unable to test to such a level and even if it could no supplier could produce to that level. So the standard remains in their technical handbook but is universally ignored because its unworkable.

    Or another supermarket who set an extremely high welfare level for premium own brand lamb. As this was expensive and faffy most farmers didn't bother. Which meant a single source of compliant lamb who wanted £lots as a price which the supermarket wouldn't pay. So the standard remained for products no longer produced and sold as commercially not viable.

    Your suggestion is that the UK sets a standard for a product (lets say wheat) which is higher than the market standard. The UK doesn't test for this standard which is helpful because producers won't supply to a premium standard for the standard price which nobody checks. And then "it would be illegal to sell in Tesco" - depends what the standard is. But say its pesticide contamination. As its only ever a "no more than" standard and most products will be under that anyway then yes Tesco would sell and do so legally.

    Have you and the QT bloke ever been seen in the same room? Stridently opining whilst demonstrating absolute ignorance on the subject.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,160
    edited May 2022

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,600
    ...
    Scott_xP said:
    The man is bonkers!

    Mrs May's backstop deal is looking better by the minute.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Scott_xP said:

    Largest lead for Labour over Conservatives on the economy that we have recorded.

    Which party do Britons trust the most to manage the economy? (8 May)

    Labour: 34% (–)
    Conservative: 24% (–)
    Don't know: 23% (+2)

    Changes +/- 1 May

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-35/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1525060799366144000/photo/1

    they are soooo toast

    Sue Grey allegedly gonna report this month. Doesn't matter what she says, provided it isn't that the FPNs were wrong in fact and law and there were no parties, tory rebels will strike then because that is when all the gutless wait-for-the-report MPs have to come off the fence.
  • Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
    I accept the consequences.

    Alignment is not a consequence.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
    Here’s a report on alcohol duty fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-fraud They don’t agree with you.

    I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.

    I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.

    I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    But weren't the Russians involved?
  • MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
    Here’s a report on alcohol duty fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-fraud They don’t agree with you.

    I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.

    I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.

    I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
    Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?

    If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
    I accept the consequences.

    Alignment is not a consequence.
    The NIP is a consequence. Your alternative "solution" (force the EU to accept a back door into the single market) won't work because we are too weak to impose it on them.
    You're just a rando on the internet so fine, you can chat shit about this and it doesn't matter. I only hope that the government doesn't actually believe the shit they are coming out with, or we are in big trouble.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    An interesting morning of work. Being a management consultant can be a frustrating business when stupid is happening, you politely detail why x is inadvisable and y would be a solution because z, they ignore you and then the wheels fall off as you warned.

    Have largely been busy with the two clients (in the same group) these last 18 months. Whilst something in some form is still probably carrying on, its time I take the time opportunities now presenting themselves to me to focus on my flexi work space project and broadening my client base. And look at the other other opportunity I've been prodding to see if legs might emerge.

    Either way, its a lot more fun than being employed in an actual job.

    Going into the millipede hatching business, are we?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    I know the side I supported lost the referendum. I initially presumed that the Government would negotiate a deal whereby we left the EU, but maintained good relationships and closeness with the EU, reflecting both the promises of the Leave campaign re free trade and a close result (indicating the electorate didn’t want a complete revolution in our relationship). I was very wrong.
  • Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    But weren't the Russians involved?
    No, there's no evidence of that.

    Are you saying we should stop respecting democratic elections because of the threat that Russia may have attempted disinformation in some of them? 🤔
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    Sounds a bit like a health and safety reason.
    Cycling in Central London would feel a lot safer without Black Cabs and their dick drivers.
    What abour Ubers? Or can you not spot those? (Don't know if they have badges.)
  • Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
    I accept the consequences.

    Alignment is not a consequence.
    The NIP is a consequence. Your alternative "solution" (force the EU to accept a back door into the single market) won't work because we are too weak to impose it on them.
    You're just a rando on the internet so fine, you can chat shit about this and it doesn't matter. I only hope that the government doesn't actually believe the shit they are coming out with, or we are in big trouble.
    Of course we are strong enough to impose it on them. I hope the government do actually believe it.

    The EU are bluffing and we hold all the cards, we always did. If we refuse to do checks, then are they going to start doing checks on the border of Ireland/NI?

