So agree a deal already, stop seeking reasons to Not have one like it might provoke a GE.
Isn't this one of the biggest issues, and one of May's worst miscalculations? May believed, possibly still believes, that because Parliament thinks No Deal will be disastrous, eventually *somebody* will step in to save her.
But she's set things up in such a way that it's in almost everyone's interests not to stop it.
The cabinet won't save her. Half of the cabinet want her job, and the other half just want her gone.
Labour and the SNP won't save her because the chaos undermines her government, might lead to another election, and even if it doesn't, the Tories will be forced to spend the next three years owning the fallout from their incompetence.
The DUP won't save her because their power comes from saying NO loud, and often.
The ERG won't save her, because they *want* the fallout.
The Soubryites and the Umunnites won't save her because they've calculated that the threat of a no deal will eventually lead to a second referendum, and if the chaos is bad enough, a demand to rejoin the EU soon after leaving.
The EU27 via Barnier won't save her because they've had enough of Britain's ridiculous behaviour, know they have us on the ropes, and are happy to run down the clock in the hope the UK will have to choice to capitulate totally.
I love the way Remoaners stick up for countries with shocking human rights records when it suits them. Good on the government, shame they cant do the same with Saudi Arabia.
The footnote
“On Wednesday, after the U.K. bid to join the GPA stalled, “the U.K. minister for immigration contacted our ambassador in London,” Cojocaru said. “I hope they will be able to find a compromise.” “
Leaving a steady job to go it on your own is a risky business that may lead to you falling flat on your face, but could provide a better future. People who do that are usually daring, bold risk takers, with confidence in their ability
So why have we put a nervous ditherer, who was happy to stay an employee, in charge?
For me our main weakness has consistently been a lack of clarity about what we actually wanted. I have had this situation with clients over the years and it is always problematic. Someone who doesn’t have a clear idea of what they want will always be pushed around because they cannot prioritise.
In this case we triggered article 50 without that clarity. Because we didn’t know what we wanted we let the other side fix the sequencing. That gave them control of the process. You can argue that article 50 itself gave them control. It is certainly designed that way but I don’t think that was inevitable. We could have maintained the position that we were not willing to discuss the leave agreement without at least discussing the future relationship in parallel.
Again, the lack of clarity about what we wanted meant that our politicians came under pressure to show “progress”. This is another elementary mistake. Progress in negotiations is getting towards where you want to go. If you are not getting there there is no progress and discussions about non key matters are just make work. It makes me despair that even this week we are repeating this mistake.
Perhaps the worst example of this desperate need for progress was the backstop agreement. It is horribly drafted. On any sensible view articles 49 and 50, helpfully quoted by Aaron, say different things. A government with a clear idea what they wanted would not have made this mistake. They would have been content to not make “progress” until they were getting what they wanted and they would have prepared for no agreement in a way that showed we meant it.
Finally this desire for “progress” has meant we have adopted the role of the supplicant. we make proposals, the EU says they do not address their concerns and we then run around trying to find a different proposal. It’s pathetic. And we are still doing it.
We are still doing it because the circle cannot be squared and the government and the Bucanneering Brexiteers refuse to admit this: you cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Our choice remains what it has always been: a deal whose parameters are dictated by the EU or no deal. We have to accept one or the other.
There are four factors: cost, capacity, speed of charging and safety. The first three of these, and preferably the fourth as well, need massive improvements, sometimes of an order of magnitude. That's a massive ask, especially when improvements are like squeezing a balloon.
In order:
- Cost: Has been coming down and will continue as scale gets larger and battery tech continues getting cheaper. I think it's only a factor of two away from being in the zone already.
- Capacity: We're looking at 250-350 miles becoming standard for new models. That's in the zone for quite a few already (especially if the third factor, charging speed, gets there). A factor of 1.5 to two out at most.
- Charging speed: Latest chargers coming from Ionity (a multi-company initiative across Europe) looks at an 80% charge on a 250-350 mile battery in twelve minutes. That's there or thereabouts, I'd say. A little longer than currently, but I could easily live with that.
- Safety: So far, they seem to be among the safest cars on the road.
Paying for WTO terms is no legal requirement on any definition.
No Deal will ultimately lead to EUref2 and 55% for Remain over 45% for No Deal in the polls despite your utterly contemptible wish to wreck the economy and union. Your fanaticism will consume and destroy the very Brexit you are pushing so hard for.
If you think the 40 Tory MPs who hold the balance of power in Parliament who are ardently anti No Deal Brexit like Grieve, Rudd and Wollaston will accept your plans think again. Whatever the DUP does without their support the government could easily fall if No Deal and No EUref2. For them and indeed for most Remainers No Deal will be utterly unacceptable and they will fight and fight and fight again to reverse it.
The only Brexit now that will not lead to a near civil war is SM plus CU and aim eventually for a FTA
They don't have a choice. Remainers are in a checkmate position based on their own propaganda. The second a deal is reached and faced with a no deal alternative they have no choice but to ratify it. Afterall they've made clear any deal is better than no deal. Faced with a minimalist deal that says "vote for this or planes are grounded etc" what are they going to do? Vote down the deal they claim is needed!?
Parliament can't vote for an option that is not on offer, they can only vote for or against what is before them. What is before them will be better than the alternative which is nothing at all.
For me our main weakness has consistently been a lack of clarity about what we actually wanted. I have had this situation with clients over the years and it is always problematic. Someone who doesn’t have a clear idea of what they want will always be pushed around because they cannot prioritise.
In this case we triggered article 50 without that clarity. Because we didn’t know what we wanted we let the other side fix the sequencing. That gave them control of the process. You can argue that article 50 itself gave them control. It is certainly designed that way but I don’t think that was inevitable. We could have maintained the position that we were not willing to discuss the leave agreement without at least discussing the future relationship in parallel.
Again, the lack of clarity about what we wanted meant that our politicians came under pressure to show “progress”. This is another elementary mistake. Progress in negotiations is getting towards where you want to go. If you are not getting there there is no progress and discussions about non key matters are just make work. It makes me despair that even this week we are repeating this mistake.
