The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,
Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.
The phase one agreement commits us to:
1) support North-South cooperation 2) support the all-island economy 3) uphold the GFA
Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.
That's open to interpretation. After all, when Ireland adopted the Euro, in 1999, it was introducing a degree of economic divergence from the UK, which did not adopt the Euro.
That was when only one of those strands applied: the GFA.
And If President Macron's proposals for EZ budgets and an EZ Finance Minister were adopted by the EZ, that would be a further divergence between EZ and non-EZ countries, but I think it would be silly for us to argue that this was placing Ireland in breach of the GFA.
The phase one agreement is broader than the GFA and places constraints on the UK, not vice-versa.
The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,
Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.
The phase one agreement commits us to:
1) support North-South cooperation 2) support the all-island economy 3) uphold the GFA
Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.
That's open to interpretation. After all, when Ireland adopted the Euro, in 1999, it was introducing a degree of economic divergence from the UK, which did not adopt the Euro.
That was when only one of those strands applied: the GFA.
And If President Macron's proposals for EZ budgets and an EZ Finance Minister were adopted by the EZ, that would be a further divergence between EZ and non-EZ countries, but I think it would be silly for us to argue that this was placing Ireland in breach of the GFA.
The phase one agreement is broader than the GFA and places constraints on the UK, not vice-versa.
So, they can do a broad sweep of things like adopt a different currency, or integrate (say) a la Macron into a more unified tax harmonised Europe, but we can't do anything at all without their explicit say so. Hmm...
And people wonder why a majority of us voted to leave?
Are more people committing violent offences because police budgets have been cut? Burglary, speeding on a motorway, I can perhaps understand - i.e. less likely to get caught. But violent crime? I can't believe that's got anything to do with budget cuts.
The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,
Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.
The phase one agreement commits us to:
1) support North-South cooperation 2) support the all-island economy 3) uphold the GFA
Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.
That's open to interpretation. After all, when Ireland adopted the Euro, in 1999, it was introducing a degree of economic divergence from the UK, which did not adopt the Euro.
That was when only one of those strands applied: the GFA.
And If President Macron's proposals for EZ budgets and an EZ Finance Minister were adopted by the EZ, that would be a further divergence between EZ and non-EZ countries, but I think it would be silly for us to argue that this was placing Ireland in breach of the GFA.
The phase one agreement is broader than the GFA and places constraints on the UK, not vice-versa.
So, they can do a broad sweep of things like adopt a different currency, or integrate (say) a la Macron into a more unified tax harmonised Europe, but we can't do anything at all without their explicit say so. Hmm...
And people wonder why a majority of us voted to leave?
This asymmetric situation has been created by your vote to leave.
Are more people committing violent offences because police budgets have been cut? Burglary, speeding on a motorway, I can perhaps understand - i.e. less likely to get caught. But violent crime? I can't believe that's got anything to do with budget cuts.
Or is it because Police reporting is getting better? The Crime Survey says crime is going down....
I see the basic choices as simple. FOM or SM FTAs or CU
Am I wrong, or are those the binary choices that we have?
Agreeing on them and then working to implement is the hard bit. I haven't even expressed a preference for one or the other!
Both questions are far from binary. My original point was that waving away something as easy to do has little credibility from a group - and yes, I'm lumping you with the Leaver 'blob' here - given past assurances. Remember the German car industry, and the global hoards desperate to give us FTAs. Still waiting...
Not me Guv on the Germans
I don't understand how they are not binary. We understand that FOM and SM are indivisible. For SM you have FOM It is difficult to argue against membership of CU precludes FTAs outside that CU.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Are more people committing violent offences because police budgets have been cut? Burglary, speeding on a motorway, I can perhaps understand - i.e. less likely to get caught. But violent crime? I can't believe that's got anything to do with budget cuts.
Or is it because Police reporting is getting better? The Crime Survey says crime is going down....
Police discover that under recording crime has some unfortunate consequences....
Are more people committing violent offences because police budgets have been cut? Burglary, speeding on a motorway, I can perhaps understand - i.e. less likely to get caught. But violent crime? I can't believe that's got anything to do with budget cuts.
Or is it because Police reporting is getting better? The Crime Survey says crime is going down....
The police stats are supposed to be quite good on violent crime. But the crime survey is probably the best guide for a time series.
Sorry Jeremy, but the majority of Suffragettes were middle class, -like you- not working class. Not done your research again.
Also, millions of working class men got the vote in 1918.
Granted by a Liberal PM and thereafter Labour replaced the Liberals.
