EM: I am a hard Brexiter. I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake.
Of course, no other state has ever tried to manipulate things in Europe to suit their own interests. I don't see much clarity of thinking or principle there, just a regular politician pinning blame for things on someone else in incredibly simplistic fashion in a way that plays well to his audience.
I have great respect for Macron getting to the presidency, and it appears he may even be able to make some credible achievements too and well done him for that, but on that issue his analysis seems as one note and blinkered as anybody else commenting on this debate.
" I always say I’m agnostic because I’d like there to be a God – a nice liberal one – but I can’t be sure there is and the idea of regular religious observance unnerves me because it would be unusual in my peer group."
There are many like Mitchell who aren't willing to say, think or do anything that sits uncomfortably within their peer group.
Yes, though to be fair Mitchell is mildly satirising himself.
"We’ll be publishing analysis of what a “no deal” Brexit would mean for prices in the shops on Tuesday..." - surely any price rises or import restrictions would be under the control of the UK government - why would they do that?
Import restrictions : the blockade of trucks leaving the UK for the EU. The "20 square kilometres of lorry parks" that the CEO of a major British port said was needed is because a hard border, even one only imposed on their side, slows traffic to a stop. And trucks stuck on the M20 can't bring products back through to the UK. And that's the cost - food for example will skyrocket in price overnight because 1/3rd is imported even "made" in the UK food.
Possibly, yes. But if his literary knowledge is as good as reputed, he doesn't mention it much.
As Yokel in effect says, it doesn't mean the politician knows much about the price of fish. But it would be nice to have politicians who don't ONLY know about the price of fish.
There seems to be some disagreement as to which party has come second in the Austrian election. Wikipedia (and others) have the Freedom Party ahead of the Social Democrats by 27.4% to 26.7% for example but alternative sources are putting the Social Democrats in second place by 26.9% to 26.0%.
That's personal votes, counted today. It's projected that Postal Votes, counted tomorrow, will favour the Left wing parties.
Politician described as near genius because they read some books and have opinions.
F**k sake.
Compare and contrast with either Donald Trump or any recent British PM....
And the world wonders why Trump got elected.
Hate to surprise you. The job of politicians is to do things that they were voted in for, make the art of the possible reality, not knock on about books. I don't particularly care about Macron. Don't know much about him and being frank nor do most people on here but i do know it won't make a wet fart of a difference that he reads some books and expresses some opinions if he doesn't deliver enough of what a significant enough group of the French population want.
Yeah fuck books innit. Surprised to hear you say so, though - you come across as someone who reads quite a lot of spy fiction.
It's a fair point, though.
Let's say Jeremy Hunt were to become PM and, say, state publicly that his favourite books were those of Ian Fleming. The howls of outrage from the Guardian that the PM's love for books awash with "sexism", "racism", and "imperalism" spoke volumes about him and his agenda for the nation would wake the dead in Godalming. George Monbiot would lay an egg.
There are only the right kinds of politicians reading the right kind of books.
According to today's Sunday Times, everyone will have to declare their sexual orientation whenever they have a doctor's appointment. Any comments?
The BBC report says no one will be forced to answer questions about it, but of course it is none of their damn business.
It is a requirement of the government equality audit to monitor these things, along with ethnicity etc to prove that we are not discriminating.
No-one is obliged to declare. Usually it is done by a form handed into reception when registering.
Yes, I understand the reason. It's not particularly compelling. From the report they will have to ask at 'every face to face contact with the patient, where no record of this data already exists'. Every face to face contact. I certainly have not had to fill out a form every time I visit the doctor, so in fact despite what you say they will apparently ask, every time, rather than take a lack of information after the first time registering as indication people don't wish to declare.
Since people don't fill out a form every time, are you sure you won't be in breach if you rely on that method?
Once the surgery or hospital has a record, it doesn't need to ask again.
Yes, but if your patient doesn't check the box, you or a member of staff will have to ask them, in person, or force the form on them again, and again, and again, until they relent. Is that not what asking at 'every face to face contact, where no record of this data already exists' means?