Perhaps the worst example of this desperate need for progress was the backstop agreement. It is horribly drafted. On any sensible view articles 49 and 50, helpfully quoted by Aaron, say different things. A government with a clear idea what they wanted would not have made this mistake. They would have been content to not make “progress” until they were getting what they wanted and they would have prepared for no agreement in a way that showed we meant it.
Finally this desire for “progress” has meant we have adopted the role of the supplicant. we make proposals, the EU says they do not address their concerns and we then run around trying to find a different proposal. It’s pathetic. And we are still doing it.
We are still doing it because the circle cannot be squared and the government and the Bucanneering Brexiteers refuse to admit this: you cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Our choice remains what it has always been: a deal whose parameters are dictated by the EU or no deal. We have to accept one or the other.
What we really wanted, I think, was a FTA, like the EU have with Canada. Progress on all other matters should have been conditional on that.
I love the way Remoaners stick up for countries with shocking human rights records when it suits them. Good on the government, shame they cant do the same with Saudi Arabia.
Struggling to see how pointing out how a very stupid, self-destructive government decision is sticking up for countries with bad human rights records.
"But this isn't the worst possible way to get there."
It seems incongruous to what you said before, that's what I meant - I would have expected the sentence to be, "this *is* the worst possible way to get there", although I would consider that an exaggeration.
I fail to see a realistic worse way of getting there. I mean, government's *could* just ban all IC cars tomorrow, which would be a disaster. But that madness would soon fail. This is much more pernicious in its effects.
I do see this as a rich versus poor thing: people who are well-off can afford the luxury of an electric car. Most of us cannot, and betting that they will be able to in the future is a big gamble.
There may be network advantages to electric cars, e.g. as 'stores' of power. On the other hand, the network probably cannot handle the load millions of electric cars will place on it. Who pays for that upgrade?
I don't see how this is a rich versus poor thing. The cost over a car lifetime between buying an electric and a non-electric car is pretty similar, depending on the various assumptions. Let's make the incentives a bit more generous if needed. But we need to speed up the transition as far as possible.
As for your points on planning - I guess I have more faith in the market to provide Apparently 84% of UK drivers have access to off-street parking at home. If we can incentivise work places to provide this as an option also - then I think we are almost there.
I think you're off on both points. Cars that cost more on purchase are unaffordable, even if the running costs are low. Although as has been pointed out below, leasing may change factors here.
'The market', as you put it, will be able to do it. However 'the state' will put a whole load of barriers in their way - some reasonable, others not. As an example, there will be various safety issues with cables over pavements, which means that streets will have to be dug up. Then there are the changes to electricity distribution that will have to be made.
These are all costs, and they are massive costs. Someone will have to pay.
(There is another potential complicating factor in the form of driverless cars which, if they become good enough, will utterly skew the car market. But I'm very bearish on driverless cars becoming 'good', yet alone 'good enough', in the near future.)
"The Irish backstop is unlikely to have a fixed end date, despite the Government's insistence on it being "temporary", Jeremy Hunt has conceded.
The Foreign Secretary told the Today programme this morning that the Irish border was the "only big outstanding issue" stopping negotiators from finalising the Withdrawal Agreement, but acknowledged that "if it doesn't have a time limit, there has to be a way we can exit from it".
He also refused to rule out any further money being paid by the United Kingdom to cover a longer transition period"
Paying for WTO terms is no legal requirement on any definition.
No Deal will ultimately lead to EUref2 and 55% for Remain over 45% for No Deal in the polls despite your utterly contemptible wish to wreck the economy and union. Your fanaticism will consume and destroy the very Brexit you are pushing so hard for.
If you think the 40 Tory MPs who hold the balance of power in Parliament who are ardently anti No Deal Brexit like Grieve, Rudd and Wollaston will accept your plans think again. Whatever the DUP does without their support the government could easily fall if No Deal and No EUref2. For them and indeed for most Remainers No Deal will be utterly unacceptable and they will fight and fight and fight again to reverse it.
The only Brexit now that will not lead to a near civil war is SM plus CU and aim eventually for a FTA
They don't have a choice. Remainers are in a checkmate position based on their own propaganda. The second a deal is reached and faced with a no deal alternative they have no choice but to ratify it.
"No choice"?
Heh, I have a feeling this opinion won't age well. Plus it assumes that there's a single person anywhere who has fallen for May's "there is no alternative" schtick.
Rejecting May's botched deal doesn't mean Parliament wants No Deal, it means Parliament is rejecting May's botched deal. What happens afterwards is the interesting bit.
Banning all diesel and petrol cars in 14 years is far too soon. I could get behind the 2040 date, as it was just about possible to get the car tech and charging infrastructure in place. Since a car can reasonably be expected to last 14 years, this new date will start affecting buying decisions today. And this is worse as it also includes hybrids.
And there are *no* replacements for the cars most plebs use, nor is there any reasonable charging infrastructure. The chances of this being true in 14 years is, frankly, unlikely.
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Fuckwits. Stupid, arsing fuckwits.
(Guess who is about to buy their first new car?)
The Government could do so much more, so much more usefully, than try a banket decree.
- Give a 75% subsidy to all installations of charge points at home - Remove VAT from electric cars (or at least drop it to the 5% level until we leave the EU and announce we're going to zero-rate them after that) - Announce that all electric cars sold in the UK after a certain date have to be able to be readily charged by the CCS standard
... for example.
Indeed. That might even form the basis of a plan.
I'd also add all new houses to have suitable electric charging points at a safe location for the car - i.e. one charger per parking space. And the same for new or renovated public car parks. These should, of course, be one standard charger and not several.
But first, what are the aims? rather then reducing greenhouses gasses, cutting pollution might be seen as the main aim, in which case other strategies might be best.
I see it as giving us the ability to reduce greenhouse gases (as well as pollution) while not causing massive dislocation (as banning private vehicles would do).
Electric vehicles are only as eco-friendly as the energy produced by the electricity generation. However, while generating capacity can be provided by multiple means ranging from coal to wind, IC vehicles have to burn hydrocarbons. Removing the power generation from however-many-tens-of-millions of points around the country, most privately owned, to a few points around the country helps as well.