One of the more remarkable features of the interwar period was how despite the quadrupling of the electorate, the Tories dominated politically, with only the briefest moments out of power. Between Baldwin and Chamberlain they masterfully modernised the Tory party away from aristocrats towards middle class suburbia and market towns. A massive housebuilding and orientation to modern industries such as radio, motoring and air helped achieve this.
Are more people committing violent offences because police budgets have been cut? Burglary, speeding on a motorway, I can perhaps understand - i.e. less likely to get caught. But violent crime? I can't believe that's got anything to do with budget cuts.
Detection and conviction may be a function of budget.
I cannot see any perpetrator entering 'Police Budget' into the Venn diagram of his violent crime before completing the spreadsheet of defamation and emotions that need to be exceeded prior to the act of violence.
Elon Musk's SpaceX rocket heading towards asteroid belt after overshooting Mars' orbit
His cherry-red Tesla, carrying a dummy and blasting Bowie's Life on Mars, was supposed to take a path around the Sun which would take it out into Mars' orbit.
It appears the super-strong rocket, with twice the firing power of any before it, overshot that trajectory and is has now pushed the Tesla into an orbit which extends into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
I see the basic choices as simple. FOM or SM FTAs or CU
Am I wrong, or are those the binary choices that we have?
Agreeing on them and then working to implement is the hard bit. I haven't even expressed a preference for one or the other!
Both questions are far from binary. My original point was that waving away something as easy to do has little credibility from a group - and yes, I'm lumping you with the Leaver 'blob' here - given past assurances. Remember the German car industry, and the global hoards desperate to give us FTAs. Still waiting...
Not me Guv on the Germans
I don't understand how they are not binary. We understand that FOM and SM are indivisible. For SM you have FOM It is difficult to argue against membership of CU precludes FTAs outside that CU.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Good to know it is a multifaceted thing, this CU, it should therefore be malleable and made to work in lots of different scenarios.
The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,
Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.
The phase one agreement commits us to:
1) support North-South cooperation 2) support the all-island economy 3) uphold the GFA
Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.
That's open to interpretation. After all, when Ireland adopted the Euro, in 1999, it was introducing a degree of economic divergence from the UK, which did not adopt the Euro.
That was when only one of those strands applied: the GFA.
And If President Macron's proposals for EZ budgets and an EZ Finance Minister were adopted by the EZ, that would be a further divergence between EZ and non-EZ countries, but I think it would be silly for us to argue that this was placing Ireland in breach of the GFA.
The phase one agreement is broader than the GFA and places constraints on the UK, not vice-versa.
If that is so, then that is not a situation that our electorate can be expected to accept indefinitely. No Parliament can bind its successors, still less future electorates.
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
Didn't Skinner actually support Blair and what he was doing quite a lot? Or have I misremembered.
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,
Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.
The phase one agreement commits us to:
1) support North-South cooperation 2) support the all-island economy 3) uphold the GFA
Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.
That's open to interpretation. After all, when Ireland adopted the Euro, in 1999, it was introducing a degree of economic divergence from the UK, which did not adopt the Euro.
That was when only one of those strands applied: the GFA.
And If President Macron's proposals for EZ budgets and an EZ Finance Minister were adopted by the EZ, that would be a further divergence between EZ and non-EZ countries, but I think it would be silly for us to argue that this was placing Ireland in breach of the GFA.
The phase one agreement is broader than the GFA and places constraints on the UK, not vice-versa.
If that is so, then that is not a situation that our electorate can be expected to accept indefinitely. No Parliament can bind its successors, still less future electorates.
Indeed Parliament remains sovereign, but it cannot avoid the consequences of its choices, leaving the EU being a case in point.
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
Didn't Skinner actually support Blair and what he was doing quite a lot? Or have I misremembered.
Apparently Jeremy Corbyn -who voted against every EU treaty for 30 years, now thinks Blair is right about the EU. He also supports Blair on tax credits. And the NHS. Maybe he should invite Blair to join the shadow cabinet....................
Elon Musk's SpaceX rocket heading towards asteroid belt after overshooting Mars' orbit
His cherry-red Tesla, carrying a dummy and blasting Bowie's Life on Mars, was supposed to take a path around the Sun which would take it out into Mars' orbit.
