Woke really is over. Even academia is now retreating
University of Michigan Ends Required Diversity Statements The school, a bastion of D.E.I., will no longer require the statements in hiring decisions and is considering a broader shift in its policies
(NYT)
That’s it. This is the end and the retreat will turn into a rout and then people will want revenge. The wokesters left wounded will be bayoneted
How do we stop those in charge falling for the next version of it next time though?
Severe punishment of the guilty as a deterrent. Crush the wokesters. Jail them. Cancel them. Make their lives miserable. Do as they would do. It won’t immunise us for ever but it will deter for a generation or two
Salem Woke Trials....are you going to lead as Woke Finder General?
There will be trials. I’m not joking. Especially around the trans madness. Thousands of kids were mutilated, castrated, sterilised - for no sane reason
Which reminds me. Somebody ( @kinabalu ?) asked what Trump's trans policies were. I looked it up and then forgot. It's here
The TL:DR is basically Order 66. The first part - the expulsion of ~15,000 trans US warfighters from the US armed forces - is due to take place on day 1 of the New Regime, the rest will follow. There was an article in the Spectator today - you may be aware of that magazine - about it, where they expressed surprise that anybody would do such a thing, and I am sure they were very sincere in that surprise.
The surprise surprises. *
They have - from the little of the Speccie I see - been blowing Trump's trumpet, and they are surprised that he is doing the kind of things he said he was going to do?
Cry me a river.
* Not least because, AIUI, Spectator World - their lifestyle magazine - is quite the distribution box for Trumpishness in the USA.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
I don't think they realise that. There's still a huge amount of arrogance in Brussels around being a "regulatory superpower" see their recent attempts to capture the UK AI/ML industry into their regulatory web which was rightly rejected by the last government out of hand.
You and I always talk about how people are rational and will shift when reality changes, the issue we have with the EU is that the people at the top are very much not rational. They have a religious zeal about the "project" and won't be able to accept that they need to make nice with the UK, especially when the alternative is that we drift further towards the Anglosphere over the next decade and their reluctance to shift on being a "net exporter of regulations" or whatever it is they call it will make it much more difficult to keep the UK in the tent pissing out.
Right now with everything happening in Ukraine there is a deal to be done where the EU eases up on their frankly idiotic rules around importation of certain goods from the UK given our standards are basically identical to theirs. But as I said, we're not dealing with rational people. I think if the EU drifts further to the right (as seems likely) we may get a bit more realism and willingness to trade off some aspects of regulations but with the current consensus of ultras in charge of the EU they won't water anything down, ever IMO.
The next mayor can and will change this contemptible shit
You do know that Windrush has been a name used in geographical features in the UK for decades don't you? There are at least 5 towns in the Midlands with streets named Windrush which date back to the 60s and 70s. Not to mention of course the original river that gave its name to the ship.
Not everything has to be judged against the measure of wokeness.
Some people get a real kick out of being outraged.
Would I have called the lines Windrush or Lioness? Nope.
Am I going to get outraged and want it changed? Nope.
I have better things to do than get by blood pressure up about something that really doesn't matter.
We all get a kick out of being outraged. That’s how social media WORKS
Sure, but some kicks are more visceral than others.
Hmmm maybe. But look at the guardian and the mail. They both seek clicks by outraging their readers - just from the opposite directions
There is a dopamine hit when you get angry, especially righteously angry. Surely an evolved response
And that’s one of the main drivers of the insane success of social media, along with the need for social status/esteem and the desire not to be bored
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, this is not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Absolutely not. In the customs union we would get lumped in with Trump's tariffs against the EU which look punitive. Alone we look like escaping most of it and just being hit with the baseline tariff. There is absolutely no good reason to join the EU customs union. We have a pretty good trade deal with the EU, the net benefit from joining will be absolutely tiny, we're not a goods producing or exporting nation, customs unions are of little benefit to us.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
Absolute horse shit. Turkey has been in the Customs Union since 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then please do not expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
We'd have to be in "a" customs union not "The Customs Union" which is an entirely different and much worse prospect. It has all of the downsides of being in attached to the EU, especially with Trump looking at punitive tariffs against Germany and France and none of the upsides of being out of the EU. It is the worst of all worlds and one of the few good things the Boris government did was take the idea off the table after the Theresa May government put the idea forwards.
Woke really is over. Even academia is now retreating
University of Michigan Ends Required Diversity Statements The school, a bastion of D.E.I., will no longer require the statements in hiring decisions and is considering a broader shift in its policies
(NYT)
That’s it. This is the end and the retreat will turn into a rout and then people will want revenge. The wokesters left wounded will be bayoneted
How do we stop those in charge falling for the next version of it next time though?
Severe punishment of the guilty as a deterrent. Crush the wokesters. Jail them. Cancel them. Make their lives miserable. Do as they would do. It won’t immunise us for ever but it will deter for a generation or two
Salem Woke Trials....are you going to lead as Woke Finder General?
There will be trials. I’m not joking. Especially around the trans madness. Thousands of kids were mutilated, castrated, sterilised - for no sane reason
Which reminds me. Somebody ( @kinabalu ?) asked what Trump's trans policies were. I looked it up and then forgot. It's here
The TL:DR is basically Order 66. The first part - the expulsion of ~15,000 trans US warfighters from the US armed forces - is due to take place on day 1 of the New Regime, the rest will follow. There was an article in the Spectator today - you may be aware of that magazine - about it, where they expressed surprise that anybody would do such a thing, and I am sure they were very sincere in that surprise.
The surprise surprises. *
They have - from the little of the Speccie I see - been blowing Trump's trumpet, and they are surprised that he is doing the kind of things he said he was going to do?
Cry me a river.
* Not least because, AIUI, Spectator World - their lifestyle magazine - is quite the distribution box for Trumpishness in the USA.
Suspect I am not quite right with that last para, as to what Spectator World is exactly. Clarification welcome from Those Who Know, as ever.
Here's an example of the anti-woke backlash causing real issues for some people: A doctor in Fife is currently being attacked because a common test, currently known as the red-light reflex test, does not accurately describe the appearance of the retina for anyone with dark skin, where it's more of a yellow colour.
Very sensibly, he's suggested renaming the test so that junior doctors don't mess up when the retina is an unexpected colour. And it's useful highlighting stuff like this in general because most medical textbooks use white men as their reference point, and therefore some incorrect diagnoses can come about because of variances across ethnicities, genders, ages and so on.
What is the anti-woke aspect? You don't mention it?