We are still doing it because the circle cannot be squared and the government and the Bucanneering Brexiteers refuse to admit this: you cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Our choice remains what it has always been: a deal whose parameters are dictated by the EU or no deal. We have to accept one or the other.
What we really wanted, I think, was a FTA, like the EU have with Canada. Progress on all other matters should have been conditional on that.
The problem is that is what we should have wanted based on the government's red lines. It was in fitting with what the electorate voted for in the referendum meeting everything discussed then.
The problem is that it wasn't enough for May. She wanted to be in and out of the Single Market, in and out of the Customs Union. Canada+ has been on offer since day one but May has rejected it. Had we been pushing this from day one we could have made progress.
On Alistair Campbell - I find him a fascinating character to listen to, except on Brexit and Iraq. On Iraq, understandably, it is impossible for him to admit how disastrous the decision was, his own part in it etc. Can any of us honestly say if we'd been responsible for something like that we could hold our hand up and accept it?
On Brexit, he's in full paid spin mode although I suspect he knows a 2nd referendum isn't that great an idea. But as a communicator he is superb (he's also a good interviewer too), and his interventions and observations on other issues are well worth listening to.
His Question Time performance immediatly after the 2017 election is an object lesson in party loyalty, believability, and strong, clear, messaging.
Here was a man who'd been preaching disaster with Corbyn in charge able to see lely and believable pivot into support for Corbyn alike policies.
I may not like the man but it was an incredible performance.
Paying for WTO terms is no legal requirement on any definition.
No Deal will ultimately lead to EUref2 and 55% for Remain over 45% for No Deal in the polls despite your utterly contemptible wish to wreck the economy and union. Your fanaticism will consume and destroy the very Brexit you are pushing so hard for.
If you think the 40 Tory MPs who hold the balance of power in Parliament who are ardently anti No Deal Brexit like Grieve, Rudd and Wollaston will accept your plans think again. Whatever the DUP does without their support the government could easily fall if No Deal and No EUref2. For them and indeed for most Remainers No Deal will be utterly unacceptable and they will fight and fight and fight again to reverse it.
The only Brexit now that will not lead to a near civil war is SM plus CU and aim eventually for a FTA
They don't have a choice. Remainers are in a checkmate position based on their own propaganda. The second a deal is reached and faced with a no deal alternative they have no choice but to ratify it.
"No choice"?
Heh, I have a feeling this opinion won't age well. Plus it assumes that there's a single person anywhere who has fallen for May's "there is no alternative" schtick.
Rejecting May's botched deal doesn't mean Parliament wants No Deal, it means Parliament is rejecting May's botched deal. What happens afterwards is the interesting bit.
May steps down.
New PM has one more shot with the EU.
If no deal can be reached then choice is no deal or no deal.
If a deal can be reached it will pass or it doesn't and no deal.
Banning all diesel and petrol cars in 14 years is far too soon. I could get behind the 2040 date, as it was just about possible to get the car tech and charging infrastructure in place. Since a car can reasonably be expected to last 14 years, this new date will start affecting buying decisions today. And this is worse as it also includes hybrids.
And there are *no* replacements for the cars most plebs use, nor is there any reasonable charging infrastructure. The chances of this being true in 14 years is, frankly, unlikely.
And meanwhile, people will be facing buying cars that will depreciate much faster than before. It's going to cause chaos in the market.
Fuckwits. Stupid, arsing fuckwits.
(Guess who is about to buy their first new car?)
The Government could do so much more, so much more usefully, than try a banket decree.
- Give a 75% subsidy to all installations of charge points at home - Remove VAT from electric cars (or at least drop it to the 5% level until we leave the EU and announce we're going to zero-rate them after that) - Announce that all electric cars sold in the UK after a certain date have to be able to be readily charged by the CCS standard
... for example.
Indeed. That might even form the basis of a plan.
I'd also add all new houses to have suitable electric charging points at a safe location for the car - i.e. one charger per parking space. And the same for new or renovated public car parks. These should, of course, be one standard charger and not several.
But first, what are the aims? rather then reducing greenhouses gasses, cutting pollution might be seen as the main aim, in which case other strategies might be best.
There are already plans to change building regs to that effect. As far as aims, it is about getting rid of greenhouse gases - but the other point is that the switch is going to be global, and the question is more whether we'll be a leader or laggard.
For network effects, doing some rough calculations, 10 million EVs requiring (say) 20kW of charging per day (which allows for a rather generous 100 mile of travel apiece) is 20GW. Much of that charging would/could be overnight, and the rest spread throughout the day, so peak extra demand would be maybe 4GW (which is around 10% of current demand), likely at night - when there's a lot of cheap available capacity ?
For me our main weakness has consistently been a lack of clarity about what we actually wanted. I have had this situation with clients over the years and it is always problematic. Someone who doesn’t have a clear idea of what they want will always be pushed around because they cannot prioritise.
In this case we triggered article 50 without that clarity. Because we didn’t know what we wanted we let the other side fix the sequencing. That gave them control of the process. You can argue that article 50 itself gave them control. It is certainly designed that way but I don’t think that was inevitable. We could have maintained the position that we were not willing to discuss the leave agreement without at least discussing the future relationship in parallel.
Again, the lack of clarity about what we wanted meant that our politicians came under pressure to show “progress”. This is another elementary mistake. Progress in negotiations is getting towards where you want to go. If you are not getting there there is no progress and discussions about non key matters are just make work. It makes me despair that even this week we are repeating this mistake.
Perhaps the worst example of this desperate need for progress was the backstop agreement. It is horribly drafted. On any sensible view articles 49 and 50, helpfully quoted by Aaron, say different things. A government with a clear idea what they wanted would not have made this mistake. They would have been content to not make “progress” until they were getting what they wanted and they would have prepared for no agreement in a way that showed we meant it.
Finally this desire for “progress” has meant we have adopted the role of the supplicant. we make proposals, the EU says they do not address their concerns and we then run around trying to find a different proposal. It’s pathetic. And we are still doing it.
We are still doing it because the circle cannot be squared and the government and the Bucanneering Brexiteers refuse to admit this: you cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Our choice remains what it has always been: a deal whose parameters are dictated by the EU or no deal. We have to accept one or the other.