It appears the super-strong rocket, with twice the firing power of any before it, overshot that trajectory and is has now pushed the Tesla into an orbit which extends into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
PMQs - Snap verdict: That was the sort of routine, points-win that Corbyn achieves quite regularly these days - by asking focused questions about public spending quotes, buttressed by awkward quotes from Tories or Tory-types - but what made this a bit special was that this was a win on what has traditionally been a key Conservative battleground. When Corbyn was elected Labour leader, his supporters would have expected him to do well at PMQs on health or housing, but it would have taken a brave call to predict him winning on law and order. Yet at the general election one of the turning points in the campaign came when the terror attacks gave Labour the opportunity to hammer May and her government over police cuts (Tory and Labour strategist both assumed at the time that the attacks would benefit May, but in fact the opposite seems to have happened) and this afternoon Corbyn successfully resurrected those arguments. It was risky, because as a former home secretary May is much more confident on this ground than on others and her push-back on the increase in recorded crime (‘because I pushed for that as home secretary’, she claimed) was effective. She could also parry Corbyn’s attack on knife crime. But her overall weakness was exposed by the fact that she had to resort to quoting Andy Burnham, who is now longer even an MP, to defend herself against the charge she has has cut police spending. It didn’t work.
Always hard to say what swung opinion one way or the other, but again, I don't think a suicide bomber would have been too worried about police cuts.
Elon Musk's SpaceX rocket heading towards asteroid belt after overshooting Mars' orbit
His cherry-red Tesla, carrying a dummy and blasting Bowie's Life on Mars, was supposed to take a path around the Sun which would take it out into Mars' orbit.
It appears the super-strong rocket, with twice the firing power of any before it, overshot that trajectory and is has now pushed the Tesla into an orbit which extends into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
I see that Mr Wisemann is criticising @SouthamObserver for what he has said about Labour anti-semitism. Apparently it is just one or two rotten apples and nothing to be worried about.
And yet, a quick Google search brings up all these concerned criticisms by Labour figures such as Jon Lansmann, Claire Kober, John Cryer and Wes Streeting and eminent historians such as Simon Schama.
And there is plenty more. But there are none so blind as those that don’t want to see.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s a bit more than just one or two. If rotten apples are not quickly removed, they rapidly infect the rest. Not only are they not being removed, it would appear from recent reports that some of them are being let back in.
Are more people committing violent offences because police budgets have been cut? Burglary, speeding on a motorway, I can perhaps understand - i.e. less likely to get caught. But violent crime? I can't believe that's got anything to do with budget cuts.
Or is it because Police reporting is getting better? The Crime Survey says crime is going down....
Im going to guess it’s because of the motorbike mugging gangs, who the police won’t chase in case the criminals get injured.
They’ll have a high reporting race because of the need for insurance claims, and snatching a phone or bag from the owner is probably recorded as a crime of violence.
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
I have to say, I am still in shock to have seen man of the people Dennis in the posh seats at the Royal Albert Hall for Cirque du Soleil. I would have thought he would have been disgusted by a load of overpriced pouncyboots circus acts for the bourgeoisie.
Are more people committing violent offences because police budgets have been cut? Burglary, speeding on a motorway, I can perhaps understand - i.e. less likely to get caught. But violent crime? I can't believe that's got anything to do with budget cuts.
Or is it because Police reporting is getting better? The Crime Survey says crime is going down....
Im going to guess it’s because of the motorbike mugging gangs, who the police won’t chase in case the criminals get injured.
They’ll have a high reporting race because of the need for insurance claims, and snatching a phone or bag from the owner is probably recorded as a crime of violence.
I somehow doubt Jezza, a man who provided a reference to get a ISIS supporter out of jail for Christmas, will be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime...
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
Wow it's almost as if governments can have good elements and bad elements! Fascinating!
I see the basic choices as simple. FOM or SM FTAs or CU
Am I wrong, or are those the binary choices that we have?
Agreeing on them and then working to implement is the hard bit. I haven't even expressed a preference for one or the other!
Both questions are far from binary. My original point was that waving away something as easy to do has little credibility from a group - and yes, I'm lumping you with the Leaver 'blob' here - given past assurances. Remember the German car industry, and the global hoards desperate to give us FTAs. Still waiting...
Not me Guv on the Germans
I don't understand how they are not binary. We understand that FOM and SM are indivisible. For SM you have FOM It is difficult to argue against membership of CU precludes FTAs outside that CU.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Good to know it is a multifaceted thing, this CU, it should therefore be malleable and made to work in lots of different scenarios.
Turkey is in "a" customs union with the EU, and its goods move without tariffs or internal checks. Crucially, this means there are no Rules of Origin for goods that go from Turkey to the EU or vice versa.
However, Turkey is not in "the" Customs Union and has its own Free Trade Agreements, that are different to the EU's.
This does, in theory, mean that goods could be exported from Pakistan to Turkey (who have an FTA) and then onto the EU. However, in practice this doesn't happen because Turkey is geographically separate from the rest of the EU, and because Pakistan is not a big exporter of things which incur high tariffs. (Remember: the average EU external tariff is only 2.7%.)