    If not, what's the threat to the GFA, and what can the EU do about it?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Scholz calls Putin. And Macron apparently offers Putin parts of Ukraine!? What in God’s name is going on here

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1525090721358917632
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    .

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    But weren't the Russians involved?
    No, there's no evidence of that.

    Are you saying we should stop respecting democratic elections because of the threat that Russia may have attempted disinformation in some of them? 🤔
    They're just getting their excuses for 2024 in early.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    It's a 15 minute walk in glorious sunshine, easily the most efficient way of getting there. Why didn't you just walk, you lazy so-and-so?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
    Here’s a report on alcohol duty fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-fraud They don’t agree with you.

    I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.

    I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.

    I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
    Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?

    If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
    The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.

    The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?

    The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    But weren't the Russians involved?
    No, there's no evidence of that.

    Are you saying we should stop respecting democratic elections because of the threat that Russia may have attempted disinformation in some of them? 🤔
    1. It was a referendum. Not an election
    2. When we then had an election quite a lot of people say we shouldn't have respected the result because it tried to overturn the referendum
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Largest lead for Labour over Conservatives on the economy that we have recorded.

    Which party do Britons trust the most to manage the economy? (8 May)

    Labour: 34% (–)
    Conservative: 24% (–)
    Don't know: 23% (+2)

    Changes +/- 1 May

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-35/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1525060799366144000/photo/1

    they are soooo toast

    Sue Grey allegedly gonna report this month. Doesn't matter what she says, provided it isn't that the FPNs were wrong in fact and law and there were no parties, tory rebels will strike then because that is when all the gutless wait-for-the-report MPs have to come off the fence.
    Labour now well ahead on the economy and (rightly) seen as the low-tax party.

    Funny old world.

    (P.S. It's Gray – G – R - A - Y – not Grey. Didn't you learn to spell at Durham University or wherever it was you were up at?)
  • MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
    Here’s a report on alcohol duty fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-fraud They don’t agree with you.

    I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.

    I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.

    I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
    Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?

    If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
    The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.

    The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?

    The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
    I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.

    We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.

    Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093
    Carnyx said:

    An interesting morning of work. Being a management consultant can be a frustrating business when stupid is happening, you politely detail why x is inadvisable and y would be a solution because z, they ignore you and then the wheels fall off as you warned.

    Have largely been busy with the two clients (in the same group) these last 18 months. Whilst something in some form is still probably carrying on, its time I take the time opportunities now presenting themselves to me to focus on my flexi work space project and broadening my client base. And look at the other other opportunity I've been prodding to see if legs might emerge.

    Either way, its a lot more fun than being employed in an actual job.

    Going into the millipede hatching business, are we?
    It's a business idea that's got legs.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
    Here’s a report on alcohol duty fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-fraud They don’t agree with you.

    I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.

    I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.

    I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
    Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?

    If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
    The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.

    The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?

    The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
    I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.

    We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.

    Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
    Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916
    Carnyx said:

    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    Sounds a bit like a health and safety reason.
    Cycling in Central London would feel a lot safer without Black Cabs and their dick drivers.
    What abour Ubers? Or can you not spot those? (Don't know if they have badges.)
    You can often but not always tell an Uber, they are frequently Toyota Priuses. Black Cabs tend to drive a lot more aggressively though, a lot of cabbies seem to harbour a deep hatred for cyclists, and in the 8 months or so I have been cycling to work I have come to fully reciprocate it. I've not noticed the same thing with Uber drivers. Although in the part of London where I am cycling on the main road rather than in a cycle lane or quiet route, which is Mayfair, black cabs predominate anyway, they are every other vehicle pretty much. I really can't stand them.
  • MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
    Here’s a report on alcohol duty fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-fraud They don’t agree with you.

    I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.

    I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.

    I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
    Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?

    If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
    The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.

    The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?

    The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
    I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.

    We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.

    Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
    Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
    I have never advocated breaking the NIP, I advocate invoking Article 16 of the NIP and using that to neuter the NIP until solutions are found that 100% remove the threat to social cohesion or trade diversion.

    If no solutions are ever found, then A16 can remain invoked forever and the NIP will have died a death, still in force technically but neutered by one of its own provisions.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    Applicant said:

    .

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    But weren't the Russians involved?
    No, there's no evidence of that.