What we really wanted, I think, was a FTA, like the EU have with Canada. Progress on all other matters should have been conditional on that.
What we wanted is all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Canada is a considerable step down from that. But we can have it if we work within the parameters the EU has set.
For me our main weakness has consistently been a lack of clarity about what we actually wanted. I have had this situation with clients over the years and it is always problematic. Someone who doesn’t have a clear idea of what they want will always be pushed around because they cannot prioritise.
In this case we triggered article 50 without that clarity. Because we didn’t know what we wanted we let the other side fix the sequencing. That gave them control of the process. You can argue that article 50 itself gave them control. It is certainly designed that way but I don’t think that was inevitable. We could have maintained the position that we were not willing to discuss the leave agreement without at least discussing the future relationship in parallel.
Again, the lack of clarity about what we wanted meant that our politicians came under pressure to show “progress”. This is another elementary mistake. Progress in negotiations is getting towards where you want to go. If you are not getting there there is no progress and discussions about non key matters are just make work. It makes me despair that even this week we are repeating this mistake.
Perhaps the worst example of this desperate need for progress was the backstop agreement. It is horribly drafted. On any sensible view articles 49 and 50, helpfully quoted by Aaron, say different things. A government with a clear idea what they wanted would not have made this mistake. They would have been content to not make “progress” until they were getting what they wanted and they would have prepared for no agreement in a way that showed we meant it.
Finally this desire for “progress” has meant we have adopted the role of the supplicant. we make proposals, the EU says they do not address their concerns and we then run around trying to find a different proposal. It’s pathetic. And we are still doing it.
We are still doing it because the circle cannot be squared and the government and the Bucanneering Brexiteers refuse to admit this: you cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Our choice remains what it has always been: a deal whose parameters are dictated by the EU or no deal. We have to accept one or the other.
What we really wanted, I think, was a FTA, like the EU have with Canada. Progress on all other matters should have been conditional on that.
The issue, of course, is that CETA took seven years to negotiate with an additional two years of preparatory political work for ratification and implementation. Nine years in a transitional period wouldn't be acceptable to anybody. So the UK would need to quickly transition to another status first: EEA+CU would have been an easy, obvious choice and the EU would have had no objections.
Paying for WTO terms is no legal requirement on any definition.
No Deal will ultimately lead to EUref2 and 55% for Remain over 45% for No Deal in the polls despite your utterly contemptible wish to wreck the economy and union. Your fanaticism will consume and destroy the very Brexit you are pushing so hard for.
If you think the 40 Tory MPs who hold the balance of power in Parliament who are ardently anti No Deal Brexit like Grieve, Rudd and Wollaston will accept your plans think again. Whatever the DUP does without their support the government could easily fall if No Deal and No EUref2. For them and indeed for most Remainers No Deal will be utterly unacceptable and they will fight and fight and fight again to reverse it.
The only Brexit now that will not lead to a near civil war is SM plus CU and aim eventually for a FTA
They don't have a choice. Remainers are in a checkmate position based on their own propaganda. The second a deal is reached and faced with a no deal alternative they have no choice but to ratify it.
"No choice"?
Heh, I have a feeling this opinion won't age well. Plus it assumes that there's a single person anywhere who has fallen for May's "there is no alternative" schtick.
Rejecting May's botched deal doesn't mean Parliament wants No Deal, it means Parliament is rejecting May's botched deal. What happens afterwards is the interesting bit.
What Parliament wants is immaterial, Parliament can want the moon on the stick or May's imaginary cake-and-eating-it being in and out of the Single Market simultaneously. It doesn't matter.
What matters is what can be agreed with the EU. If we have reached an agreement with the EU the decision for Parliament is take it or leave it.
There are four factors: cost, capacity, speed of charging and safety. The first three of these, and preferably the fourth as well, need massive improvements, sometimes of an order of magnitude. That's a massive ask, especially when improvements are like squeezing a balloon.
In order:
- Cost: Has been coming down and will continue as scale gets larger and battery tech continues getting cheaper. I think it's only a factor of two away from being in the zone already.
- Capacity: We're looking at 250-350 miles becoming standard for new models. That's in the zone for quite a few already (especially if the third factor, charging speed, gets there). A factor of 1.5 to two out at most.
- Charging speed: Latest chargers coming from Ionity (a multi-company initiative across Europe) looks at an 80% charge on a 250-350 mile battery in twelve minutes. That's there or thereabouts, I'd say. A little longer than currently, but I could easily live with that.
- Safety: So far, they seem to be among the safest cars on the road.
Cost has not been coming down fast enough. There may also be issues with availability of materials required for batteries once scale goes up as much as will be required.
Capacity means cost. I do wonder how much more we can squeeze out of existing battery chemistries on a weight or cost basis.
Charging speed. Again, it is debatable how much this can be improved with existing chemistries. And I daresay that people might find it rather trying to find and queue for one of the ten Ionity 'stations' there are in Europe.
I may be being a little cynical about this, but it does strike me as being potentially disastrous. Let's at least have a plan.
Paying for WTO terms is no legal requirement on any definition.
No Deal will ultimately lead to EUref2 and 55% for Remain over 45% for No Deal in the polls despite your utterly contemptible wish to wreck the economy and union. Your fanaticism will consume and destroy the very Brexit you are pushing so hard for.
If you think the 40 Tory MPs who hold the balance of power in Parliament who are ardently anti No Deal Brexit like Grieve, Rudd and Wollaston will accept your plans think again. Whatever the DUP does without their support the government could easily fall if No Deal and No EUref2. For them and indeed for most Remainers No Deal will be utterly unacceptable and they will fight and fight and fight again to reverse it.
The only Brexit now that will not lead to a near civil war is SM plus CU and aim eventually for a FTA
They don't have a choice. Remainers are in a checkmate position based on their own propaganda. The second a deal is reached and faced with a no deal alternative they have no choice but to ratify it.
"No choice"?
Heh, I have a feeling this opinion won't age well. Plus it assumes that there's a single person anywhere who has fallen for May's "there is no alternative" schtick.