So the staff will have to repeatedly ask people.
Sounds like harassment to me.
"So you've not ticked the box. Are you gay or something?"
I will certainly say it's none of their business.
If not answering becomes an obstacle to me accessing an essential service, quite aside from complaining about it, I will pick the most ridiculous option available, and then say it's none of their business again.
As I said, refusing to answer ticks the "declined to say" box. No further questions required.
So the BBC report on the guidance claim is incorrect in saying question on every face to face contact if the info isn't there, essentially badgering people?
Simple. Refusing to answer is one of the answers, and doesn't need asking again.
Politician described as near genius because they read some books and have opinions.
F**k sake.
Compare and contrast with either Donald Trump or any recent British PM....
And the world wonders why Trump got elected.
Hate to surprise you. The job of politicians is to do things that they were voted in for, make the art of the possible reality, not knock on about books. I don't particularly care about Macron. Don't know much about him and being frank nor do most people on here but i do know it won't make a wet fart of a difference that he reads some books and expresses some opinions if he doesn't deliver enough of what a significant enough group of the French population want.
Yeah fuck books innit. Surprised to hear you say so, though - you come across as someone who reads quite a lot of spy fiction.
It's a fair point, though.
Let's say Jeremy Hunt were to become PM and, say, state publicly that his favourite books were those of Ian Fleming. The howls of outrage from the Guardian that the PM's love for books awash with "sexism", "racism", and "imperalism" spoke volumes about him and his agenda for the nation would wake the dead in Godalming. George Monbiot would lay an egg.
There are only the right kinds of politicians reading the right kind of books.
There seems to be some disagreement as to which party has come second in the Austrian election. Wikipedia (and others) have the Freedom Party ahead of the Social Democrats by 27.4% to 26.7% for example but alternative sources are putting the Social Democrats in second place by 26.9% to 26.0%.
The latter seems to be correct according to the main Austrian TV station ORF:
Possibly, yes. But if his literary knowledge is as good as reputed, he doesn't mention it much.
As Yokel in effect says, it doesn't mean the politician knows much about the price of fish. But it would be nice to have politicians who don't ONLY know about the price of fish.
The problem is, I'm not sure many know (metaphorically) the price of fish.
Politician described as near genius because they read some books and have opinions.
F**k sake.
Compare and contrast with either Donald Trump or any recent British PM....
And the world wonders why Trump got elected.
Hate to surprise you. The job of politicians is to do things that they were voted in for, make the art of the possible reality, not knock on about books. I don't particularly care about Macron. Don't know much about him and being frank nor do most people on here but i do know it won't make a wet fart of a difference that he reads some books and expresses some opinions if he doesn't deliver enough of what a significant enough group of the French population want.
Yeah fuck books innit. Surprised to hear you say so, though - you come across as someone who reads quite a lot of spy fiction.
It's a fair point, though.
Let's say Jeremy Hunt were to become PM and, say, state publicly that his favourite books were those of Ian Fleming. The howls of outrage from the Guardian that the PM's love for books awash with "sexism", "racism", and "imperalism" spoke volumes about him and his agenda for the nation would wake the dead in Godalming. George Monbiot would lay an egg.
There are only the right kinds of politicians reading the right kind of books.
Houllebecq is possibly one of the most controversial living authors. He has faced his fair share of accusations of sexism, misogyny and islamophobia.
Politician described as near genius because they read some books and have opinions.
F**k sake.
Compare and contrast with either Donald Trump or any recent British PM....
And the world wonders why Trump got elected.
Hate to surprise you. The job of politicians is to do things that they were voted in for, make the art of the possible reality, not knock on about books. I don't particularly care about Macron. Don't know much about him and being frank nor do most people on here but i do know it won't make a wet fart of a difference that he reads some books and expresses some opinions if he doesn't deliver enough of what a significant enough group of the French population want.
Yeah fuck books innit. Surprised to hear you say so, though - you come across as someone who reads quite a lot of spy fiction.
It's a fair point, though.