    Are you saying we should stop respecting democratic elections because of the threat that Russia may have attempted disinformation in some of them? 🤔
    They're just getting their excuses for 2024 in early.
    We're having another EU referendum in 2024? :open_mouth:
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Largest lead for Labour over Conservatives on the economy that we have recorded.

    Which party do Britons trust the most to manage the economy? (8 May)

    Labour: 34% (–)
    Conservative: 24% (–)
    Don't know: 23% (+2)

    Changes +/- 1 May

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-35/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1525060799366144000/photo/1

    they are soooo toast

    Sue Grey allegedly gonna report this month. Doesn't matter what she says, provided it isn't that the FPNs were wrong in fact and law and there were no parties, tory rebels will strike then because that is when all the gutless wait-for-the-report MPs have to come off the fence.
    Labour now well ahead on the economy and (rightly) seen as the low-tax party.

    Funny old world.

    (P.S. It's Gray – G – R - A - Y – not Grey. Didn't you learn to spell at Durham University or wherever it was you were up at?)
    I remember it by

    Sue Gray
    With an A

    but I thought that was an inverse mnoemonic; the system is not free of pitfalls.

    Also Sue Grey might have some thoughts to share with us by the month end
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
    Here’s a report on alcohol duty fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-fraud They don’t agree with you.

    I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.

    I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.

    I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
    Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?

    If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
    The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.

    The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?

    The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
    I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.

    We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.

    Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
    Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
    I have never advocated breaking the NIP, I advocate invoking Article 16 of the NIP and using that to neuter the NIP until solutions are found that 100% remove the threat to social cohesion or trade diversion.

    If no solutions are ever found, then A16 can remain invoked forever and the NIP will have died a death, still in force technically but neutered by one of its own provisions.
    The manifesto promised to implement the NIP. You are advocating effectively killing the NIP. That would be like introducing a new tax called Country Insurance that effectively increased NI, but pretended to do otherwise because of a manifesto pledge. You would've seen through such a ruse.

    You demand the Govt stick to manifesto pledges, except here. This does not appear to be consistent to me.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Largest lead for Labour over Conservatives on the economy that we have recorded.

    Which party do Britons trust the most to manage the economy? (8 May)

    Labour: 34% (–)
    Conservative: 24% (–)
    Don't know: 23% (+2)

    Changes +/- 1 May

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-35/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1525060799366144000/photo/1

    they are soooo toast

    Sue Grey allegedly gonna report this month. Doesn't matter what she says, provided it isn't that the FPNs were wrong in fact and law and there were no parties, tory rebels will strike then because that is when all the gutless wait-for-the-report MPs have to come off the fence.
    Labour now well ahead on the economy and (rightly) seen as the low-tax party.

    Funny old world.

    (P.S. It's Gray – G – R - A - Y – not Grey. Didn't you learn to spell at Durham University or wherever it was you were up at?)
    I remember it by

    Sue Gray
    With an A

    but I thought that was an inverse mnoemonic; the system is not free of pitfalls.

    Also Sue Grey might have some thoughts to share with us by the month end
    Either Suze Gray or the Grey Suits... we shall see...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    The pros and cons of alignment are separate from the pros and cons of political separation. As you say, we don't have align with the EU, but it's sensible to do so - both so that traders can work to a single standard, and because our expectations are so similar that it just saves reinventing the wheel.

    Where there are exceptions, they can then be treated as well-labelled exceptions. For example, if we start gene-editing farm animals, the EU can reasonably decline to accept the products since that would be illegal in the EU. That's just a cost of doing business which a company will take into account. But suggesting that because we're not in the EU we should be free to have different standards for everything is silly and unworkable - it's like insisting that British milk must always be sold in zebra-striped cartons. We could do it 'cos we're free and independent, but it would be a nuisance for everyone with zero benefit.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257

    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Largest lead for Labour over Conservatives on the economy that we have recorded.

    Which party do Britons trust the most to manage the economy? (8 May)

    Labour: 34% (–)
    Conservative: 24% (–)
    Don't know: 23% (+2)

    Changes +/- 1 May

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-35/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1525060799366144000/photo/1

    they are soooo toast

    Sue Grey allegedly gonna report this month. Doesn't matter what she says, provided it isn't that the FPNs were wrong in fact and law and there were no parties, tory rebels will strike then because that is when all the gutless wait-for-the-report MPs have to come off the fence.
    Labour now well ahead on the economy and (rightly) seen as the low-tax party.