Woke really is over. Even academia is now retreating
University of Michigan Ends Required Diversity Statements The school, a bastion of D.E.I., will no longer require the statements in hiring decisions and is considering a broader shift in its policies
(NYT)
That’s it. This is the end and the retreat will turn into a rout and then people will want revenge. The wokesters left wounded will be bayoneted
Isn't there a danger that woke gets replaced by obnoxiousness? Because my feeling is that that was what was always behind it in the first place, a general disgruntlement.
The next mayor can and will change this contemptible shit
You do know that Windrush has been a name used in geographical features in the UK for decades don't you? There are at least 5 towns in the Midlands with streets named Windrush which date back to the 60s and 70s. Not to mention of course the original river that gave its name to the ship.
Not everything has to be judged against the measure of wokeness.
Some people get a real kick out of being outraged.
Would I have called the lines Windrush or Lioness? Nope.
Am I going to get outraged and want it changed? Nope.
I have better things to do than get by blood pressure up about something that really doesn't matter.
We all get a kick out of being outraged. That’s how social media WORKS
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
Absolute horse shit. Turkey has been in the Customs Union since 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then please do not expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
No, Turkey is in "a" customs union with the EU. It is entirely different to being in "The Customs Union" which as Richard points out, would require us to be in the EU, not even single market membership gets you in it.
The next mayor can and will change this contemptible shit
You do know that Windrush has been a name used in geographical features in the UK for decades don't you? There are at least 5 towns in the Midlands with streets named Windrush which date back to the 60s and 70s. Not to mention of course the original river that gave its name to the ship.
Not everything has to be judged against the measure of wokeness.
Some people get a real kick out of being outraged.
Would I have called the lines Windrush or Lioness? Nope.
Am I going to get outraged and want it changed? Nope.
I have better things to do than get by blood pressure up about something that really doesn't matter.
We all get a kick out of being outraged. That’s how social media WORKS
Sure, but some kicks are more visceral than others.
Hmmm maybe. But look at the guardian and the mail. They both seek clicks by outraging their readers - just from the opposite directions
There is a dopamine hit when you get angry, especially righteously angry. Surely an evolved response
And that’s one of the main drivers of the insane success of social media, along with the need for social status/esteem and the desire not to be bored
People do seem a lot angrier thesedays. I find it exhausting to maintain for long periods, but then I was once described as having the temperament and passion of lukewarm porridge. What a Valentine's Day that was.*
Woke really is over. Even academia is now retreating
University of Michigan Ends Required Diversity Statements The school, a bastion of D.E.I., will no longer require the statements in hiring decisions and is considering a broader shift in its policies
(NYT)
That’s it. This is the end and the retreat will turn into a rout and then people will want revenge. The wokesters left wounded will be bayoneted
Isn't there a danger that woke gets replaced by obnoxiousness? Because my feeling is that that was what was always behind it in the first place, a general disgruntlement.
Woke has become this catch all term for all sorts of things. Intersectionality is really the politicial idealogy that has driven the more extreme elements.
"British adults healthier in midlife than US peers 3 October 2024 Rates of obesity, high blood pressure and high cholesterol are lower among British adults in their 30s and 40s compared to their counterparts in the US, according to a new study led by UCL researchers."
The answer to that question is always yes. Studies have to involve statisticians and statistical reviewers and are therefore good, even if they involve strapping buttered toast to cats and dropping them from tables to see if they rotate mid-air.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
How so? By staying out we have a chance of being less involved in a trade war with the US, and if it comes to it we can pick retaliatory tariffs which suit us, not the whole EU.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Absolutely not. In the customs union we would get lumped in with Trump's tariffs against the EU which look punitive. Alone we look like escaping most of it and just being hit with the baseline tariff. There is absolutely no good reason to join the EU customs union. We have a pretty good trade deal with the EU, the net benefit from joining will be absolutely tiny, we're not a goods producing or exporting nation, customs unions are of little benefit to us.
Cowardice is neither a good look nor a good policy. The US economy is growing so fast because of massive re-onshoring. That is not a path that led to success in the past. Free trade is historically a better policy.
The next mayor can and will change this contemptible shit
You do know that Windrush has been a name used in geographical features in the UK for decades don't you? There are at least 5 towns in the Midlands with streets named Windrush which date back to the 60s and 70s. Not to mention of course the original river that gave its name to the ship.
Not everything has to be judged against the measure of wokeness.
Some people get a real kick out of being outraged.
Would I have called the lines Windrush or Lioness? Nope.
Am I going to get outraged and want it changed? Nope.
I have better things to do than get by blood pressure up about something that really doesn't matter.
We all get a kick out of being outraged. That’s how social media WORKS
Sure sure.
It's the most useless element of both news reporting and social media, from the point of view of anyone looking to be informed about anything.
BBC QT has Farage, one Tory (Kevin Hollinrake) and TWO Labour bigwigs: Jacqui Smith and Alastair Campbell!
Talk about lack of balance!
I do wonder how long QT has to go before they axe it. It must be one of their more expensive news/politics shows with the travelling circus and 'live' audiences. Think how many pundits or 'satire' takes you could have instead.
Amazon Prime should be banned from showing Premier League football until they can speed up their stream. Even on cable, the pictures are 120 seconds behind live! It’s absolutely dismal and ruins it as an experience because people see (and report) the goals on LiveScores two minutes before they are shown on screen.
Streaming sports sucks. Sort it out.
Actually a very interesting technical problem. But Amazon won't be investing as they are losing the rights.
But with multicast BT got the delay down to the same as satellite and Sky has got it down to 5 seconds on Stream.
Nope. I have both cable and the Sky Sports app. The app is 90-120 seconds behind cable - consistently. The streamers keep saying they will fix the lag. But, we’re still waiting.
I'm surprised Pope has made it to 50+ matches with an average under 35. It's not like he contributes with wickets as well.
Its become there has been a lack of talent, particularly at 3 where they have had him batting. They have tried Dan Lawrence and Will Jacks, who don't look like Test match players. England have lots of middle order whackers to choose from, but very few options for top 3 and Root won't bat at 3.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
How so? By staying out we have a chance of being less involved in a trade war with the US, and if it comes to it we can pick retaliatory tariffs which suit us, not the whole EU.
... Then we get jetpacks, moon-bases and disco-sci-fi? It's what I was promised, growing up.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Absolutely not. In the customs union we would get lumped in with Trump's tariffs against the EU which look punitive. Alone we look like escaping most of it and just being hit with the baseline tariff. There is absolutely no good reason to join the EU customs union. We have a pretty good trade deal with the EU, the net benefit from joining will be absolutely tiny, we're not a goods producing or exporting nation, customs unions are of little benefit to us.
Cowardice is neither a good look nor a good policy. The US economy is growing so fast because of massive re-onshoring. That is not a path that led to success in the past. Free trade is historically a better policy.