Let's say Jeremy Hunt were to become PM and, say, state publicly that his favourite books were those of Ian Fleming. The howls of outrage from the Guardian that the PM's love for books awash with "sexism", "racism", and "imperalism" spoke volumes about him and his agenda for the nation would wake the dead in Godalming. George Monbiot would lay an egg.
There are only the right kinds of politicians reading the right kind of books.
The book that Macron is discussing "Submission" is a dystopic tale of an emasculated France that gives in and becomes an Islamic state. Hardly a politically correct book.
The Austrian Lower House will have big right wing majority, but not necessarily, a right wing government.
Yes, Kurier is speculating that the FPO might even form a coalition with the social democrats (who against expectations didn't lose votes) - seems unlikely to me, but I'm no kind of Austrian expert.
SPO/FPO is unlikely, but not unprecedented. They formed a coalition in Burgenland.
Norway, Greece, New Zealand are examples in recent years of populist right wing parties opting to support left wing parties in office.
EM: I am a hard Brexiter. I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake.
Of course, no other state has ever tried to manipulate things in Europe to suit their own interests. I don't see much clarity of thinking or principle there, just a regular politician pinning blame for things on someone else in incredibly simplistic fashion in a way that plays well to his audience.
I have great respect for Macron getting to the presidency, and it appears he may even be able to make some credible achievements too and well done him for that, but on that issue his analysis seems as one note and blinkered as anybody else commenting on this debate.
I just don't see how any British politician could have squared the EU question once-and-for-all in the UK given how inflexible the EU is on the permitted boundaries of European debate. It was politically unsustainable, and that goes for both Labour and Conservatives premiers.
Of course, it's possible that it resolves itself via a chastened UK coming grovelling back to the EU, this time signing up for the lot, with tacit and somewhat sullen public support - the williamglenn theory - but, I think that's rather unlikely.
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
Simple. Refusing to answer is one of the answers, and doesn't need asking again.
More to the point, exactly what use are the data?
There are obvious and serious biases in the way the data are being collected. There are huge selection effects that will dwarf any signal and will have to be properly modelled.
To extract anything reliable from this data will be expensive and time-consuming. And the results will have large error bars.
Politician described as near genius because they read some books and have opinions.
F**k sake.
Compare and contrast with either Donald Trump or any recent British PM....
And the world wonders why Trump got elected.
Hate to surprise you. The job of politicians is to do things that they were voted in for, make the art of the possible reality, not knock on about books. I don't particularly care about Macron. Don't know much about him and being frank nor do most people on here but i do know it won't make a wet fart of a difference that he reads some books and expresses some opinions if he doesn't deliver enough of what a significant enough group of the French population want.
Yeah fuck books innit. Surprised to hear you say so, though - you come across as someone who reads quite a lot of spy fiction.
It's a fair point, though.
Let's say Jeremy Hunt were to become PM and, say, state publicly that his favourite books were those of Ian Fleming. The howls of outrage from the Guardian that the PM's love for books awash with "sexism", "racism", and "imperalism" spoke volumes about him and his agenda for the nation would wake the dead in Godalming. George Monbiot would lay an egg.
There are only the right kinds of politicians reading the right kind of books.
The book that Macron is discussing "Submission" is a dystopic tale of an emasculated France that gives in and becomes an Islamic state. Hardly a politically correct book.
Fair enough, but I think my point still holds for the UK.
Spent weekend with my French connection. Few titbits:
- Macron is not getting involved in Brexit ("I don't give a f***. Angela tells me hard Brexit is good for her so let her have it") - France has clearly communicated that a deal will be done over Ireland. No one wants to jeopardise the peace process - France doesn't want a deal on residency rights. They want to kick out 300k expensive Brits and get back 1.4 taxpayers. It's worth at least 500m eur per year - France also believes that constitutionally they can't do a deal on residency. Equality of all citizens is fundamental. Giving 1.4m citizens preferential access to a second (v g) jobs market is preferential - Merkel thinks hard Brexit is worth 1pp off her unemployment rate and 0.5pp off her NAIRU. She thinks that full employment will solve the AfD issue. - the price for trade talks is eur 50bn
Looks like we're having a Fudge Brexit then. How very European!