    Funny old world.

    (P.S. It's Gray – G – R - A - Y – not Grey. Didn't you learn to spell at Durham University or wherever it was you were up at?)
    Easy to remember, of course:

    Gray Report Always Yanked
    or, possibly
    Gray Reports After Years
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,160
    edited May 2022

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    All true. But on a purely practical level we are not checking anything that comes in. An won't ever be. So whatever standard they set automatically gets accepted by the UK. Its not dynamic alignment because we aren't adjusting our standards. We just don't have any standards, we have what they have.
    Why do you think checks need to be done at the border? They don't.

    Make something illegal to sell in the UK and it is illegal to sell it in the UK, whether it is smuggled across the border or not. Checks don't have to happen at the border, if they did and that was the only place they were checked then small businesses up and down the country would be selling booze that wasn't UK duty paid as they'd be able to get it far cheaper in France and could smuggle enough for their small business in the back of a car.
    The UK has huge problems with duty fraud, both with respect to booze and ciggies. This rather undermines your argument.
    No, it doesn't at all, because although we have problems we live with that and life goes on. We try to tackle the fraud but we don't inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order to do so.

    If peace and security can be maintained for Northern Ireland knowing that a bit of fraud might be the result but handled by the authorities investigating instead of border checks, then is that really an unacceptable solution to you?
    Here’s a report on alcohol duty fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alcohol-fraud They don’t agree with you.

    I agree with you that a bit of fraud should not be a barrier to finding an arrangement for NI that works well for everyone. I hope we can reach one and the UK government isn’t just trying to generate headlines.

    I believe in free trade generally. The Leave campaign in the referendum said the UK would remain in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the borders of Turkey. Instead, this Government has delivered a deal where we’re not in such a free trade zone and don’t even have free trade between GB and NI! It seems to me perfectly possible to have that free trade zone while still honouring the referendum decision. I think voters care more about thriving export businesses and peace in NI than they do about the details of jam safety regulations. So, I support alignment.

    I know you don’t. I’m not foolish enough to imagine I can change your mind on that. I waded in just to question your claim that agreeing to alignment would be inherently undemocratic.
    Where in the report does it disagree with me that we don't need to inspect every bottle of booze crossing the border in order for smuggled booze to be illegal to be sold in this country?

    If a party that supports alignment wins an election then its entirely democratic for that to happen, until the next election, but that didn't happen, in fact the opposite happened, so anyone proposing we must be aligned - yes that is undemocratic.
    The report demonstrates the scale of the problem, one you deny.

    The current Govt won the election promising not to increase National Insurance. It then increased National Insurance. Is that undemocratic?

    The current Govt won the election on the basis of its “oven-ready” Brexit deal. It now wants to break that deal. Is that undemocratic?
    I didn't deny it was a problem, I didn't say anything about the scale of the problem.

    We are prepared to live with the scale of the problem, despite knowing the problem, without either shutting down the border, or accepting alignment on duty. It is proof that we don't need to be aligned, if we don't want to be, even if stuff crosses the border. If it causes a problem, you deal with the problem, you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face.

    Yes it was terrible that the government increased NI and I wrote a thread header bemoaning it and quit the party over it.
    Yet you support breaking the NIP, which was also in the manifesto?
    I have never advocated breaking the NIP, I advocate invoking Article 16 of the NIP and using that to neuter the NIP until solutions are found that 100% remove the threat to social cohesion or trade diversion.

    If no solutions are ever found, then A16 can remain invoked forever and the NIP will have died a death, still in force technically but neutered by one of its own provisions.
    The manifesto promised to implement the NIP. You are advocating effectively killing the NIP. That would be like introducing a new tax called Country Insurance that effectively increased NI, but pretended to do otherwise because of a manifesto pledge. You would've seen through such a ruse.

    You demand the Govt stick to manifesto pledges, except here. This does not appear to be consistent to me.
    Bullshit, I am calling for the safeguards that were agreed to be respected.

    If the NIP is "effectively killed" by its own safeguarding, then that is utterly reasonable. That is the purpose of safeguarding, to do a risk assessment, identify risks (known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns) and if a risk, foreseen or unforeseen, arises that requires safeguarding you deal with it.