Past results done always predict the future and free trade in a free system makes sense. Free trade in a system where China continually dumps goods and hollows out domestic industries isn't a better policy as we've discovered for the past 20 years. I don't understand where cowardice comes into it, we're not in the EU, Trump is free to do whatever he likes wrt tariffs against the EU and they're free to retaliate as they see fit. I don't want the UK to get involved in either direction. We should maintain the best trading relationship we can with both parties without picking a side and certainly without entering into a customs union deal with the EU.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Absolutely not. In the customs union we would get lumped in with Trump's tariffs against the EU which look punitive. Alone we look like escaping most of it and just being hit with the baseline tariff. There is absolutely no good reason to join the EU customs union. We have a pretty good trade deal with the EU, the net benefit from joining will be absolutely tiny, we're not a goods producing or exporting nation, customs unions are of little benefit to us.
Cowardice is neither a good look nor a good policy. The US economy is growing so fast because of massive re-onshoring. That is not a path that led to success in the past. Free trade is historically a better policy.
Depends what your measure is. As with all things there are pluses and minuses. For first world countries the minus is generally exporting employment to cheaper parts of the world. Free trade is the very definition of double edged sword.
The next mayor can and will change this contemptible shit
You do know that Windrush has been a name used in geographical features in the UK for decades don't you? There are at least 5 towns in the Midlands with streets named Windrush which date back to the 60s and 70s. Not to mention of course the original river that gave its name to the ship.
Not everything has to be judged against the measure of wokeness.
I’ve actually taken to the line names (they jarred at first) and it is useful to have them distinct and separately colour-coded.
The only one that seems weird is Suffragette, way too much of a mouthful. They could have had Pankhurst line I guess?
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Absolutely not. In the customs union we would get lumped in with Trump's tariffs against the EU which look punitive. Alone we look like escaping most of it and just being hit with the baseline tariff. There is absolutely no good reason to join the EU customs union. We have a pretty good trade deal with the EU, the net benefit from joining will be absolutely tiny, we're not a goods producing or exporting nation, customs unions are of little benefit to us.
Cowardice is neither a good look nor a good policy. The US economy is growing so fast because of massive re-onshoring. That is not a path that led to success in the past. Free trade is historically a better policy.
Depends what your measure is. As with all things there are pluses and minuses. For first world countries the minus is generally exporting employment to cheaper parts of the world. Free trade is the very definition of double edged sword.
And when you've got the likes of China willfully distorting trade to favour them to intentionally hollow out industries in competitor nations it's not at all a net benefit. In the same way that the consensus on immigration has changed over the past few years as being beneficial to being not beneficial and probably a huge net burden because of low skilled immigrants contributing less to the economy than a homegrown worker, the consensus on free trade will change in a few years to using tools to fix distortions by the likes of China (and Germany) with tariffs to make domestic industries competitive.
The next mayor can and will change this contemptible shit
You do know that Windrush has been a name used in geographical features in the UK for decades don't you? There are at least 5 towns in the Midlands with streets named Windrush which date back to the 60s and 70s. Not to mention of course the original river that gave its name to the ship.
Not everything has to be judged against the measure of wokeness.
I’ve actually taken to the line names (they jarred at first) and it is useful to have them distinct and separately colour-coded.
The only one that seems weird is Suffragette, way too much of a mouthful. They could have had Pankhurst line I guess?
Wouldn't surprise me if they do change the name of this line pretty soon, perhaps in the way you suggest.
The next mayor can and will change this contemptible shit
You do know that Windrush has been a name used in geographical features in the UK for decades don't you? There are at least 5 towns in the Midlands with streets named Windrush which date back to the 60s and 70s. Not to mention of course the original river that gave its name to the ship.
Not everything has to be judged against the measure of wokeness.
I like to think "Windrush" is a reference to Mr Windrush (played by Ian Carmichael) in "I'm Alright, Jack!"
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
Absolute horse shit. Turkey has been in the Customs Union since 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then please do not expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
To answer you in kind - bollocks. Learn to read.
rkrkrk said "The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union". I have copied and pasted that exactly.
That is not possible. The Customs Union is a specific thing which is integral to membership of the EU. You cannot be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the EU.
Now if he had said we should join 'a new customs union' then that is a matter for debate. Still a very stupid idea - which incidently is why none of the other EEA members have ever done it - because for Turkey it means that you are not part of EU trade agreements with third parties as an exporter but you have to accept third party goods as an importer. This is why Turkey said they would have to leave their customs union with the EU if the EU had signed a free trade agreement with the US. It would have decimated their US trade.
So before you start throwing around claims about 'basic facts' try and learn them yourself. And like I say, learn to read.
Here's an example of the anti-woke backlash causing real issues for some people: A doctor in Fife is currently being attacked because a common test, currently known as the red-light reflex test, does not accurately describe the appearance of the retina for anyone with dark skin, where it's more of a yellow colour.
Very sensibly, he's suggested renaming the test so that junior doctors don't mess up when the retina is an unexpected colour. And it's useful highlighting stuff like this in general because most medical textbooks use white men as their reference point, and therefore some incorrect diagnoses can come about because of variances across ethnicities, genders, ages and so on.
What is the anti-woke aspect? You don't mention it?
I believe the doctor is being attacked as 'woke' for wanting to rename the test and make it more applicable.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
True, but that also doesn't stop us building all the facilities of the soft customs border (surveillance, weight sensor thingies under the roads) which at any rate are extremely useful for security. And when Trump comes in, assuming he's well-disposed toward the UK, he's far less likely than Biden to use the GFA to come in with sliding tackles to 'stop the Brits screwing around'. I'd say things will move increasingly in this direction, and it's an interesting straw in the wind.
The next mayor can and will change this contemptible shit
You do know that Windrush has been a name used in geographical features in the UK for decades don't you? There are at least 5 towns in the Midlands with streets named Windrush which date back to the 60s and 70s. Not to mention of course the original river that gave its name to the ship.
Not everything has to be judged against the measure of wokeness.
Some people get a real kick out of being outraged.
Would I have called the lines Windrush or Lioness? Nope.
Am I going to get outraged and want it changed? Nope.
I have better things to do than get by blood pressure up about something that really doesn't matter.
We all get a kick out of being outraged. That’s how social media WORKS
Lads! I think we've found our Victor Meldrew for the One Foot in the Grave reboot.
One watery bright spot is that ‘populist’ Farage doesn’t seem that popular on the inane clapping metric.