The point is that Germany doesn't wAnt it. In or out. Nothing in between.
It would be in line with Macron's thinking before he was elected.
EM: I am a hard Brexiter. I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake.
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
I give as little personal information as I can to the state because I simply do not trust state agencies to keep such information safe or secure. See, for instance, the loss of the child benefit disks.
And, frankly, in the wrong hands such information can be misused.
Simple. Refusing to answer is one of the answers, and doesn't need asking again.
More to the point, exactly what use are the data?
There are obvious and serious biases in the way the data are being collected. There are huge selection effects that will dwarf any signal and will have to be properly modelled.
To extract anything reliable from this data will be expensive and time-consuming. And the results will have large error bars.
Do tell us how the NHS plan to model the data.
Sure, but Public Health Physicians are very good at understanding the limitations of the data.
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
I thought they were saying the existing suppliers and supply lines would be more expensive.
How they can pontificate with certainty about unknown trading conditions, unknown tariffs, unknown exchange rates and demand is a miracle.
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
So they could have an agenda, prepare us for higher prices regardless and profiteer.
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
No deal does not mean we get no food at all from the EU, it just means there may potentially be tariffs on it and it would be more expensive but consumers could still buy it if they wished and the same applies to British food and drink in the EU which would also still be available but at a higher price.
Simple. Refusing to answer is one of the answers, and doesn't need asking again.
More to the point, exactly what use are the data?
There are obvious and serious biases in the way the data are being collected. There are huge selection effects that will dwarf any signal and will have to be properly modelled.
To extract anything reliable from this data will be expensive and time-consuming. And the results will have large error bars.
Do tell us how the NHS plan to model the data.
Sure, but Public Health Physicians are very good at understanding the limitations of the data.
Do tell us how it will be analysed, as you have been so eloquent in wanting it gathered.
Can you not see the selection effects will have to be modelled before any use can be made of it?
And the selection effects are close to being impossible to model.
Simple. Refusing to answer is one of the answers, and doesn't need asking again.
More to the point, exactly what use are the data?
There are obvious and serious biases in the way the data are being collected. There are huge selection effects that will dwarf any signal and will have to be properly modelled.
To extract anything reliable from this data will be expensive and time-consuming. And the results will have large error bars.
Do tell us how the NHS plan to model the data.
Sure, but Public Health Physicians are very good at understanding the limitations of the data.
I would have thought that any doctor worth his/her salt would ask a patient about their sexuality if they felt it relevant to a diagnosis/treatment.
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
Do you think that the forecasts they choose to put into the public domain might be coloured to help them achieve their corporate objectives? (Presumably the lowest amount of effort/investment plus the highest prices)
I give as little personal information as I can to the state because I simply do not trust state agencies to keep such information safe or secure. See, for instance, the loss of the child benefit disks.
And, frankly, in the wrong hands such information can be misused.
I feel much the same about private companies
I suspect we would all be appalled if we were to know the level of information collated about each of us. By both state and private databasese.
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
I believe you are wrong about the other sources. For example beef imports from outside the EU are subject to a quota - there is a maximum amount we are allowed to import - and also a 20% tariff although the tariff is waived for some African countries.
BBC news at 10pm found 2 Leave voters who say they are prepared to pay more for food to get Brexit but blame 'Project Fear', Remain voters more concerned unsurprisingly
I give as little personal information as I can to the state because I simply do not trust state agencies to keep such information safe or secure. See, for instance, the loss of the child benefit disks.
And, frankly, in the wrong hands such information can be misused.
I feel much the same about private companies
I suspect we would all be appalled if we were to know the level of information collated about each of us. By both state and private databasese.
Britain is £490billion poorer than thought and no longer has any reserve of net foreign assets to help protect against any damage to the economy from Brexit.
The revision to the national accounts in the ONS’s so-called Blue Book means that the UK’s net international investment position has collapsed from a surplus of £469bn to a net deficit of £22bn - equivalent to a quarter of GDP.