Rejecting May's botched deal doesn't mean Parliament wants No Deal, it means Parliament is rejecting May's botched deal. What happens afterwards is the interesting bit.
What Parliament wants is immaterial, Parliament can want the moon on the stick or May's imaginary cake-and-eating-it being in and out of the Single Market simultaneously. It doesn't matter.
What matters is what can be agreed with the EU. If we have reached an agreement with the EU the decision for Parliament is take it or leave it.
Yes, it will be leave it. Parliament will reject May's botched omnishambles. The key is what happens afterwards.
We are still doing it because the circle cannot be squared and the government and the Bucanneering Brexiteers refuse to admit this: you cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Our choice remains what it has always been: a deal whose parameters are dictated by the EU or no deal. We have to accept one or the other.
What we really wanted, I think, was a FTA, like the EU have with Canada. Progress on all other matters should have been conditional on that.
The problem is that is what we should have wanted based on the government's red lines. It was in fitting with what the electorate voted for in the referendum meeting everything discussed then.
The problem is that it wasn't enough for May. She wanted to be in and out of the Single Market, in and out of the Customs Union. Canada+ has been on offer since day one but May has rejected it. Had we been pushing this from day one we could have made progress.
Agreed. And in doing so she has found herself not even able to get the FTA. All the +++ nonsense should have been discussed between equals once we had left.
Canada+ has been on offer since day one but May has rejected it. .
Because she's the Prime Minister of the UK, not just GB.
The EU offered Canada+ on day one, the proposal of the backstop only came months later after we had been messing around for months. Had we on day one said 'yes lets go for that' the backstop may have never even become an issue.
Canada+ has been on offer since day one but May has rejected it. .
Because she's the Prime Minister of the UK, not just GB.
The EU offered Canada+ on day one, the proposal of the backstop only came months later after we had been messing around for months. Had we on day one said 'yes lets go for that' the backstop may have never even become an issue.
1000% correct. The backstop was raised because they knew May was weak and could be pushed into locking the UK under EU control.
I think you're off on both points. Cars that cost more on purchase are unaffordable, even if the running costs are low. Although as has been pointed out below, leasing may change factors here.
'The market', as you put it, will be able to do it. However 'the state' will put a whole load of barriers in their way - some reasonable, others not. As an example, there will be various safety issues with cables over pavements, which means that streets will have to be dug up. Then there are the changes to electricity distribution that will have to be made.
These are all costs, and they are massive costs. Someone will have to pay.
(There is another potential complicating factor in the form of driverless cars which, if they become good enough, will utterly skew the car market. But I'm very bearish on driverless cars becoming 'good', yet alone 'good enough', in the near future.)
The cost comparison now is similar. But the proposal isn't banning petrol cars now, it's banning new petrol cars in *2032*. By then electric should be far cheaper, especially if we accelerate progress by govt making a bolder commitment.
Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs. So yes someone (lots of us) will pay, but we will benefit also.
Edit just to add: the report says in the summary "The Committee calls on the Government to take the lead in ensuring charging points are provided nationwide and help local authorities access greater technical and financial support to develop charging infrastructure across the country, including in remote and rural areas."
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
I am beginning to wonder whether anyone, literally anyone, would be better than May now.
That's what I've been thinking for a while. Even with Boris or JRM, there's a chance they might have pushed things to the crisis moment earlier, which would have been better. Achieving nothing but pushing the moment of reckoning as far down the road as possible is the worst of all worlds.
At this point some of her defenders seem to be arguing on the basis that she's already fucked everything up, so no point replacing her as the horse had already bolted. But as this week has proved, she's still getting fresh exciting new opportunities to screw up.
There are already plans to change building regs to that effect. As far as aims, it is about getting rid of greenhouse gases - but the other point is that the switch is going to be global, and the question is more whether we'll be a leader or laggard.
For network effects, doing some rough calculations, 10 million EVs requiring (say) 20kW of charging per day (which allows for a rather generous 100 mile of travel apiece) is 20GW. Much of that charging would/could be overnight, and the rest spread throughout the day, so peak extra demand would be maybe 4GW (which is around 10% of current demand), likely at night - when there's a lot of cheap available capacity ?
Houses are being built at this very moment without them. It's sod-all use about having plans to change regs - they should be changed. And I'm unsure if the government has chosen a standard yet - CCS seems a good choice - except that's a European standard, and we all know how the government feels about Europe...
It will also increase the cost of building a house, yet we're told we need more affordable homes built. And it should probably be one charger per parking space, not per home.
As for network effects: people boiling kettles during ad breaks of popular programs can cause problems. People will want to charge them the moment they get home from work, in the early evening, just in case they need to nip out for some reason.
All of these could be fixed by having a firm, understood plan and admitting that it'll cost consumers a heck of a lot of money. But that's not they way they're doing it.
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
Excellent news - time for a well targeted no deal Brexit stimulus.
The issue, of course, is that CETA took seven years to negotiate with an additional two years of preparatory political work for ratification and implementation. Nine years in a transitional period wouldn't be acceptable to anybody. So the UK would need to quickly transition to another status first: EEA+CU would have been an easy, obvious choice and the EU would have had no objections.
Yes this is all within a two party adversarial electoral system and hence not only did Breixt have to be wrapped up before the next GE, but what May said she wanted was framed in the context of a "normal" party political spin which, as we all know, can be shall we say flexible.
We simply have not been in an environment where (oh the irony) X means X. And for the EU, that is exactly the framework they work within. Not to say the EU can't fudge but we are leaving and asking them to rewrite their founding principles and hence fudge might be more challenging.
But in essence, May brought a knife to a gunfight.
There are four factors: cost, capacity, speed of charging and safety. The first three of these, and preferably the fourth as well, need massive improvements, sometimes of an order of magnitude. That's a massive ask, especially when improvements are like squeezing a balloon.
In order:
- Cost: Has been coming down and will continue as scale gets larger and battery tech continues getting cheaper. I think it's only a factor of two away from being in the zone already.
- Capacity: We're looking at 250-350 miles becoming standard for new models. That's in the zone for quite a few already (especially if the third factor, charging speed, gets there). A factor of 1.5 to two out at most.