He annoyed the woman who said no to all asylum seekers by saying it is sometimes right to accept them. She probably won't be happy if/when she finds out he's also anti-capital punishment.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
Absolute horse shit. Turkey has been in the Customs Union since 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then please do not expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
To answer you in kind - bollocks. Learn to read.
rkrkrk said "The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union". I have copied and pasted that exactly.
That is not possible. The Customs Union is a specific thing which is integral to membership of the EU. You cannot be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the EU.
Now if he had said we should join 'a new customs union' then that is a matter for debate. Still a very stupid idea - which incidently is why none of the other EEA members have ever done it - because for Turkey it means that you are not part of EU trade agreements with third parties as an exporter but you have to accept third party goods as an importer. This is why Turkey said they would have to leave their customs union with the EU if the EU had signed a free trade agreement with the US. It would have decimated their US trade.
So before you start throwing around claims about 'basic facts' try and learn them yourself. And like I say, learn to read.
Okay I mean a new customs union so we can trade easily with our largest trading partner.
One watery bright spot is that ‘populist’ Farage doesn’t seem that popular on the inane clapping metric.
He annoyed the woman who said no to all asylum seekers by saying it is sometimes right to accept them. She probably won't be happy if/when she finds out he's also anti-capital punishment.
The revolution begins to eat itself. Farage will be woke by the end of 2024.
"British adults healthier in midlife than US peers 3 October 2024 Rates of obesity, high blood pressure and high cholesterol are lower among British adults in their 30s and 40s compared to their counterparts in the US, according to a new study led by UCL researchers."
It's quite an interesting article, but the funding was just for a cohort study of disease in a British population and the article just a comparison with a similar US study.
This is quite startling:
"In the US, the poorest adults were around eight times more likely to have diabetes than the richest and were seven times more likely to smoke. In Britain, the poorest adults were twice as likely for both diabetes and smoking. Wider inequalities were also found in the US for obesity, high blood pressure and high cholesterol."
Considering the issues that poorer diabetics in the USA have accessing even basic care like insulin prescriptions before Obamacare, that is a very stark statistic. Abolishing the controls on insulin prices and stopping compulsion on insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is going to cause carnage.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
Absolute horse shit. Turkey has been in the Customs Union since 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then please do not expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
To answer you in kind - bollocks. Learn to read.
rkrkrk said "The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union". I have copied and pasted that exactly.
That is not possible. The Customs Union is a specific thing which is integral to membership of the EU. You cannot be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the EU.
Now if he had said we should join 'a new customs union' then that is a matter for debate. Still a very stupid idea - which incidently is why none of the other EEA members have ever done it - because for Turkey it means that you are not part of EU trade agreements with third parties as an exporter but you have to accept third party goods as an importer. This is why Turkey said they would have to leave their customs union with the EU if the EU had signed a free trade agreement with the US. It would have decimated their US trade.
So before you start throwing around claims about 'basic facts' try and learn them yourself. And like I say, learn to read.
Okay I mean a new customs union so we can trade easily with our largest trading partner.
Yep my annoyance was directed at you.
But as I say that is a really bad situation to be in if it is the same as the Turkish:EU Customs Union. It would be disastrous for our Third Party trade.
A much better way would be to join EFTA and the EEA so we get full Single Market access but without the Customs Union.
Here's an example of the anti-woke backlash causing real issues for some people: A doctor in Fife is currently being attacked because a common test, currently known as the red-light reflex test, does not accurately describe the appearance of the retina for anyone with dark skin, where it's more of a yellow colour.
Very sensibly, he's suggested renaming the test so that junior doctors don't mess up when the retina is an unexpected colour. And it's useful highlighting stuff like this in general because most medical textbooks use white men as their reference point, and therefore some incorrect diagnoses can come about because of variances across ethnicities, genders, ages and so on.
What is the anti-woke aspect? You don't mention it?
I believe the doctor is being attacked as 'woke' for wanting to rename the test and make it more applicable.
I vaguely got that gist. But... some detail would have been helpful.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
How so? By staying out we have a chance of being less involved in a trade war with the US, and if it comes to it we can pick retaliatory tariffs which suit us, not the whole EU.
The way I see it, our trade to US is going to take a hit whatever. Trump is going to bring in tariffs.the only way to make up for that easily is to improve terms with the EU.
Note that these are people who have successfully applied for asylum. Currently they cease to be housed after 4 weeks, and as they have been banned from working while applying, have no income, with benefits paid in arrears so they are made homeless without income. I know some as my Church supports them by providing food and sleeping bags etc.
One thing that I do rate with the Labour relaunch is that they've recognised the problem of public sector productivity, I'm looking forwards to their solutions. If it doesn't include pay and hiring freezes as well as job cuts across departments including the NHS then they won't get anywhere. We need more output with a reduction in input. Businesses achieve this all the time, now it's time for the public sector to do the same.
You need to do the opposite in a lot of cases. Pay rises where necessary to reach market rates so all the vacancies can be filled, and those expensive consultants (like me) costing £1k+ per day to fill all the gaps can be given their marching orders. Then stuff might actually be done, for less.
(I should add I don't get anything like £1k per day, plenty of others are dipping their beaks in the trough ahead of me).
Ban consultancy and agency workers for a period of 2 years and implement a one in one out policy if they need expertise. Get rid of people before anyone can be hired. Also, most of the management consultants are shit anyway.
How are you going to implement any IT project, to improve productivity, with civil service pay scales and a ban on consultants?
Hire permanently at proper market rate. Don't get someone from a consultancy for £2-3k per day for 3 months who's expertise disappears and then hire another different consultant for another £2-3k per day when the system that was built by the first one fucks up.
As I'm currently in gardening leave and have the type of skillset that is desired for those projects I can reasonably say that the permanent salaries that I get contacted about even among the top brackets are pitiful. One was a £70k pay cut vs my last position and a full week vs a 4 day week I had before. It's fundamentally not competitive to be in the public sector for highly skilled people unless you're a doctor or medical consultant. The salaries are just awful and all of the people who work in the public sector just tell me how frustrating it is because morons at the top who don't know what they're doing are in charge so nothing gets done.
I'd also clear out the "management class" and put operational people in charge. I've been managed by non-technical people in the past and it always ends in disaster because they're idiots who think they know best but are generally clueless and hinder work and progress.
That's across all roles. In senior technical roles public sector salaries can be 30-40% lower than the private sector. What's ridiculous is that if the public sector shit canned consultants and pushed the fees into competitive salaries the gap would be a lot lower and stability much higher. The only downsides would be engineering management who aren't engineers but that can also be fixed by firing the existing management class in the state sector.