I give as little personal information as I can to the state because I simply do not trust state agencies to keep such information safe or secure. See, for instance, the loss of the child benefit disks.
And, frankly, in the wrong hands such information can be misused.
I feel much the same about private companies
I suspect we would all be appalled if we were to know the level of information collated about each of us. By both state and private databasese.
Simple. Refusing to answer is one of the answers, and doesn't need asking again.
More to the point, exactly what use are the data?
There are obvious and serious biases in the way the data are being collected. There are huge selection effects that will dwarf any signal and will have to be properly modelled.
To extract anything reliable from this data will be expensive and time-consuming. And the results will have large error bars.
Do tell us how the NHS plan to model the data.
Sure, but Public Health Physicians are very good at understanding the limitations of the data.
Glad I'm not an EU tomato, cucumber, early potato or courgette grower. How will I get paid for rotten produce? Maybe I could flood the rest of the EU market and watch prices dive down.
I increasingly wonder if it's Merkel and Macron who are the problem.
Merkel won't cut May any slack because the latter has a headbanger faction to keep onside, as the Greek PM also discovered. Merkel doesn't think it's her problem.
I give as little personal information as I can to the state because I simply do not trust state agencies to keep such information safe or secure. See, for instance, the loss of the child benefit disks.
And, frankly, in the wrong hands such information can be misused.
I feel much the same about private companies
I suspect we would all be appalled if we were to know the level of information collated about each of us. By both state and private databasese.
RochdalePioneers - "The majority of British lowland arable farms are compelled to cease growing on at least 15 per cent of their acreage. This year, an area the size of Surrey will be out of production.".
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
Do you think that the forecasts they choose to put into the public domain might be coloured to help them achieve their corporate objectives? (Presumably the lowest amount of effort/investment plus the highest prices)
Answering your point but HYUFD and philliph as well. The entire food industry - retailers, suppliers, wholesalers, manufacturers - is increasingly concerned. This isn't about profit this is about survival. The big supermarkets make slim margins for their size and complexity - and it's tighter still for the medium and smaller players who supply them and the tens of thousands of smaller stores.
The imposition of a hard border and customs checks - even if only one sided - will create severe disruption to the industry. Which adds cost that business can't afford and neither can consumers.
But again, I read that armchair ideologues know more than the people who actually work the detail professionally every day. Experts - traitors obviously...
I increasingly wonder if it's Merkel and Macron who are the problem.
Merkel won't cut May any slack because the latter has a headbanger faction to keep onside, as the Greek PM also discovered. Merkel doesn't think it's her problem.
That would be the same Merkel who has just seen a far right party take 13% of the vote and her own party score its lowest vote since WW2?
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
Do you think that the forecasts they choose to put into the public domain might be coloured to help them achieve their corporate objectives? (Presumably the lowest amount of effort/investment plus the highest prices)
Answering your point but HYUFD and philliph as well. The entire food industry - retailers, suppliers, wholesalers, manufacturers - is increasingly concerned. This isn't about profit this is about survival. The big supermarkets make slim margins for their size and complexity - and it's tighter still for the medium and smaller players who supply them and the tens of thousands of smaller stores.
The imposition of a hard border and customs checks - even if only one sided - will create severe disruption to the industry. Which adds cost that business can't afford and neither can consumers.
But again, I read that armchair ideologues know more than the people who actually work the detail professionally every day. Experts - traitors obviously...
Well if the EU refuses to compromise on any terms other than 50 to 100 billion euros and uncontrolled free movement they better start making contingency plans then because there will be no deal.
Simple. Refusing to answer is one of the answers, and doesn't need asking again.
More to the point, exactly what use are the data?
There are obvious and serious biases in the way the data are being collected. There are huge selection effects that will dwarf any signal and will have to be properly modelled.
To extract anything reliable from this data will be expensive and time-consuming. And the results will have large error bars.
Do tell us how the NHS plan to model the data.
Sure, but Public Health Physicians are very good at understanding the limitations of the data.