This does, in theory, mean that goods could be exported from Pakistan to Turkey (who have an FTA) and then onto the EU. However, in practice this doesn't happen because Turkey is geographically separate from the rest of the EU, and because Pakistan is not a big exporter of things which incur high tariffs. (Remember: the average EU external tariff is only 2.7%.)
It looks like Martin Schulz will be the new German Foreign Minister.
The more intense Leavers are going to be spoiled for choice in their upcoming two minutes hates.
Schulz is a definite europhile, far more so than Merkel/CDU. So I'd expect further EU integration from Germany (Or less pushback to it) which was at best a fence sitting nation within the EU on this before now.
I see the basic choices as simple. FOM or SM FTAs or CU
Am I wrong, or are those the binary choices that we have?
Agreeing on them and then working to implement is the hard bit. I haven't even expressed a preference for one or the other!
Both questions are far from binary. My original point was that waving away something as easy to do has little credibility from a group - and yes, I'm lumping you with the Leaver 'blob' here - given past assurances. Remember the German car industry, and the global hoards desperate to give us FTAs. Still waiting...
Not me Guv on the Germans
I don't understand how they are not binary. We understand that FOM and SM are indivisible. For SM you have FOM It is difficult to argue against membership of CU precludes FTAs outside that CU.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Good to know it is a multifaceted thing, this CU, it should therefore be malleable and made to work in lots of different scenarios.
Turkey is in "a" customs union with the EU, and its goods move without tariffs or internal checks. Crucially, this means there are no Rules of Origin for goods that go from Turkey to the EU or vice versa.
However, Turkey is not in "the" Customs Union and has its own Free Trade Agreements, that are different to the EU's.
This does, in theory, mean that goods could be exported from Pakistan to Turkey (who have an FTA) and then onto the EU. However, in practice this doesn't happen because Turkey is geographically separate from the rest of the EU, and because Pakistan is not a big exporter of things which incur high tariffs. (Remember: the average EU external tariff is only 2.7%.)
This does, in theory, mean that goods could be exported from Pakistan to Turkey (who have an FTA) and then onto the EU. However, in practice this doesn't happen because Turkey is geographically separate from the rest of the EU, and because Pakistan is not a big exporter of things which incur high tariffs. (Remember: the average EU external tariff is only 2.7%.)
Turkey does have a 446km land border with the EU.
You're right. I was thinking that the only border was with Greece, but Bulgaria is now an EU member too. Still it's fair to say that Turkey is a long way from the economic centre of the EU.
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
Skinner was never that anti Blair, as Blair acknowledged in his autobiography Skinner was always a fan of anyone who beat the Tories and that included Blair. Skinner is partisan Labour above all
If there is no agreement, the EU will follow WTO rules, which it is obliged to do; as is the UK, of course.
The WTO rules do not, as far as I know, make any statement at all about the administrative procedures at borders, and certainly doesn't mandate physical checkpoints. I might be wrong; if so, I'd be interested to see a link to any authoritative source which says otherwise.
WTO rules state that there can be no discriminatory treatment. Thus, if there is no specific agreement otherwise the EU will need to apply to the Irish border what it applies to its other external borders.
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
Wow it's almost as if governments can have good elements and bad elements! Fascinating!
Always confusing when people don't live up to one's stereotypes. I served alongside Skinner and we voted for the overwhelming majority of Blair's policies, and have no regrets about most of them. In particular, I'm glad that we rescued the NHS from the pre-1997 slump, and look forward to our doing it again, especially if "lifelong Labour supporter" stevef and others of similar mind actually support us when it comes to it.
I don't understand how they are not binary. We understand that FOM and SM are indivisible. For SM you have FOM It is difficult to argue against membership of CU precludes FTAs outside that CU.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Not really. A Customs Union has a specific meaning under GATT/WTO rules, as do Free Trade Agreements:
Customs Union: a single customs territory ... where (i) duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce ... are eliminated with respect to substantially all the trade between the constituent territories of the union or at least with respect to substantially all the trade in products originating in such territories, and, (ii) .... substantially the same duties and other regulations of commerce are applied by each of the members of the union to the trade of territories not included in the union;
FTA: a group of two or more customs territories in which the duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce ... are eliminated on substantially all the trade between the constituent territories in products originating in such territories.
Effectively a Customs Union requires no barriers of trade between those parties and applies a common tariff to trade originating from outside the economic zone, so no further internal checks are needed.
If there is no agreement, the EU will follow WTO rules, which it is obliged to do; as is the UK, of course.