Just because you are a good engineer doesn't mean you make a good manager, not least as public sector managers to have manage a set budget from taxpayers
That's true but not all engineers want or need to be managers. EMs that can't code are useless. You only need a handful of engineers that are technically minded to be able to manage teams/departments it just means you need to pay them accordingly to get them in. The EM at my previous company made £180k per year but he was brilliant and worth the money. The chances of someone earning that for the same role in the state is less than zero.
“I’ll tell you one or two things about Moriarty which may interest you.”
“You’ll interest me, right enough.”
“I happen to know who is the first link in his chain—a chain with this Napoleon-gone-wrong at one end, and a hundred broken fighting men, pickpockets, blackmailers, and card sharpers at the other, with every sort of crime in between. His chief of staff is Colonel Sebastian Moran, as aloof and guarded and inaccessible to the law as himself. What do you think he pays him?”
“I’d like to hear.”
“Six thousand a year. That’s paying for brains, you see—the American business principle. I learned that detail quite by chance. It’s more than the Prime Minister gets.”
Note that these are people who have successfully applied for asylum. Currently they cease to be housed after 4 weeks, and as they have been banned from working while applying, have no income, with benefits paid in arrears so they are made homeless without income. I know some as my Church supports them by providing food and sleeping bags etc.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
How so? By staying out we have a chance of being less involved in a trade war with the US, and if it comes to it we can pick retaliatory tariffs which suit us, not the whole EU.
The way I see it, our trade to US is going to take a hit whatever. Trump is going to bring in tariffs.the only way to make up for that easily is to improve terms with the EU.
I don't see the logic. If Trump adds tariffs to things we export to the US (which are offset by a stronger dollar anyway), how will marginally reduced customs paperwork for exports to the EU make up for anything? In any case, 70% of our exports to the US are services which are not subject to tariffs.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
Absolute horse shit. Turkey has been in the Customs Union since 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then please do not expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
To answer you in kind - bollocks. Learn to read.
rkrkrk said "The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union". I have copied and pasted that exactly.
That is not possible. The Customs Union is a specific thing which is integral to membership of the EU. You cannot be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the EU.
Now if he had said we should join 'a new customs union' then that is a matter for debate. Still a very stupid idea - which incidently is why none of the other EEA members have ever done it - because for Turkey it means that you are not part of EU trade agreements with third parties as an exporter but you have to accept third party goods as an importer. This is why Turkey said they would have to leave their customs union with the EU if the EU had signed a free trade agreement with the US. It would have decimated their US trade.
So before you start throwing around claims about 'basic facts' try and learn them yourself. And like I say, learn to read.
Okay I mean a new customs union so we can trade easily with our largest trading partner.
Yep my annoyance was directed at you.
But as I say that is a really bad situation to be in if it is the same as the Turkish:EU Customs Union. It would be disastrous for our Third Party trade.
A much better way would be to join EFTA and the EEA so we get full Single Market access but without the Customs Union.
@rkrkrk Sorry that should have said my annoyance was NOT directed at you. Only spotted the mistake too late for editing.
Note that these are people who have successfully applied for asylum. Currently they cease to be housed after 4 weeks, and as they have been banned from working while applying, have no income, with benefits paid in arrears so they are made homeless without income. I know some as my Church supports them by providing food and sleeping bags etc.
Who's paying for the extra time in hotels?
The taxpayer is, so as to prevent them living as rough sleepers. It's much easier for them to find work and therefore accommodation from a hotel than a sleeping bag in a doorway.
By definition these are people who are here legally.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
Absolute horse shit. Turkey has been in the Customs Union since 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then please do not expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
To answer you in kind - bollocks. Learn to read.
rkrkrk said "The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union". I have copied and pasted that exactly.
That is not possible. The Customs Union is a specific thing which is integral to membership of the EU. You cannot be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the EU.
Now if he had said we should join 'a new customs union' then that is a matter for debate. Still a very stupid idea - which incidently is why none of the other EEA members have ever done it - because for Turkey it means that you are not part of EU trade agreements with third parties as an exporter but you have to accept third party goods as an importer. This is why Turkey said they would have to leave their customs union with the EU if the EU had signed a free trade agreement with the US. It would have decimated their US trade.
So before you start throwing around claims about 'basic facts' try and learn them yourself. And like I say, learn to read.
Okay I mean a new customs union so we can trade easily with our largest trading partner.
Yep my annoyance was directed at you.
But as I say that is a really bad situation to be in if it is the same as the Turkish:EU Customs Union. It would be disastrous for our Third Party trade.
A much better way would be to join EFTA and the EEA so we get full Single Market access but without the Customs Union.
Sorry that should have said my annoyance was NOT directed at you. Only spotted the mistake too late for editing.
You aren't annoyed with yourself?
Fair enough. And thanks for sharing with us. The doctor will see you soon.
Note that these are people who have successfully applied for asylum. Currently they cease to be housed after 4 weeks, and as they have been banned from working while applying, have no income, with benefits paid in arrears so they are made homeless without income. I know some as my Church supports them by providing food and sleeping bags etc.
Who's paying for the extra time in hotels?
The taxpayer is, so as to prevent them living as rough sleepers. It's much easier for them to find work and therefore accommodation from a hotel than a sleeping bag in a doorway.
By definition these are people who are here legally.
Since they're legal, doesn't the local council have an immediate duty to house them - they now have "recourse to public funds". So it's more about giving more time for that transition?
Note that these are people who have successfully applied for asylum. Currently they cease to be housed after 4 weeks, and as they have been banned from working while applying, have no income, with benefits paid in arrears so they are made homeless without income. I know some as my Church supports them by providing food and sleeping bags etc.
Who's paying for the extra time in hotels?
The taxpayer is, so as to prevent them living as rough sleepers. It's much easier for them to find work and therefore accommodation from a hotel than a sleeping bag in a doorway.
By definition these are people who are here legally.
Since they're legal, doesn't the local council have an immediate duty to house them - they now have "recourse to public funds". So it's more about giving more time for that transition?
In practice they have to be made rough sleepers before the council pays for emergency accommodation.
Some sofa surf with friends etc, but a lot have to sleep rough, and that is not an easy path to employment and contributing to society.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
Your weekly reminder that of all the possible alternatives with regards to our relationship with the EU, thieves not one of them.
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
Absolute horse shit. Turkey has been in the Customs Union since 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then please do not expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
To answer you in kind - bollocks. Learn to read.
rkrkrk said "The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union". I have copied and pasted that exactly.
That is not possible. The Customs Union is a specific thing which is integral to membership of the EU. You cannot be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the EU.
Now if he had said we should join 'a new customs union' then that is a matter for debate. Still a very stupid idea - which incidently is why none of the other EEA members have ever done it - because for Turkey it means that you are not part of EU trade agreements with third parties as an exporter but you have to accept third party goods as an importer. This is why Turkey said they would have to leave their customs union with the EU if the EU had signed a free trade agreement with the US. It would have decimated their US trade.