I would have thought that any doctor worth his/her salt would ask a patient about their sexuality if they felt it relevant to a diagnosis/treatment.
What else is such information used for?
It is baffling. It might have saved time in identifying what AIDS actually was if this information had been available, I suppose; I can't see how it would help monitor HIV nowadays because we now know what it is, and as you say the question would be asked as being relevant to treatment. If something entirely new crops up which preferentially affects the gay or the straight it might help a bit. Beyond that, anything interesting it throws up is going to be at least as controversial as it is interesting, and they'll have to put as much work into suppressing their conclusions as they did into reaching them.
We don't really have to import chocolate from Poland, we can bring back production to Bourneville and York - the EU doesn't grow the cocoa beans. And the EU doesn't grow coffee either, but it does stop us buying ground coffee from African suppliers.
We don't really have to import chocolate from Poland, we can bring back production to Bourneville and York - the EU doesn't grow the cocoa beans. And the EU doesn't grow coffee either, but it does stop us buying ground coffee from African suppliers.
No it doesn't. Ground coffee is tariff and quota free for most of Africa today.
We don't really have to import chocolate from Poland, we can bring back production to Bourneville and York - the EU doesn't grow the cocoa beans. And the EU doesn't grow coffee either, but it does stop us buying ground coffee from African suppliers.
No it doesn't. Ground coffee is tariff and quota free for most of Africa today.
What is the advantage in importing it ready ground?
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
Do you think that the forecasts they choose to put into the public domain might be coloured to help them achieve their corporate objectives? (Presumably the lowest amount of effort/investment plus the highest prices)
Answering your point but HYUFD and philliph as well. The entire food industry - retailers, suppliers, wholesalers, manufacturers - is increasingly concerned. This isn't about profit this is about survival. The big supermarkets make slim margins for their size and complexity - and it's tighter still for the medium and smaller players who supply them and the tens of thousands of smaller stores.
The imposition of a hard border and customs checks - even if only one sided - will create severe disruption to the industry. Which adds cost that business can't afford and neither can consumers.
But again, I read that armchair ideologues know more than the people who actually work the detail professionally every day. Experts - traitors obviously...
Well if the EU refuses to compromise on any terms other than 50 to 100 billion euros and uncontrolled free movement they better start making contingency plans then because there will be no deal.
I think if there's no deal, the Government falls.
It simply isn't strong enough in Parliament to pass the extra legislation and budgets that would be required to deal with it, and it'd need another term to bed in all the changes anyway, which it would be unlikely to get.
We don't really have to import chocolate from Poland, we can bring back production to Bourneville and York - the EU doesn't grow the cocoa beans. And the EU doesn't grow coffee either, but it does stop us buying ground coffee from African suppliers.
No it doesn't. Ground coffee is tariff and quota free for most of Africa today.
What is the advantage in importing it ready ground?
It's tariff and quota free raw for those countries too but the anti-EU brigade have a narrative that the EU uses tariff escalation to force high value processing to be located in the EU rather than at source.
I increasingly wonder if it's Merkel and Macron who are the problem.
Merkel won't cut May any slack because the latter has a headbanger faction to keep onside, as the Greek PM also discovered. Merkel doesn't think it's her problem.
Indeed so, but firstly, that's Merkel being very short-sighted, and secondly, the UK isn't Greece and actually could just cut and run although, admittedly, it would cost us.
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
Do you think that the forecasts they choose to put into the public domain might be coloured to help them achieve their corporate objectives? (Presumably the lowest amount of effort/investment plus the highest prices)
Answering your point but HYUFD and philliph as well. The entire food industry - retailers, suppliers, wholesalers, manufacturers - is increasingly concerned. This isn't about profit this is about survival. The big supermarkets make slim margins for their size and complexity - and it's tighter still for the medium and smaller players who supply them and the tens of thousands of smaller stores.
The imposition of a hard border and customs checks - even if only one sided - will create severe disruption to the industry. Which adds cost that business can't afford and neither can consumers.