The WTO rules do not, as far as I know, make any statement at all about the administrative procedures at borders, and certainly doesn't mandate physical checkpoints. I might be wrong; if so, I'd be interested to see a link to any authoritative source which says otherwise.
WTO rules state that there can be no discriminatory treatment. Thus, if there is no specific agreement otherwise the EU will need to apply to the Irish border what it applies to its other external borders.
That doesn't say anything about administrative processes or physical checkpoints. (And of course for the UK at least, we don't have any other land borders, so it's an entirely hypothetical question).
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
Bye!!!
Happy Birthday Ms Cyclefree. I shall take the hounds for a stroll in the beautiful Quantocks and muse on why I spend so much time arguing on the Internet .
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
Dennis Skinner in PMQs has just described the Blair government as the "golden age of the NHS", when the NHS received more money than ever before.
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
Skinner was never that anti Blair, as Blair acknowledged in his autobiography Skinner was always a fan of anyone who beat the Tories and that included Blair. Skinner is partisan Labour above all
Given we're talking about Northern Ireland, can I suggest that we follow the example of Büsingen am Hochrhein.
The wikipedia link is well worth a read.
Special status that would place Northern Ireland economically within the EU customs area has always been a viable and coherent approach, but the DUP won't wear it.
A Customs Union has a specific meaning under GATT/WTO rules, as do Free Trade Agreements:
Customs Union: a single customs territory ... where (i) duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce ... are eliminated with respect to substantially all the trade between the constituent territories of the union or at least with respect to substantially all the trade in products originating in such territories, and, (ii) .... substantially the same duties and other regulations of commerce are applied by each of the members of the union to the trade of territories not included in the union;
FTA: a group of two or more customs territories in which the duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce ... are eliminated on substantially all the trade between the constituent territories in products originating in such territories.
Effectively a Customs Union requires no barriers of trade between those parties and applies a common tariff to trade originating from outside the economic zone, so no further internal checks are needed.
More on this. The Leaver contradiction on Customs Unions is they want (i) no barriers of trade between the UK and the EU. But as they don't want a CU that implies they also don't want (ii) the same treatment as the EU on third party trade. However, not having (ii) means (i) fails because there will be barriers on trade for goods that pass between the UK and the EU that contains content from a third country. It would typically also restrict trade from the UK (and to a lesser extent the EU) to a third country that contains content from the other territory.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Not really. A Customs Union has a specific meaning under GATT/WTO rules, as do Free Trade Agreements: *snip*
See rcs1000 comment few down on the arrangement between Turkey and the EU.
Fun fact: The Turkey / EU Customs union is not WTO* compliant because it doesn't cover agriculture. They have an obligation to bring it in line since GATT days (the CU has its origins in the 1960's before the advent of the WTO).
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Not really. A Customs Union has a specific meaning under GATT/WTO rules, as do Free Trade Agreements: *snip*
See rcs1000 comment few down on the arrangement between Turkey and the EU.
Fun fact: The Turkey / EU Customs union is not WTO* compliant because it doesn't cover agriculture. They have an obligation to bring it in line since GATT days (the CU has its origins in the 1960's before the advent of the WTO).
You'd think one major takeaway for Remainers, from all the examples of edge cases, non specificity in treaties and treaties which are not in line with the letter of the WTO, is that a solution for NI will be found.*
*For @williamglenn - a solution does not include not leaving the EU. Apart from Pacific Island Remainers, everyone accepts that.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Not really. A Customs Union has a specific meaning under GATT/WTO rules, as do Free Trade Agreements: *snip*
See rcs1000 comment few down on the arrangement between Turkey and the EU.
Fun fact: The Turkey / EU Customs union is not WTO* compliant because it doesn't cover agriculture. They have an obligation to bring it in line since GATT days (the CU has its origins in the 1960's before the advent of the WTO).
So it is not, and never could be, an option for the UK?
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
Bye!!!
Don't know where you are celebrating but it is one of those "best days of the year" down here in south Devon today. Just walked the dog for an hour. Bright blue skies, cold fresh clean air, first daffodils out, birds pairing up....nowhere I would rather be right now.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Not really. A Customs Union has a specific meaning under GATT/WTO rules, as do Free Trade Agreements: *snip*
See rcs1000 comment few down on the arrangement between Turkey and the EU.
Fun fact: The Turkey / EU Customs union is not WTO* compliant because it doesn't cover agriculture. They have an obligation to bring it in line since GATT days (the CU has its origins in the 1960's before the advent of the WTO).
So it is not, and never could be, an option for the UK?