    The safeguarding said we would prevent threats to "social cohesion" or "trade diversion". That safeguarding must be respected. If the Protocol is leading either to threats to social cohesion, or to trade diversion, then proper safeguarding requires us to implement the safeguarding provisions and put a halt to the operations of the Protocol unless or until a solution that removes the risk of trade diversion or to social cohesion is able to be implemented.

    That isn't breaking the Protocol, it is respecting the Protocol by following the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures.

    Any business or other institution that disregarded its own safeguarding policy by saying "yes we knew that a risk was happening, but we chose not to implement safeguarding because that was a foreseeable risk so we disregarded our safeguarding policies" would be in serious trouble.

    Why do you want to disregard the safeguarding article of the Protocol? Are you always so cavalier about safeguarding everywhere else.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 443

    ...

    Scott_xP said:
    The man is bonkers!

    Mrs May's backstop deal is looking better by the minute.
    He really needs to have a word with the person who negotiated the deal...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    Going back to the Civil Service for a moment. Reducing headcount by 90,000 is meaningless, if what those civil servants do is then outsourced to consultants, Capita etc. This is what happened under Maude's reforms - the headcount went down, but the cost of consultants etc. spiralled.

    So, if the government were serious about reducing Civil Service costs, it would look at the actual cost of the CS, department by department, and put forward costed proposals to reduce that, rather than focusing on headcount. But that wouldn't make for headlines about cutting CS jobs.

    Or nice donations and company directorships from outside suppliers.
  • PJH said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:
    The man is bonkers!

    Mrs May's backstop deal is looking better by the minute.
    He really needs to have a word with the person who negotiated the deal...
    The person who negotiated the deal knew there were risks in the future which is why he was able to negotiate a safeguarding procedure.

    If the safeguarding procedure he negotiated isn't being followed, that's a problem but not a mistake in his negotiations.

    Safeguarding should be respected. That is what it was negotiated for.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1525069903551778817
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,710
    edited May 2022

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    How do you enforce the "un-alignment" with the EU without checking the goods coming from the EU, somewhere?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,858
    edited May 2022

    Going back to the Civil Service for a moment. Reducing headcount by 90,000 is meaningless, if what those civil servants do is then outsourced to consultants, Capita etc. This is what happened under Maude's reforms - the headcount went down, but the cost of consultants etc. spiralled.

    So, if the government were serious about reducing Civil Service costs, it would look at the actual cost of the CS, department by department, and put forward costed proposals to reduce that, rather than focusing on headcount. But that wouldn't make for headlines about cutting CS jobs.

    At least Mogg will be neutralized for a while writing out 90,000 redundancy notices and putting them on the right desks.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    It's a 15 minute walk in glorious sunshine, easily the most efficient way of getting there. Why didn't you just walk, you lazy so-and-so?
    Naughty. It is far from a 15 minute walk. 20-30 minutes at best. Not the end of the world but adds to the journey time quite a bit. The Northern Line is closed between Moorgate and London Bridge (until sometime this month IIRC) otherwise it would indeed be five minutes (so naughty also @MrEd for saying it's Khan's fault for what I'm sure is necessary engineering work on the line).

    There is a replacement bus service. I would jump on a Boris bike but I understand the caution about this. One thing about being on a Boris bike, however, is that because you are going so slowly and if you stop at the lights then you give yourself a decent chance of surviving. I have been regularly on Boris bikes for years (excluding lockdown, obvs) and as they say as long as you ride as though every other road user is actively trying to kill you, you should be fine.
  • MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    Northern line?
    Reopening on Monday after the works at Bank
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    How do you enforce the "un-alignment" with the EU without checking the goods coming from the EU, somewhere?
    You don't. Which is why QT's Mr Angry keeps repeating himself - apparently we / the government / the lawyers are not listening to his flawless legal argument.
  • MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    How do enforce the "un-alignment" with the EU without checking the goods coming from the EU, somewhere?
    I've already said, you set the standards in our laws and you punish any businesses caught flouting those laws.

    We already do this with UK Duty Paid and did it when we were a part of the EU. As a small trader businessman you would be allowed to go to France, get yourself a load of booze and fags for personal consumption, and bring them home. But if you sold them in your business, you'd be breaking the law even if you were able to smuggle them into the country and HMRC could come down on you like a ton of bricks.