But again, I read that armchair ideologues know more than the people who actually work the detail professionally every day. Experts - traitors obviously...
Well if the EU refuses to compromise on any terms other than 50 to 100 billion euros and uncontrolled free movement they better start making contingency plans then because there will be no deal.
I think if there's no deal, the Government falls.
It simply isn't strong enough in Parliament to pass the extra legislation and budgets that would be required to deal with it, and it'd need another term to bed in all the changes anyway, which it would be unlikely to get.
It can then go to the country on a platform of not paying 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU for a deal
We don't really have to import chocolate from Poland, we can bring back production to Bourneville and York - the EU doesn't grow the cocoa beans. And the EU doesn't grow coffee either, but it does stop us buying ground coffee from African suppliers.
No it doesn't. Ground coffee is tariff and quota free for most of Africa today.
Processed coffee, meaning instant is so over priced I'm amazed anyone buys it. Not only over priced but verging on undrinkable.
I increasingly wonder if it's Merkel and Macron who are the problem.
Merkel won't cut May any slack because the latter has a headbanger faction to keep onside, as the Greek PM also discovered. Merkel doesn't think it's her problem.
Indeed so, but firstly, that's Merkel being very short-sighted, and secondly, the UK isn't Greece and actually could just cut and run although, admittedly, it would cost us.
Short-sighted Merkel let in the migrants - and ended up with 13% of Germans voting for Fascists and losing her coalition.
Edit: I see HYUFD has already made the identical point....
I increasingly wonder if it's Merkel and Macron who are the problem.
Merkel won't cut May any slack because the latter has a headbanger faction to keep onside, as the Greek PM also discovered. Merkel doesn't think it's her problem.
Indeed so, but firstly, that's Merkel being very short-sighted, and secondly, the UK isn't Greece and actually could just cut and run although, admittedly, it would cost us.
Is it shortsighted of Merkel? The headbangers are the problem. Merkel is saying, sort them out. She may be doing us a favour in the long run?
I increasingly wonder if it's Merkel and Macron who are the problem.
Merkel won't cut May any slack because the latter has a headbanger faction to keep onside, as the Greek PM also discovered. Merkel doesn't think it's her problem.
Indeed so, but firstly, that's Merkel being very short-sighted, and secondly, the UK isn't Greece and actually could just cut and run although, admittedly, it would cost us.
Is it shortsighted of Merkel? The headbangers are the problem. Merkel is saying, sort them out. She may be doing us a favour in the long run?
RochdalePioneers - I suppose imports from the USA, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wouldn't be using the Channel ports. Trade from half the world comes into https://www.peelports.com/campaigns/liverpool2.
We import 25% of our food from the EU. Could other sources be found? No - if the other sources were reliable and less expensive we'd already be using them. No deal means less choice and higher prices.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
Do you think that the forecasts they choose to put into the public domain might be coloured to help them achieve their corporate objectives? (Presumably the lowest amount of effort/investment plus the highest prices)
Answering your point but HYUFD and philliph as well. The entire food industry - retailers, suppliers, wholesalers, manufacturers - is increasingly concerned. This isn't about profit this is about survival. The big supermarkets make slim margins for their size and complexity - and it's tighter still for the medium and smaller players who supply them and the tens of thousands of smaller stores.
The imposition of a hard border and customs checks - even if only one sided - will create severe disruption to the industry. Which adds cost that business can't afford and neither can consumers.
But again, I read that armchair ideologues know more than the people who actually work the detail professionally every day. Experts - traitors obviously...
Well if the EU refuses to compromise on any terms other than 50 to 100 billion euros and uncontrolled free movement they better start making contingency plans then because there will be no deal.
I think if there's no deal, the Government falls.
It simply isn't strong enough in Parliament to pass the extra legislation and budgets that would be required to deal with it, and it'd need another term to bed in all the changes anyway, which it would be unlikely to get.
Which is why Corbyn will vote against any deal, no matter how much he likes it.
She will be told in no uncertain terms by Juncker and Barnier that even if talks on our future relationship with the EU were to start in January - which as I say is by no means certain - that relationship is seen by EU governments and officials as fraught with complexities and difficult-to-resolve issues of principle.