Fun fact? Your parties must be a hoot
Correct . On both points! I think we would want to include agriculture, but I suspect that's why Norway never joined a CU with the EU and I know that's at least partly why Switzerland never did. Their farmers are protected even beyond the EU ones.
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
Bye!!!
Don't know where you are celebrating but it is one of those "best days of the year" down here in south Devon today. Just walked the dog for an hour. Bright blue skies, cold fresh clean air, first daffodils out, birds pairing up....nowhere I would rather be right now.
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
Bye!!!
Don't know where you are celebrating but it is one of those "best days of the year" down here in south Devon today. Just walked the dog for an hour. Bright blue skies, cold fresh clean air, first daffodils out, birds pairing up....nowhere I would rather be right now.
Have a great birthday.
+1 - Happy birthday Ms Cyclefree!
Gorgeous down here in Dorset too. Far too nice to be in the shop; but I'm utterly absorbed by an original advertisement leaflet for Solomon's 'Balm of Gilead' that we're cataloguing. Absolutely hilarious.
Is it my imagination or are there more gaps on the Commons benches today?
Nobody really gives a toss about PMQs any more. Theresa is very poor at them, has been since day one and doesn't seem to improve. But if you've a limited (very limited?) shelf life as PM, not much point in getting training to do them right.
Given we're talking about Northern Ireland, can I suggest that we follow the example of Büsingen am Hochrhein.
The wikipedia link is well worth a read.
Special status that would place Northern Ireland economically within the EU customs area has always been a viable and coherent approach, but the DUP won't wear it.
One that puts a trade barrier between Northern Ireland and its biggest market is 'viable & coherent'?
When was this 'golden age' for the NHS. Was it when Blair/Brown signed all those PFI deals that are causing us all the problems and costs today?
That and the small matter of borrowing so much at the height of a financial bubble it triggered the EU's excessive deficit procedures repeatedly from 2001-2007.
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
Bye!!!
Don't know where you are celebrating but it is one of those "best days of the year" down here in south Devon today. Just walked the dog for an hour. Bright blue skies, cold fresh clean air, first daffodils out, birds pairing up....nowhere I would rather be right now.
Have a great birthday.
Be careful of Alabama rot!
Been five cases reported in Devon, the nearest some 15 miles away. Not a huge worry yet - and certainly no loss of appetite from the pooch!
Everyone I’ve ever spoken to in the health sector has had plenty of criticisms of Labour. But they all think things are worse now.
Things may be worse now, or be perceived to be. That would hardly be surprising given that (a) Money is inevitably tighter, since Labour was overspending so unsustainably, (b) Demographics have continued to put enormous pressure on the NHS, and (c) Labour has spent the last 8 years telling everyone that the NHS is in crisis.
Given we're talking about Northern Ireland, can I suggest that we follow the example of Büsingen am Hochrhein.
The wikipedia link is well worth a read.
Special status that would place Northern Ireland economically within the EU customs area has always been a viable and coherent approach, but the DUP won't wear it.
One that puts a trade barrier between Northern Ireland and its biggest market is 'viable & coherent'?
It's a view......
It seems you doubt the depth and specialness of the deal May will be able to negotiate.
Well for a start "the" CU does not preclude membership of "a" CU which could take myriad forms.
Not really. A Customs Union has a specific meaning under GATT/WTO rules, as do Free Trade Agreements: *snip*
See rcs1000 comment few down on the arrangement between Turkey and the EU.
Fun fact: The Turkey / EU Customs union is not WTO* compliant because it doesn't cover agriculture. They have an obligation to bring it in line since GATT days (the CU has its origins in the 1960's before the advent of the WTO).
So it is not, and never could be, an option for the UK?
Fun fact? Your parties must be a hoot
Correct . On both points! I think we would want to include agriculture, but I suspect that's why Norway never joined a CU with the EU and I know that's at least partly why Switzerland never did. Their farmers are protected even beyond the EU ones.
Fisheries more than ag is what keeps Norway out of a CU.
Given we're talking about Northern Ireland, can I suggest that we follow the example of Büsingen am Hochrhein.
The wikipedia link is well worth a read.
Special status that would place Northern Ireland economically within the EU customs area has always been a viable and coherent approach, but the DUP won't wear it.
One that puts a trade barrier between Northern Ireland and its biggest market is 'viable & coherent'?
It's a view......
If you have no decent options, beyond the one you voted to reject, you have to choose between the indecent ones. Logic, yeah?
Edit. Maybe not quite. There is the possibility of CU+SM applying across the UK, which I think is the best remaining option for everyone. But if you don't agree, then going that route simply to keep Northern Ireland sane might seem like the tail wagging the dog.