    Hypothetically if we were to say it was illegal to sell any soft drinks with more than 4% sugar, but the EU did not, then Tesco's aren't going to sell any soft drinks on their shelves with more than 4% sugar even if the border is open with the EU and sugary Coke is legal in the EU.
  • MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational.
    Way too much a retrograde step.
    Lump on.

    Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.

    He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
    Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.

    I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.

    If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
    The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.

    * There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
    That is not obvious or acceptable. We absolutely should not "align" with standards that we do not get a democratic vote on setting. That defeats the whole point of Brexit. And democracy.

    Our Parliament should determine our laws, not their Parliament or Commission. Alignment is out of the question.

    The sensible thing to do is to recognise equivalence where it exists, and to invoke the 16th Article of the deal which the government only recently signed which is precisely what it is there for until the threat to social cohesion or any diversion of trade is 100% eliminated.
    If we democratically decide that the best approach is alignment with the EU, then I see no threat to democracy. And we will be free to choose otherwise in the future.
    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.
    How do you enforce the "un-alignment" with the EU without checking the goods coming from the EU, somewhere?
    You don't. Which is why QT's Mr Angry keeps repeating himself - apparently we / the government / the lawyers are not listening to his flawless legal argument.
    You do.

    If the government were to make it illegal to sell sugary soft drinks with more than 4% alcohol, but the EU didn't do that, do you think UK supermarkets would continue to stock sugary Coke or not? If not, then we aren't aligned and the policy is enforced via other means even if the border is open to nations that still legally sell full sugar Coke.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    kinabalu said:

    Going back to the Civil Service for a moment. Reducing headcount by 90,000 is meaningless, if what those civil servants do is then outsourced to consultants, Capita etc. This is what happened under Maude's reforms - the headcount went down, but the cost of consultants etc. spiralled.

    So, if the government were serious about reducing Civil Service costs, it would look at the actual cost of the CS, department by department, and put forward costed proposals to reduce that, rather than focusing on headcount. But that wouldn't make for headlines about cutting CS jobs.

    At least Mogg be neutralized for a while writing out 90,000 redundancy notices and putting them on the right desks.
    Not much use if they've disobeyed him and are WFH. He could send out parchments delivered on horseback I suppose.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    And on the EU stuff - trade deals are about making compromises.

    As I understand it, Brexiters are saying we want freedom from our trade deal so that we can make trade deals. And then bleat about what trade deals might include such as standards stipulations.

    C'est bizarre.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    It's a 15 minute walk in glorious sunshine, easily the most efficient way of getting there. Why didn't you just walk, you lazy so-and-so?
    Naughty. It is far from a 15 minute walk. 20-30 minutes at best. Not the end of the world but adds to the journey time quite a bit. The Northern Line is closed between Moorgate and London Bridge (until sometime this month IIRC) otherwise it would indeed be five minutes (so naughty also @MrEd for saying it's Khan's fault for what I'm sure is necessary engineering work on the line).

    There is a replacement bus service. I would jump on a Boris bike but I understand the caution about this. One thing about being on a Boris bike, however, is that because you are going so slowly and if you stop at the lights then you give yourself a decent chance of surviving. I have been regularly on Boris bikes for years (excluding lockdown, obvs) and as they say as long as you ride as though every other road user is actively trying to kill you, you should be fine.
    There are plenty of scheduled buses too, 43 and 141 IIRC. Was a regular part of my commute about 15 years ago.
  • TOPPING said:

    And on the EU stuff - trade deals are about making compromises.

    As I understand it, Brexiters are saying we want freedom from our trade deal so that we can make trade deals. And then bleat about what trade deals might include such as standards stipulations.

    C'est bizarre.

    But the TCA (our trade deal) doesn't include dynamic alignment with their standards, so how is that relevant?

    The NIP does for NI, but is also has a safeguarding provision which can be invoked and safeguarding has to take priority.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    I’m just being reminded how much of a cock Sadiq Khan is.

    Got off at Moorgate to take a cab to get to London Bridge. Taxi driver can’t go straight down via Bank because it’s being blocked to traffic for “health and safety” (even though LTDA has given data showing black cabs haven’t caused incidents).

    So to get there has taken 15 minutes instead of 5 and probably spewed a lot more pollution into the air.