- Charging speed: Latest chargers coming from Ionity (a multi-company initiative across Europe) looks at an 80% charge on a 250-350 mile battery in twelve minutes. That's there or thereabouts, I'd say. A little longer than currently, but I could easily live with that.
- Safety: So far, they seem to be among the safest cars on the road.
Cost has not been coming down fast enough. There may also be issues with availability of materials required for batteries once scale goes up as much as will be required.
Capacity means cost. I do wonder how much more we can squeeze out of existing battery chemistries on a weight or cost basis.
Charging speed. Again, it is debatable how much this can be improved with existing chemistries. And I daresay that people might find it rather trying to find and queue for one of the ten Ionity 'stations' there are in Europe.
I may be being a little cynical about this, but it does strike me as being potentially disastrous. Let's at least have a plan.
To be fair, we are looking longer term. Capacity-versus-cost has indeed been a big thing; getting the 250+ mile range has been the province of the £70,000+ vehicles until this year; now it's moving towards the £30,000 range (eg the Hyundai Kona).
On things like the Iionity network - there's actually zero in the UK this year, the first coming next year, with 40 or so by 2020, and by 2025 or 2030 there could easily be several hundred. That, again, is the sort of thing Governments should be looking at.
For me, the biggest and easiest "win" is standardising on a given standard. CCS seems to be the key one here (Teslas also can recharge from CCS stations).
I think you're off on both points. Cars that cost more on purchase are unaffordable, even if the running costs are low. Although as has been pointed out below, leasing may change factors here.
'The market', as you put it, will be able to do it. However 'the state' will put a whole load of barriers in their way - some reasonable, others not. As an example, there will be various safety issues with cables over pavements, which means that streets will have to be dug up. Then there are the changes to electricity distribution that will have to be made.
These are all costs, and they are massive costs. Someone will have to pay.
(There is another potential complicating factor in the form of driverless cars which, if they become good enough, will utterly skew the car market. But I'm very bearish on driverless cars becoming 'good', yet alone 'good enough', in the near future.)
The cost comparison now is similar. But the proposal isn't banning petrol cars now, it's banning new petrol cars in *2032*. By then electric should be far cheaper, especially if we accelerate progress by govt making a bolder commitment.
Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs. So yes someone (lots of us) will pay, but we will benefit also.
'Should be'
You hope.
"Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs."
I agree it might, if done right. This announcement isn't doing it right.
Government borrowing data was a bit better than expected and also had last month's high number revised down by £2bn.
' Borrowing (Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks) in September 2018 was £4.1 billion, £0.8 billion less than in September 2017; this was the lowest September borrowing for 11 years (since 2007).
Borrowing in the current financial year-to-date (YTD) was £19.9 billion: £10.7 billion less than in the same period in 2017; the lowest year-to-date for 16 years (since 2002).
Borrowing in the financial year ending (FYE) March 2018 was £39.8 billion: £5.7 billion less than in FYE March 2017; the lowest financial year for 11 years (since FYE 2007). '
That’s very good advice. Petrolheady car people tend to dislike the whole concept of leasing, but for people with busy lives who can’t be faffed with running old cars and/or not having a car and a giant bill when the bloody thing breaks down, full service leases are a great idea. If more people moved onto them - and gave up the idea of ‘owning’ a car - we could rapidly get inefficient old stock off the roads and advance much more rapidly to a cleaner national fleet.
Yes. I suspect even leasing will be a step too far for many people.
Google and Uber aren't getting into self-driving cars to sell cars; they're aiming to provide mobility as a service. Tell your phone where you want to go; a car turns up at your doorstep five minutes later; it drops you off and then goes to do its next round. There is no reason for the car to be sitting round idle for the 95% of the time you're not in it.
Personal car ownership is on the way out and Government should be planning for that, not just for a relatively minor change in power source.
Government borrowing data was a bit better than expected and also had last month's high number revised down by £2bn.
' Borrowing (Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks) in September 2018 was £4.1 billion, £0.8 billion less than in September 2017; this was the lowest September borrowing for 11 years (since 2007).
Borrowing in the current financial year-to-date (YTD) was £19.9 billion: £10.7 billion less than in the same period in 2017; the lowest year-to-date for 16 years (since 2002).
Borrowing in the financial year ending (FYE) March 2018 was £39.8 billion: £5.7 billion less than in FYE March 2017; the lowest financial year for 11 years (since FYE 2007). '
Government borrowing data was a bit better than expected and also had last month's high number revised down by £2bn.
' Borrowing (Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks) in September 2018 was £4.1 billion, £0.8 billion less than in September 2017; this was the lowest September borrowing for 11 years (since 2007).
Borrowing in the current financial year-to-date (YTD) was £19.9 billion: £10.7 billion less than in the same period in 2017; the lowest year-to-date for 16 years (since 2002).
Borrowing in the financial year ending (FYE) March 2018 was £39.8 billion: £5.7 billion less than in FYE March 2017; the lowest financial year for 11 years (since FYE 2007). '
It will be interesting to see if the OBR finally accepts reality in its next report.
Gov't on target to reduce full year deficit from c.£40bn to c.£30bn with room to get this to c.£25bn if deficit reduction continues.
(Technically August was revised down by £1.1bn; the other £0.9bn was elsewhere in the YTD)
If the trend holds and the budget has no giveaways we should be looking at a £20bn deficit. I figure £10bn worth of giveaways and we still bank a £7bn reduction.
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
I think you're off on both points. Cars that cost more on purchase are unaffordable, even if the running costs are low. Although as has been pointed out below, leasing may change factors here.
'The market', as you put it, will be able to do it. However 'the state' will put a whole load of barriers in their way - some reasonable, others not. As an example, there will be various safety issues with cables over pavements, which means that streets will have to be dug up. Then there are the changes to electricity distribution that will have to be made.
These are all costs, and they are massive costs. Someone will have to pay.
(There is another potential complicating factor in the form of driverless cars which, if they become good enough, will utterly skew the car market. But I'm very bearish on driverless cars becoming 'good', yet alone 'good enough', in the near future.)