So for what it’s worth, the proposals in our recent position papers on everything from data flows to customs checks are seen as naive and unworkable - largely because we are perceived as not having accepted that we are to become a third party, a stranger to them, no longer a member of the family.
My powerful impression is that the rest of the EU sees the UK government as less hostile than it was, but considerably more muddled.
Comments
I have great respect for Macron getting to the presidency, and it appears he may even be able to make some credible achievements too and well done him for that, but on that issue his analysis seems as one note and blinkered as anybody else commenting on this debate.
As Yokel in effect says, it doesn't mean the politician knows much about the price of fish. But it would be nice to have politicians who don't ONLY know about the price of fish.
Let's say Jeremy Hunt were to become PM and, say, state publicly that his favourite books were those of Ian Fleming. The howls of outrage from the Guardian that the PM's love for books awash with "sexism", "racism", and "imperalism" spoke volumes about him and his agenda for the nation would wake the dead in Godalming. George Monbiot would lay an egg.
There are only the right kinds of politicians reading the right kind of books.
Overall, this has been a poor year for Green Parties. Many of their voters prefer radical socialists to hippies.
Norway, Greece, New Zealand are examples in recent years of populist right wing parties opting to support left wing parties in office.
Of course, it's possible that it resolves itself via a chastened UK coming grovelling back to the EU, this time signing up for the lot, with tacit and somewhat sullen public support - the williamglenn theory - but, I think that's rather unlikely.
There are obvious and serious biases in the way the data are being collected. There are huge selection effects that will dwarf any signal and will have to be properly modelled.
To extract anything reliable from this data will be expensive and time-consuming. And the results will have large error bars.
Do tell us how the NHS plan to model the data.
At least that's what's the ports the manufacturers the retailers the haulers are saying. What the fuck would they know? Need some more optimistic forecasts obviously
And, frankly, in the wrong hands such information can be misused.
I feel much the same about private companies
How they can pontificate with certainty about unknown trading conditions, unknown tariffs, unknown exchange rates and demand is a miracle.
Can you not see the selection effects will have to be modelled before any use can be made of it?
And the selection effects are close to being impossible to model.
What else is such information used for?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/15/britains-missing-billions-revised-figures-reveal-uk-490bn-poorer/
Britain is £490billion poorer than thought and no longer has any reserve of net foreign assets to help protect against any damage to the economy from Brexit.
The revision to the national accounts in the ONS’s so-called Blue Book means that the UK’s net international investment position has collapsed from a surplus of £469bn to a net deficit of £22bn - equivalent to a quarter of GDP.
And why not more of this http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/farming/uk-s-largest-tomato-greenhouse-is-really-making-the-grade-for-local-freshness-1-4015151. I would much prefer food grown locally than picked green and trailed across Europe.
Going to take some time, but the UK government could support the change.
The imposition of a hard border and customs checks - even if only one sided - will create severe disruption to the industry. Which adds cost that business can't afford and neither can consumers.
But again, I read that armchair ideologues know more than the people who actually work the detail professionally every day. Experts - traitors obviously...
It simply isn't strong enough in Parliament to pass the extra legislation and budgets that would be required to deal with it, and it'd need another term to bed in all the changes anyway, which it would be unlikely to get.
Edit: I see HYUFD has already made the identical point....
I say those who have a democatic mandate.
She will be told in no uncertain terms by Juncker and Barnier that even if talks on our future relationship with the EU were to start in January - which as I say is by no means certain - that relationship is seen by EU governments and officials as fraught with complexities and difficult-to-resolve issues of principle.
So for what it’s worth, the proposals in our recent position papers on everything from data flows to customs checks are seen as naive and unworkable - largely because we are perceived as not having accepted that we are to become a third party, a stranger to them, no longer a member of the family.
My powerful impression is that the rest of the EU sees the UK government as less hostile than it was, but considerably more muddled.
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-15/theresa-may-brexit-barnier-juncker/