    Ps no, I’m not getting on a bike because I don’t feel comfortable with the traffic

    It's a 15 minute walk in glorious sunshine, easily the most efficient way of getting there. Why didn't you just walk, you lazy so-and-so?
    Naughty. It is far from a 15 minute walk. 20-30 minutes at best. Not the end of the world but adds to the journey time quite a bit. The Northern Line is closed between Moorgate and London Bridge (until sometime this month IIRC) otherwise it would indeed be five minutes (so naughty also @MrEd for saying it's Khan's fault for what I'm sure is necessary engineering work on the line).

    There is a replacement bus service. I would jump on a Boris bike but I understand the caution about this. One thing about being on a Boris bike, however, is that because you are going so slowly and if you stop at the lights then you give yourself a decent chance of surviving. I have been regularly on Boris bikes for years (excluding lockdown, obvs) and as they say as long as you ride as though every other road user is actively trying to kill you, you should be fine.
    Google maps says 23 minutes, I’d march that in 15-18 minutes. A cab would probably take longer. People need to walk more.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.

    The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.

    Well, of course the EU is a regulatory super-power, that's one of the most obvious features of current world trade. In the particular case of food safety, it's even more than that from the UK's point of view, since it accounts for 30% of our entire food supply and of course something like 70% of our vegetables. Most of that comes into Dover, so physical checks are impossible even if we did want to have our own different standards. So the idea we can simply diverge on standard is bonkers - and, in any case, what on earth for? So we can send Conor Burns to the US and try to do a deal, despite reneging on the protocol, that will allow them to send us hormone-laden beef and chlorinated chicken which would be massively unpopular here?

    As I said, yes, regulation of gene editing is one area where I can actually see an advantage of Brexit. In fact, it seems to be the only such advantage anyone has yet come up with, but it's a very temporary one, the EU are going to change their stance.

    As for the 'sensible way forward', getting the NI stuff sorted requires alignment and trust. Wishing the problem away and pretending that if we shout louder the EU will suddenly decide to change the rules of the Single Market is not a solution.

    Of course it would have been even better not to have started from here. But then, told you so back in 2016 and even more emphatically in 2019.
    Richard, that's again hopelessly naive from you. The idea that any relationship from the EU can depend on them doing us any favours or vice versa should have been disabused in the last few years.

    Our relationship with the EU must be defined by a very tight set of rules within a treaty framework. Simply declaring that we will indefinitely follow EU standards and then hoping that they grant equivalence is a loser for us. Dynamic alignment as the EU wanted in the TCA is a terrible idea, it turns the UK into a forever rule taker which even you must agree is a stupid concept for a nation of 67m and economy 20% of the total size of the EU.

    So we're left with the option of permanent separation after resolving the NI issue. We have to assume that the EU will never grant equivalence and work on that basis, not try and change that decision. Simply it isn't within the gift of the UK government to grant itself equivalence without agreeing to treaty changes in the TCA and accepting indefinite dynamic alignment.

    If you're suggesting that we should accept dynamic alignment then I'm not sure this discussion has any merit since it is such a completely stupid idea.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1525069903551778817

    A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
    Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
  • Cannabis is legal in Malta which is a part of the Schengen area, and decriminalised and available for sale in Portugal and the Netherlands, also both a part of the Schengen area.

    It is illegal in other nations which are part of Schengen and there are no border checks between those nations.

    How is it these countries can possibly not be aligned on the legality of cannabis if there's no border checks between the nations - that is the perverted and ridiculous logic of anyone claiming that border checks must happen or we must be aligned.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
    I accept the consequences.

    Alignment is not a consequence.
    The NIP is a consequence. Your alternative "solution" (force the EU to accept a back door into the single market) won't work because we are too weak to impose it on them.
    You're just a rando on the internet so fine, you can chat shit about this and it doesn't matter. I only hope that the government doesn't actually believe the shit they are coming out with, or we are in big trouble.
    Of course we are strong enough to impose it on them. I hope the government do actually believe it.

    The EU are bluffing and we hold all the cards, we always did. If we refuse to do checks, then are they going to start doing checks on the border of Ireland/NI?

    If not, what's the threat to the GFA, and what can the EU do about it?
    We hold all the cards. Lol. What the fuck do you know about negotiation "Bart" ? Obviously the square root of fuck all. No-one ever "holds all the cards". Anyone that thinks they do is a dullard and will almost certainly be out-manoeuvred.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766
    TOPPING said:

    And on the EU stuff - trade deals are about making compromises.