So before you start throwing around claims about 'basic facts' try and learn them yourself. And like I say, learn to read.
Okay I mean a new customs union so we can trade easily with our largest trading partner.
Yep my annoyance was directed at you.
But as I say that is a really bad situation to be in if it is the same as the Turkish:EU Customs Union. It would be disastrous for our Third Party trade.
A much better way would be to join EFTA and the EEA so we get full Single Market access but without the Customs Union.
Sorry that should have said my annoyance was NOT directed at you. Only spotted the mistake too late for editing.
You aren't annoyed with yourself?
Fair enough. And thanks for sharing with us. The doctor will see you soon.
I have corrected. But I always like to be fair to myself or I might sulk.
I am not predicting it survives, but it could become the settled position of the right wing parties and therefore likely to become future Government policy.
That solution was already proposed by the Boris government and rejected by the EU as they wanted to crowbar the UK into a customs union. I don't think the EU stance has changed enough to allow for customs pre-clearance but I guess it might be worth asking again. I don't think they will allow it without the UK being in the single market, having a third party nation in a customs pre-clearance zone would basically eliminate all trade friction for exports into the EU, especially around food where they've been attempting to force the UK into dynamic regulatory alignment to get low/no check market access.
The private members bill may get the government to adopt that negotiating position but it doesn't force the EU to accept it as a solution. The Boris deal is the current reasonable best case solution that is acceptable to the EU. We can't unilaterally force them to accept something they don't want.
With the recent changes in the US, we may be in a better negotiating position than we were. The EU needs all the friends it can get right now.
The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union. If Trump delivers on tariffs we will want to be in rather than out.
How so? By staying out we have a chance of being less involved in a trade war with the US, and if it comes to it we can pick retaliatory tariffs which suit us, not the whole EU.
The way I see it, our trade to US is going to take a hit whatever. Trump is going to bring in tariffs.the only way to make up for that easily is to improve terms with the EU.
I don't see the logic. If Trump adds tariffs to things we export to the US (which are offset by a stronger dollar anyway), how will marginally reduced customs paperwork for exports to the EU make up for anything? In any case, 70% of our exports to the US are services which are not subject to tariffs.
I think the tariffs are another thing Trump will finesse ,forget about or run away from.
eg Mexico exports 2.5 million cars to the USA every year, a large % from USA manufacturers. That's 10% of the US market. He's not going to heavily tariff *that* and all the car parts.
Trump's in over his head. All he really wants is to stay out of prison.
Looking through the baby names spreadsheet from the ONS, I just noticed that in addition to a Mohammed-Harris (yes really), there was also a Mohammed-Dean.
I guess that's giving the kid full flexibility - you want to go with your Muslim heritage first, go with Mohammed... and if you want to go with the whole WWC, then you always go with Dean.
Looking through the baby names spreadsheet from the ONS, I just noticed that in addition to a Mohammed-Harris (yes really), there was also a Mohammed-Dean.
I guess that's giving the kid full flexibility - you want to go with your Muslim heritage first, go with Mohammed... and if you want to go with the whole WWC, then you always go with Dean.
Dean is not an unusual name for Muslims, though usually spelt Deen or Din in English. Indeed it is the root of the name Aladdin
Looking through the baby names spreadsheet from the ONS, I just noticed that in addition to a Mohammed-Harris (yes really), there was also a Mohammed-Dean.
I guess that's giving the kid full flexibility - you want to go with your Muslim heritage first, go with Mohammed... and if you want to go with the whole WWC, then you always go with Dean.
Looking through the baby names spreadsheet from the ONS, I just noticed that in addition to a Mohammed-Harris (yes really), there was also a Mohammed-Dean.
I guess that's giving the kid full flexibility - you want to go with your Muslim heritage first, go with Mohammed... and if you want to go with the whole WWC, then you always go with Dean.
It might also be a play on the concept of Deen.
There were a number of Mohammed-Deen's, so that makes sense; presumably deliberately choosing to anglicize it somewhat.
I have spotted no Mohammed-Kevin's yet, but I did see a Maryam-Sharon.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
Of course but it's a form of denial to think that you can redress the balance by increasing their domestic consumption. You need to destroy Germany's productive capacity and move it somewhere else if that's your goal.
It's not denial at all.
A country's trade balance is a consequence of whether it is consuming more than it is producing or not. If you you consumer more than you produce, you run a trade deficit. And vice versa.
There are *many* countries where household consumption is higher than Germany's. For example, Americans buy 0.05 cars per capita (i.e. one new car for every twenty Americans), while for Germans it is 0.03 (i.e. one new car for every thirty three Germans). If Germans refreshed their cars as often as Americans, it would soak up a significant portion of the German trade surplus.
The problem is that certain countries - *cough* Germany *cough* - have fetishized saving. And that causes imbalances in the world (as well as making the Eurozone fundamentally unstable.)
Remember: for every saver there has to be a borrower. Saving and borrowing are flip sides of the same coin. If I am deferring consumption, you need to be bringing it forward.
Have you changed your views on trade deficits? I seem to remember you arguing that they didn't matter and using the analogy of a personal trade deficit with the supermarket you buy food from.
Looking through the baby names spreadsheet from the ONS, I just noticed that in addition to a Mohammed-Harris (yes really), there was also a Mohammed-Dean.
I guess that's giving the kid full flexibility - you want to go with your Muslim heritage first, go with Mohammed... and if you want to go with the whole WWC, then you always go with Dean.
It might also be a play on the concept of Deen.
There were a number of Mohammed-Deen's, so that makes sense; presumably deliberately choosing to anglicize it somewhat.
I have spotted no Mohammed-Kevin's yet, but I did see a Maryam-Sharon.
He likened the situation to the Dec. 12 military coup in 1979, where a semblance of retreat masked the underlying plans of the soldiers who plotted the uprising.
Kim speculated that the earlier attempt at martial law failed due to the public's resistance and what he called the incompetence of the defense minister.
"They might think next time will be different, and they'll focus on taking control of the National Assembly first," he said...
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
Of course but it's a form of denial to think that you can redress the balance by increasing their domestic consumption. You need to destroy Germany's productive capacity and move it somewhere else if that's your goal.
It's not denial at all.
A country's trade balance is a consequence of whether it is consuming more than it is producing or not. If you you consumer more than you produce, you run a trade deficit. And vice versa.