The cost comparison now is similar. But the proposal isn't banning petrol cars now, it's banning new petrol cars in *2032*. By then electric should be far cheaper, especially if we accelerate progress by govt making a bolder commitment.
Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs. So yes someone (lots of us) will pay, but we will benefit also.
'Should be'
You hope.
"Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs."
I agree it might, if done right. This announcement isn't doing it right.
This suggestion is just about doing it quicker, and it actually agrees with many of the points you have been making.
I'll happily bet that electric cars will, like for like, be much cheaper in 2032 than they are now.
We are still doing it because the circle cannot be squared and the government and the Bucanneering Brexiteers refuse to admit this: you cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Our choice remains what it has always been: a deal whose parameters are dictated by the EU or no deal. We have to accept one or the other.
What we really wanted, I think, was a FTA, like the EU have with Canada. Progress on all other matters should have been conditional on that.
What we wanted is all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. Canada is a considerable step down from that. But we can have it if we work within the parameters the EU has set.
You continually talk as if the EU don’t want a trade deal. You might think the UK has a huge surplus with them the way you tell it.
The problem was people like you - constantly barracking for a soft Brexit, you pushed May to request exactly the deal you are now saying is not available. Leavers knew that all along. We only ever wanted a free trade deal.
The trade deal was easy. The EU are playing hardball because May is weak, and they know if she does cave on the completely unacceptable NI backstop people like you will applaud.
Paying for WTO terms is no legal requirement on any definition.
No Deal will ultimately lead to EUref2 and 55% for Remain over 45% for No Deal in the polls despite your utterly contemptible wish to wreck the economy and union. Your fanaticism will consume and destroy the very Brexit you are pushing so hard for.
If you think the 40 Tory MPs who hold the balance of power in Parliament who are ardently anti No Deal Brexit like Grieve, Rudd and Wollaston will accept your plans think again. Whatever the DUP does without their support the government could easily fall if No Deal and No EUref2. For them and indeed for most Remainers No Deal will be utterly unacceptable and they will fight and fight and fight again to reverse it.
The only Brexit now that will not lead to a near civil war is SM plus CU and aim eventually for a FTA
They don't have a choice. Remainers are in a checkmate position based on their own propaganda. The second a deal is reached and faced with a no deal alternative they have no choice but to ratify it. Afterall they've made clear any deal is better than no deal. Faced with a minimalist deal that says "vote for this or planes are grounded etc" what are they going to do? Vote down the deal they claim is needed!?
Parliament can't vote for an option that is not on offer, they can only vote for or against what is before them. What is before them will be better than the alternative which is nothing at all.
True, but my point is that a managed no deal may not require Parliament to approve it at all. If it is not in the form of an article 50 withdrawal agreement, it does not seem to require ratification.
I think you're off on both points. Cars that cost more on purchase are unaffordable, even if the running costs are low. Although as has been pointed out below, leasing may change factors here.
'The market', as you put it, will be able to do it. However 'the state' will put a whole load of barriers in their way - some reasonable, others not. As an example, there will be various safety issues with cables over pavements, which means that streets will have to be dug up. Then there are the changes to electricity distribution that will have to be made.
These are all costs, and they are massive costs. Someone will have to pay.
(There is another potential complicating factor in the form of driverless cars which, if they become good enough, will utterly skew the car market. But I'm very bearish on driverless cars becoming 'good', yet alone 'good enough', in the near future.)
The cost comparison now is similar. But the proposal isn't banning petrol cars now, it's banning new petrol cars in *2032*. By then electric should be far cheaper, especially if we accelerate progress by govt making a bolder commitment.
Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs. So yes someone (lots of us) will pay, but we will benefit also.
'Should be'
You hope.
"Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs."
I agree it might, if done right. This announcement isn't doing it right.
This suggestion is just about doing it quicker, and it actually agrees with many of the points you have been making.
I'll happily bet that electric cars will, like for like, be much cheaper in 2032 than they are now.
I have little doubt about that. But there's a vast gulf to be bridged.
In engineering, the early wins are frequently the easiest. The more efficient something becomes, the harder it becomes to get more efficiency out of the system. The same goes for cost, performance and other metrics.
That's what concerns me when people say: "Look how much we've progressed in the last x years!". There's no guarantee that progress will continue, yet alone at that rate.
Moore's Law has spoilt us - and even that's nearly had its day.
Buried in the Times report on BNP shedding 40 jobs because their investment bank isn't doing well is a little gem - "The bank’s British operations could even increase in size as it will be forced to change its status in the UK from a branch to that of a full subsidiary."
I suspect a lot of European banks are going to have a similar choice to make and we may, at least in the short term, see an increase in jobs in London due to banks moving staff from Europe into the UK to satisfy regulators.
The issue, of course, is that CETA took seven years to negotiate with an additional two years of preparatory political work for ratification and implementation. Nine years in a transitional period wouldn't be acceptable to anybody. So the UK would need to quickly transition to another status first: EEA+CU would have been an easy, obvious choice and the EU would have had no objections.
Yes this is all within a two party adversarial electoral system and hence not only did Breixt have to be wrapped up before the next GE, but what May said she wanted was framed in the context of a "normal" party political spin which, as we all know, can be shall we say flexible.
We simply have not been in an environment where (oh the irony) X means X. And for the EU, that is exactly the framework they work within. Not to say the EU can't fudge but we are leaving and asking them to rewrite their founding principles and hence fudge might be more challenging.
But in essence, May brought a knife to a gunfight.
True. And May's method of leadership is to keep all discussions within a tight coterie of close associates and then spring decisions on people when it is usually too late to reconsider. She makes no attempt to persuade people of the merits of her case, she relies on surprise and arm-twisting to push things through. This worked quite well for her at the Home Office when taking relatively low-level decisions most of which were not controversial with her own party. The technique was again in evidence with the Chequers meeting. But with a deeply controversial subject such as Brexit it is hopeless (as the instant collapse of chequers showed) - May has to persuade people that she knows what she is doing and she needs to bring her supporters with her by the power of her arguments, not the power of her office, and there is no evidence whatsoever that she is capable of doing this.