    As I understand it, Brexiters are saying we want freedom from our trade deal so that we can make trade deals. And then bleat about what trade deals might include such as standards stipulations.

    C'est bizarre.

    They have very small brains.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883
    MISTY said:

    Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1525069903551778817

    A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
    Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
    For Johnson it's the vicarious thrill of a war, which is surely one of the top perks of being PM, without getting his vibe harshed by any British casualties. All he has to do is give away large amounts of other people's money.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Macron's just put out a video in the style of a Hollywood film trailer advertising his intention to travel to Moscow and Kyiv.

    https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1525102939202789382
  • Absolutely, if a government is elected promising to do that, then I have no qualms with that happening for 4-5 years until the next election.

    But that hasn't happened, has it?

    So we're under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. It is neither democratic nor appropriate.

    What a bizarre post. There's not, as far as I'm aware, a single person in the world who says we're under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to align with the EU. But, in the case of food safety, there's a humungous practical reason for doing so, with zero downside. Even without the Northern Ireland issue, it would be a huge benefit to do so, possibly even allowing us to claw back some of the disastrous impact of Brexit on our agricultural and seafood exports.
    There's no practical reason whatsoever to align with them. Doing so would have prevented us from being first movers with regards to genes, something you yourself recognise is a good thing, and they might never have bothered to move themselves had we not said we were going to first.

    There's a downside right there.

    If we have equivalent standards, then they can recognise that, and that is the problem solved. If they're not willing to do so, then that's their fault not ours and they can sort out any problems.
    I think realpolitik cares more about effects than about assigning fault. Maybe it is their fault, but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, that doesn’t really matter.
    Agreeing to be aligned to a bloc we don't elect representatives towards absolutely would be cutting off our own nose.

    No reason to do that though.
    I know! Why don’t we join the bloc, then we’ll have have a say in the decisions and can eliminate all this red tape between GB and NI, and between UK and EU? That would be a huge boost for business, it would reduce protectionism, we could cut civil service numbers…
    Because we put it to the country and the public chose to take back control instead.

    Remaining in the EU would have been perfectly acceptable democratically since we had elected representatives, but now that we are out it is not remotely acceptable to be obligated to remain aligned to an institution we don't elect representatives towards.

    But yes, this all comes back to your failure to accept you lost the 2016 referendum.
    Or your failure to accept that your victory has consequences.
    I accept the consequences.

    Alignment is not a consequence.
    The NIP is a consequence. Your alternative "solution" (force the EU to accept a back door into the single market) won't work because we are too weak to impose it on them.
    You're just a rando on the internet so fine, you can chat shit about this and it doesn't matter. I only hope that the government doesn't actually believe the shit they are coming out with, or we are in big trouble.
    Of course we are strong enough to impose it on them. I hope the government do actually believe it.

    The EU are bluffing and we hold all the cards, we always did. If we refuse to do checks, then are they going to start doing checks on the border of Ireland/NI?

    If not, what's the threat to the GFA, and what can the EU do about it?
    We hold all the cards. Lol. What the fuck do you know about negotiation "Bart" ? Obviously the square root of fuck all. No-one ever "holds all the cards". Anyone that thinks they do is a dullard and will almost certainly be out-manoeuvred.
    If you're prepared to walk away if you don't get what you want, then you do.

    If we don't get what we want, we should invoke Article 16 and walk away. Say that the safeguarding preventing the threat to trade diversion and social cohesion is our first priority, that we will never implement GB/NI checks and that if the EU want an Irish land border its their responsibility to implement it but we will not be doing so.

    They will have no cards to play there. They can't force us to build a sea border if we say no, and they aren't willing to build a land border, so that's that, job done.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766
    MISTY said:

    Zelensky in an interview with Italian TV Rai1 has confirmed that Macron had proposed him to make concessions to Ukraine's sovereignty in order to come up with a face-saving option for Putin. "We are not ready to lose territory to save something for somebody" - added Zelensky

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1525069903551778817

    A comment from a Ukrainian: “First side in the Russo-Ukrainian war to surrender? France”
    Is the Ukraine crisis starting to turn into a sort of Vietnam lite for some countries in the West?
    It is certainly turning into Vietnam full fat for the Russian military
This discussion has been closed.