There are *many* countries where household consumption is higher than Germany's. For example, Americans buy 0.05 cars per capita (i.e. one new car for every twenty Americans), while for Germans it is 0.03 (i.e. one new car for every thirty three Germans). If Germans refreshed their cars as often as Americans, it would soak up a significant portion of the German trade surplus.
The problem is that certain countries - *cough* Germany *cough* - have fetishized saving. And that causes imbalances in the world (as well as making the Eurozone fundamentally unstable.)
Remember: for every saver there has to be a borrower. Saving and borrowing are flip sides of the same coin. If I am deferring consumption, you need to be bringing it forward.
Have you changed your views on trade deficits? I seem to remember you arguing that they didn't matter and using the analogy of a personal trade deficit with the supermarket you buy food from.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
Of course but it's a form of denial to think that you can redress the balance by increasing their domestic consumption. You need to destroy Germany's productive capacity and move it somewhere else if that's your goal.
It's not denial at all.
A country's trade balance is a consequence of whether it is consuming more than it is producing or not. If you you consumer more than you produce, you run a trade deficit. And vice versa.
There are *many* countries where household consumption is higher than Germany's. For example, Americans buy 0.05 cars per capita (i.e. one new car for every twenty Americans), while for Germans it is 0.03 (i.e. one new car for every thirty three Germans). If Germans refreshed their cars as often as Americans, it would soak up a significant portion of the German trade surplus.
The problem is that certain countries - *cough* Germany *cough* - have fetishized saving. And that causes imbalances in the world (as well as making the Eurozone fundamentally unstable.)
Remember: for every saver there has to be a borrower. Saving and borrowing are flip sides of the same coin. If I am deferring consumption, you need to be bringing it forward.
Have you changed your views on trade deficits? I seem to remember you arguing that they didn't matter and using the analogy of a personal trade deficit with the supermarket you buy food from.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
Of course but it's a form of denial to think that you can redress the balance by increasing their domestic consumption. You need to destroy Germany's productive capacity and move it somewhere else if that's your goal.
It's not denial at all.
A country's trade balance is a consequence of whether it is consuming more than it is producing or not. If you you consumer more than you produce, you run a trade deficit. And vice versa.
There are *many* countries where household consumption is higher than Germany's. For example, Americans buy 0.05 cars per capita (i.e. one new car for every twenty Americans), while for Germans it is 0.03 (i.e. one new car for every thirty three Germans). If Germans refreshed their cars as often as Americans, it would soak up a significant portion of the German trade surplus.
The problem is that certain countries - *cough* Germany *cough* - have fetishized saving. And that causes imbalances in the world (as well as making the Eurozone fundamentally unstable.)
Remember: for every saver there has to be a borrower. Saving and borrowing are flip sides of the same coin. If I am deferring consumption, you need to be bringing it forward.
Have you changed your views on trade deficits? I seem to remember you arguing that they didn't matter and using the analogy of a personal trade deficit with the supermarket you buy food from.
Always thought your YouTube videos were very good. I reckon if you had kept the output going you could easily be one of those really big YouTube fact / explainer channels. At the time you were getting a lot more views on every video than you had subscribers which isn't very common.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
Of course but it's a form of denial to think that you can redress the balance by increasing their domestic consumption. You need to destroy Germany's productive capacity and move it somewhere else if that's your goal.
It's not denial at all.
A country's trade balance is a consequence of whether it is consuming more than it is producing or not. If you you consumer more than you produce, you run a trade deficit. And vice versa.
There are *many* countries where household consumption is higher than Germany's. For example, Americans buy 0.05 cars per capita (i.e. one new car for every twenty Americans), while for Germans it is 0.03 (i.e. one new car for every thirty three Germans). If Germans refreshed their cars as often as Americans, it would soak up a significant portion of the German trade surplus.
The problem is that certain countries - *cough* Germany *cough* - have fetishized saving. And that causes imbalances in the world (as well as making the Eurozone fundamentally unstable.)
Remember: for every saver there has to be a borrower. Saving and borrowing are flip sides of the same coin. If I am deferring consumption, you need to be bringing it forward.
Have you changed your views on trade deficits? I seem to remember you arguing that they didn't matter and using the analogy of a personal trade deficit with the supermarket you buy food from.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
If Elon takes the same approach as at Twitter then it could easily be transformative, transforming the USA into a failed State.
It may well put a lot of investment our way.
If the US fails, everyone fails.
When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs came into effect, other countries responded and world trade collapsed... everyone suffered.
Relative outperformance was still shit.
America was a surplus nation then. You can’t compare it with the current situation.
Of course you can compare it to the current situation.
If every country tries to protect exports via the use of retaliatory tariffs - as is entirely possible - then we will all get poorer.
It is deeply naive to assume (a) that free trade is the cause of America's trade deficits, and (b) that tariffs are a consequence free way to solve the issue.
For what it's worth, I blame Germany and China at least as much as the US for the predicament: they should be consuming a lot more of what they produce, and they should be implementing pro-consumption policies. (Sadly the "Swabian housewife attitude still infects German politics.)
Talk about being deeply naive! You seem to have completely bought into the propaganda about free trade allowing everyone to get rich together as if we can all live in the 1990s forever, but the reality is that economics cannot be separated from politics. China is intentionally acquiring a dominant position in order to assert its political goals.
Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU. It's perverse to think you can solve anything by having them buy more of their own cars.
"Germany in absolute terms has one of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the EU."
So what? It's consumption relative to income that determines your trade balance.
Of course but it's a form of denial to think that you can redress the balance by increasing their domestic consumption. You need to destroy Germany's productive capacity and move it somewhere else if that's your goal.
It's not denial at all.
A country's trade balance is a consequence of whether it is consuming more than it is producing or not. If you you consumer more than you produce, you run a trade deficit. And vice versa.
There are *many* countries where household consumption is higher than Germany's. For example, Americans buy 0.05 cars per capita (i.e. one new car for every twenty Americans), while for Germans it is 0.03 (i.e. one new car for every thirty three Germans). If Germans refreshed their cars as often as Americans, it would soak up a significant portion of the German trade surplus.
The problem is that certain countries - *cough* Germany *cough* - have fetishized saving. And that causes imbalances in the world (as well as making the Eurozone fundamentally unstable.)
Remember: for every saver there has to be a borrower. Saving and borrowing are flip sides of the same coin. If I am deferring consumption, you need to be bringing it forward.
Have you changed your views on trade deficits? I seem to remember you arguing that they didn't matter and using the analogy of a personal trade deficit with the supermarket you buy food from.
Comments
published at 10.1 overs
10.1 overs
Root c Mitchell b Smith 3
Plucked from the air!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c4gp4lneqwet
They have - from the little of the Speccie I see - been blowing Trump's trumpet, and they are surprised that he is doing the kind of things he said he was going to do?