Given we're talking about Northern Ireland, can I suggest that we follow the example of Büsingen am Hochrhein.
The wikipedia link is well worth a read.
Special status that would place Northern Ireland economically within the EU customs area has always been a viable and coherent approach, but the DUP won't wear it.
One that puts a trade barrier between Northern Ireland and its biggest market is 'viable & coherent'?
It's a view......
It seems you doubt the depth and specialness of the deal May will be able to negotiate.
May won't need to. The EU will be beating down the door to No10 to offer a FTA with no freedom of movement. And they'll pay us for the privilege!!!
However, there is one further factor which should give Labour cause for concern. There is a pattern going back many elections now in which the major party which underperformed against the last set of final polls ends up overperforming against the final polls in the subsequent GE.
Thus, in terms of Labour:
2005 Labour underperformed relative to the Tories (i.e. only a 3% gap in the popular vote, more had been predicted) 2010 Labour overperformed (having been expected to tie with the LDs) 2015 Labour underperformed 2017 Labour overperformed
The pattern is due to polling companies changing their methodology to reflect the error in the last general election on the assumption that the same circumstances will apply in the next, when in fact they don't.
So if Labour overperformed against the polls in 2017, and the polling companies have since changed their methodology, it is folly for Corbynites to assume that the party can pull off the same trick in 2022 (or whenever).
Ireland’s GDP grew 10.5% in the year to Q4 2017 https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/gdp-growth-annual Hint: there’s a small number of very large international companies that have a massive effect on Ireland’s GDP numbers.
Comments
imho.
And people wonder why a majority of us voted to leave?
I cannot see any perpetrator entering 'Police Budget' into the Venn diagram of his violent crime before completing the spreadsheet of defamation and emotions that need to be exceeded prior to the act of violence.
His cherry-red Tesla, carrying a dummy and blasting Bowie's Life on Mars, was supposed to take a path around the Sun which would take it out into Mars' orbit.
It appears the super-strong rocket, with twice the firing power of any before it, overshot that trajectory and is has now pushed the Tesla into an orbit which extends into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/07/elon-musks-spacex-rocket-heading-towards-asteroid-belt-overshooting/
Do Direct Line cover such accidents?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16976328/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-pollster-tavis-mcginn-honest-data
Hold on! I am confused. I thought the Corbynista hard left regarded the Blair period as a time of "Tory Lite" treachery. I thought they regarded Blair as just another Tory. Now they are praising him to the skies as presiding over the NHS Golden Age.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/961214540292743168
The car didn't "overshoot" anything, the mission profile was basically to push it into as big an orbit as possible.
But the real howler is this.
"The inventor's rockets are twice as strong as the Saturn V rockets, which carried men to the moon during the Apollo era."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
PMQs - Snap verdict: That was the sort of routine, points-win that Corbyn achieves quite regularly these days - by asking focused questions about public spending quotes, buttressed by awkward quotes from Tories or Tory-types - but what made this a bit special was that this was a win on what has traditionally been a key Conservative battleground. When Corbyn was elected Labour leader, his supporters would have expected him to do well at PMQs on health or housing, but it would have taken a brave call to predict him winning on law and order. Yet at the general election one of the turning points in the campaign came when the terror attacks gave Labour the opportunity to hammer May and her government over police cuts (Tory and Labour strategist both assumed at the time that the attacks would benefit May, but in fact the opposite seems to have happened) and this afternoon Corbyn successfully resurrected those arguments. It was risky, because as a former home secretary May is much more confident on this ground than on others and her push-back on the increase in recorded crime (‘because I pushed for that as home secretary’, she claimed) was effective. She could also parry Corbyn’s attack on knife crime. But her overall weakness was exposed by the fact that she had to resort to quoting Andy Burnham, who is now longer even an MP, to defend herself against the charge she has has cut police spending. It didn’t work.
Always hard to say what swung opinion one way or the other, but again, I don't think a suicide bomber would have been too worried about police cuts.
And yet, a quick Google search brings up all these concerned criticisms by Labour figures such as Jon Lansmann, Claire Kober, John Cryer and Wes Streeting and eminent historians such as Simon Schama.