Cry me a river.
* Not least because, AIUI, Spectator World - their lifestyle magazine - is quite the distribution box for Trumpishness in the USA.
You and I always talk about how people are rational and will shift when reality changes, the issue we have with the EU is that the people at the top are very much not rational. They have a religious zeal about the "project" and won't be able to accept that they need to make nice with the UK, especially when the alternative is that we drift further towards the Anglosphere over the next decade and their reluctance to shift on being a "net exporter of regulations" or whatever it is they call it will make it much more difficult to keep the UK in the tent pissing out.
Right now with everything happening in Ukraine there is a deal to be done where the EU eases up on their frankly idiotic rules around importation of certain goods from the UK given our standards are basically identical to theirs. But as I said, we're not dealing with rational people. I think if the EU drifts further to the right (as seems likely) we may get a bit more realism and willingness to trade off some aspects of regulations but with the current consensus of ultras in charge of the EU they won't water anything down, ever IMO.
There is a dopamine hit when you get angry, especially righteously angry. Surely an evolved response
And that’s one of the main drivers of the insane success of social media, along with the need for social status/esteem and the desire not to be bored
Customs Union membership is a fundamental part of the EU treaties and, barring a few tiny enclaves which are explicitly written into the treaties, the only way to be a member of the Customs Union is to be a full member of the EU.
BBC News - Home Office to give refugees more time to find housing
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx27npv58nno
Talk about lack of balance!
*some facts described herein may be embellished
The subtleties of the English language I guess.
Well, either that or Threads.
The only one that seems weird is Suffragette, way too much of a mouthful. They could have had Pankhurst line I guess?
rkrkrk said "The whole of the UK should just rejoin the customs Union". I have copied and pasted that exactly.
That is not possible. The Customs Union is a specific thing which is integral to membership of the EU. You cannot be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the EU.
Now if he had said we should join 'a new customs union' then that is a matter for debate. Still a very stupid idea - which incidently is why none of the other EEA members have ever done it - because for Turkey it means that you are not part of EU trade agreements with third parties as an exporter but you have to accept third party goods as an importer. This is why Turkey said they would have to leave their customs union with the EU if the EU had signed a free trade agreement with the US. It would have decimated their US trade.
So before you start throwing around claims about 'basic facts' try and learn them yourself. And like I say, learn to read.
Lisa Nandy MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mariella Frostrup, Rory Stewart and Anand Menon. *
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0025f79/question-time-2024-28112024
* As with the Labour, it may depend on your definitions.
Christ.
One watery bright spot is that ‘populist’ Farage doesn’t seem that popular on the inane clapping metric.
This is quite startling:
"In the US, the poorest adults were around eight times more likely to have diabetes than the richest and were seven times more likely to smoke. In Britain, the poorest adults were twice as likely for both diabetes and smoking. Wider inequalities were also found in the US for obesity, high blood pressure and high cholesterol."
Considering the issues that poorer diabetics in the USA have accessing even basic care like insulin prescriptions before Obamacare, that is a very stark statistic. Abolishing the controls on insulin prices and stopping compulsion on insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is going to cause carnage.
But as I say that is a really bad situation to be in if it is the same as the Turkish:EU Customs Union. It would be disastrous for our Third Party trade.
A much better way would be to join EFTA and the EEA so we get full Single Market access but without the Customs Union.
On The Rest is Politics, Campbell was saying that he was going to be a little blunt rather than trying to counter Farage with propositional logic.
Just seen on my FB feed that there's going to be a tenth Star Wars film (as in Episode Ten). With Daisy Ridley!
Note that these are people who have successfully applied for asylum. Currently they cease to be housed after 4 weeks, and as they have been banned from working while applying, have no income, with benefits paid in arrears so they are made homeless without income. I know some as my Church supports them by providing food and sleeping bags etc.
“You’ll interest me, right enough.”
“I happen to know who is the first link in his chain—a chain with this Napoleon-gone-wrong at one end, and a hundred broken fighting men, pickpockets, blackmailers, and card sharpers at the other, with every sort of crime in between. His chief of staff is Colonel Sebastian Moran, as aloof and guarded and inaccessible to the law as himself. What do you think he pays him?”
“I’d like to hear.”
“Six thousand a year. That’s paying for brains, you see—the American business principle. I learned that detail quite by chance. It’s more than the Prime Minister gets.”
By definition these are people who are here legally.
Fair enough. And thanks for sharing with us. The doctor will see you soon.
It has no sense for true meaning and beauty in language"
https://thecritic.co.uk/ai-is-a-terrible-poet/
Some sofa surf with friends etc, but a lot have to sleep rough, and that is not an easy path to employment and contributing to society.
eg Mexico exports 2.5 million cars to the USA every year, a large % from USA manufacturers. That's 10% of the US market. He's not going to heavily tariff *that* and all the car parts.
Trump's in over his head. All he really wants is to stay out of prison.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1864820164413239473?t=v08pAddDnHqwalAqTter8Q&s=19
Rebels in Syria attempting to fly a military chopper by watching a YouTube video.
https://x.com/AlexandruC4/status/1864678669874020504
I guess that's giving the kid full flexibility - you want to go with your Muslim heritage first, go with Mohammed... and if you want to go with the whole WWC, then you always go with Dean.
This is the sort of thing that really winds me up with how this stuff gets reported.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1864822848478462461?t=AE3ecZirkeUkSW16XH1IGA&s=19
https://x.com/admcrlsn/status/1864680697459245117
Sounds as though she'll vote to confirm, then.
I have spotted no Mohammed-Kevin's yet, but I did see a Maryam-Sharon.
Will Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment vote succeed?
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=387802
Meanwhile, one lawmaker (who predicted this coup attempt) is saying Yoon might make another.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=387777
...Following the defense minister's resignation and the appointment of Choi Byung-hyuk as his replacement, Kim interpreted the move as "a temporary retreat."
He likened the situation to the Dec. 12 military coup in 1979, where a semblance of retreat masked the underlying plans of the soldiers who plotted the uprising.
Kim speculated that the earlier attempt at martial law failed due to the public's resistance and what he called the incompetence of the defense minister.
"They might think next time will be different, and they'll focus on taking control of the National Assembly first," he said...
What Causes Trade Deficits: https://youtu.be/2pKS2TCd_3c?si=oQrz-yU0RmrVATBv
The US-China Trade Deficit / Bilateral Trade Balances: https://youtu.be/4kDJDOLkQAs?si=iRbV8FRrR1giFMXC
https://unherd.com/2024/12/keir-starmer-has-no-dream/
Badenoch 3.5
Farage 3.85
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961