See here.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-uk-writers-accuse-jeremy-corbyns-labour-of-widespread-antisemitism-disguised-as-criticism-of-a3677661.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/labour-jeremy-corbym-anti-semitism.html
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/momentum-activists-attack-labour-councillors-over-antisemitism-definition-1.441935
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/20/jewish-labour-group-accuses-failing-act-antisemitism
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/abour-conference-2017-jon-lansman-anti-semitism-holocaust-debate-momentum-criticism-response-a7968881.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-labours-anti-semitism-is-like-lifting-up-a-stone-and-having-insects-crawl-out-says-mp/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/jeremy-corbyn-accused-having-ostrich-strategy-anti-semitism/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/claire-kober-interview-the-only-thing-worse-in-labour-than-sexism-is-the-antisemitism-sj7ngt0x6
And there is plenty more. But there are none so blind as those that don’t want to see.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s a bit more than just one or two. If rotten apples are not quickly removed, they rapidly infect the rest. Not only are they not being removed, it would appear from recent reports that some of them are being let back in.
SO is right to be concerned.
They’ll have a high reporting race because of the need for insurance claims, and snatching a phone or bag from the owner is probably recorded as a crime of violence.
However, Turkey is not in "the" Customs Union and has its own Free Trade Agreements, that are different to the EU's.
This does, in theory, mean that goods could be exported from Pakistan to Turkey (who have an FTA) and then onto the EU. However, in practice this doesn't happen because Turkey is geographically separate from the rest of the EU, and because Pakistan is not a big exporter of things which incur high tariffs. (Remember: the average EU external tariff is only 2.7%.)
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm
Same for the UK, of course.
Customs Union: a single customs territory ... where (i) duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce ... are eliminated with respect to substantially all the trade between the constituent territories of the union or at least with respect to substantially all the trade in products originating in such territories, and, (ii) .... substantially the same duties and other regulations of commerce are applied by each of the members of the union to the trade of territories not included in the union;
FTA: a group of two or more customs territories in which the duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce ... are eliminated on substantially all the trade between the constituent territories in products originating in such territories.
Effectively a Customs Union requires no barriers of trade between those parties and applies a common tariff to trade originating from outside the economic zone, so no further internal checks are needed.
Link: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/regatt_e.htm
Goodwill to all.
It’s my birthday today and it is far too beautiful a day to spend it staring at a screen. The birds are singing, the sun is shining and there is champagne to be drunk.
Bye!!!
The wikipedia link is well worth a read.
Skinner 1st
Party 2nd
Country 3rd
When was this 'golden age' for the NHS. Was it when Blair/Brown signed all those PFI deals that are causing us all the problems and costs today?
Do Labour seriously want to make that mistake again?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/apr/26/publicservices.uk
or this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-432833/Labour-MPs-challenges-Blair-GPs-contracts.html
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal
https://twitter.com/DMcCaffreySKY/status/961213247612510208
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0207/938985-economy-growth-forecasts/
"There are no border controls between Switzerland and Büsingen or the rest of Germany since Switzerland joined the Schengen Area in 2008/09"
*For @williamglenn - a solution does not include not leaving the EU. Apart from Pacific Island Remainers, everyone accepts that.
Has anybody told him he isn't with us anymore?
Fun fact? Your parties must be a hoot
Corbyn confirmed his strong grasp of basic law and order policy at PMQs:
“I am very clear that crime is of course wrong.”
In an exchange about knife crime he went on to suggest “rehabilitation” and “community service orders.” Jail?
Have a great birthday.
But they all think things are worse now.
Gorgeous down here in Dorset too. Far too nice to be in the shop; but I'm utterly absorbed by an original advertisement leaflet for Solomon's 'Balm of Gilead' that we're cataloguing. Absolutely hilarious.
It's a view......
https://twitter.com/CMonaghanSNP/status/961213014438563840
https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/961168120982491136
Edit. Maybe not quite. There is the possibility of CU+SM applying across the UK, which I think is the best remaining option for everyone. But if you don't agree, then going that route simply to keep Northern Ireland sane might seem like the tail wagging the dog.
As any [leaver] fule kno.
However, there is one further factor which should give Labour cause for concern. There is a pattern going back many elections now in which the major party which underperformed against the last set of final polls ends up overperforming against the final polls in the subsequent GE.
Thus, in terms of Labour:
2005 Labour underperformed relative to the Tories (i.e. only a 3% gap in the popular vote, more had been predicted)
2010 Labour overperformed (having been expected to tie with the LDs)
2015 Labour underperformed
2017 Labour overperformed
The pattern is due to polling companies changing their methodology to reflect the error in the last general election on the assumption that the same circumstances will apply in the next, when in fact they don't.
So if Labour overperformed against the polls in 2017, and the polling companies have since changed their methodology, it is folly for Corbynites to assume that the party can pull off the same trick in 2022 (or whenever).
NEW THREAD
https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/gdp-growth-annual
Hint: there’s a small number of very large international companies that have a massive effect on Ireland’s GDP numbers.