Brexiteers had no plan and May has been unable to formulate one and triggered Article 50 far too early. She appointed the wrong people to key posts, refused to listen to advice, was divisive when she should have been conciliatory and thought it more important to be more Bexity than the Brexiteers. She had no strategy, took the wrong risks and dithered when action was needed. Utterly hopeless.
The EU too has behaved badly. I do not criticise them for not wanting to damage the integrity of the SM. But to expect a country to have an internal border in order to avoid the reality that the EU’s external border with the UK will be in the middle of Ireland is a stupid step which will likely lead to the very thing the Irish fear the most. And it will build resentment. I am not at all sure that they do want a FTA.
If chaos ensues Britain will be massively harmed and the Brexiteers will be responsible. But the EU should, if it had any understanding of its own history, realise that aiding the humiliation of a neighbour and allowing resentments to develop is not a sensible long-term strategy. Chaos in Britain will impact the EU both in the short and long-term. What does it say of the EU that it is unable to reach an agreement with its former member and near neighbour?
I see only 3 possible ways out:
1. Ask the Northern Irish in a referendum whether they are prepared to remain within the SM/CU without the ability to vote for the rules affecting them and with a border between them and the rest of the country they belong to. If they are, then the rest of us can hardly complain and we can do the deal that is apparently 85% agreed. If they are not, then the EU’s proposal breaches the principle of consent contained in the GFA.
2. Start planning immediately for a NoDeal exit and try, if at all possible, to have some mini-deals in place for planes, medecines etc. Then face life alone without the benefit of previous economic arrangements and see what trade deals can be agreed.
3. A referendum to see whether Britain wants to go ahead with a NoDeal or to Remain. This would have to be before 29 March and if Remain were to win we withdraw Article 50.
All have risks attached. But faffing about is no longer an option. I don’t care much about May’s future. She’s not up to it and a new face may help, who knows. Nor do I care about the Tories who have got us into this mess. But we need to get real - and fast - about the options open to us.
On topic. Excellent thread. The absolutists on both side only see the weaknesses of the decisions taken - not the problems presented by the alternatives.
Thanks @CarlottaVance, and to everyone else for various kind words and, more importantly, engaging with the questions. It's interesting that there's been some support for each of the concessions as being the key.
The Uk (and most of the western world) is miles behind on this - in the Uk is not helped by the relationships between councils and bus companies being well interesting..
Incidentally, unless we Remain because we make that choice before we leave I think it will be a long time before we rejoin, if ever.
It makes no sense to rejoin unless there is a very clear majority for joining in the country and doing so from a position of weakness is the worst possible basis for rejoining. It will simply repeat the same mistake we made in 1973 when we joined because of our lack of economic and political confidence in ourselves. And the EU would be crazy to let us rejoin in such a frame of mind.
Also, can someone in simple terms explain what another year of transition period achieves for either side? Other than a £13bn bung to the EU.
Surely that is precisely what it is designed to do? Time isn't really the issue here. I [and I think many MPs] wouldn't be averse to paying more on a one-off basis to get things settled to our better advantage. But that doesn't seem to be on offer. Paying simply to kick the decision down the road isn't going to fly.
On topic. Excellent thread. The absolutists on both side only see the weaknesses of the decisions taken - not the problems presented by the alternatives.
Thanks @CarlottaVance, and to everyone else for various kind words and, more importantly, engaging with the questions. It's interesting that there's been some support for each of the concessions as being the key.
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
Worst government in history apparently
If you look at post war governments, by and large each left the country more prosperous than it was before their term. I interpret this as people and businesses pretty much getting on with life whatever the colour the donkeys in Westminster are wearing.
Brexiteers had no plan and May has been unable to formulate one and triggered Article 50 far too early. She appointed the wrong people to key posts, refused to listen to advice, was divisive when she should have been conciliatory and thought it more important to be more Bexity than the Brexiteers. She had no strategy, took the wrong risks and dithered when action was needed. Utterly hopeless.
The EU too has behaved badly.
If chaos ensues Britain will be massively harmed and the Brexiteers will be responsible. But the EU should, if it had any understanding of its own history, realise that aiding the humiliation of a neighbour and allowing resentments to develop is not a sensible long-term strategy. Chaos in Britain will impact the EU both in the short and long-term. What does it say of the EU that it is unable to reach an agreement with its former member and near neighbour?
I see only 3 possible ways out:
1. Ask the Northern Irish in a referendum whether they are prepared to remain within the SM/CU without the ability to vote for the rules affecting them and with a border between them and the rest of the country they belong to. If they are, then the rest of us can hardly complain and we can do the deal that is apparently 85% agreed. If they are not, then the EU’s proposal breaches the principle of consent contained in the GFA.
2. Start planning immediately for a NoDeal exit and try, if at all possible, to have some mini-deals in place for planes, medecines etc. Then face life alone without the benefit of previous economic arrangements and see what trade deals can be agreed.
3. A referendum to see whether Britain wants to go ahead with a NoDeal or to Remain. This would have to be before 29 March and if Remain were to win we withdraw Article 50.
All have risks attached. But faffing about is no longer an option. I don’t care much about May’s future. She’s not up to it and a new face may help, who knows. Nor do I care about the Tories who have got us into this mess. But we need to get real - and fast - about the options open to us.
I agree with most of what you say. However when thinking about the issue of Northern Ireland we shouldn't forget that the Good Friday Agreement was difficult enough to achieve but was made much easier by the fact that both Eire and the UK were members of the EU. Leaving the EU is a big problem for NI. The EU's suggestion is based on what would be best for Eire, the country remaining in the EU whilst the UK's suggestion is based on what is best for TMay's government which is kept afloat by the DUP. As with a lot of things to do with Brexit, 'I wouldn't start from here'.
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
Another day nearer a GE. Poor old Tezza spinning so many plates - it's no wonder that even a person of her undoubted ability is struggling.
She has to take a risk. She is utterly incapable of that.
Topping is either stark raving mad or lives on the moon, there can be no sane person on earth who believes May has any talent.
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
Worst government in history apparently
If you look at post war governments, by and large each left the country more prosperous than it was before their term. I interpret this as people and businesses pretty much getting on with life whatever the colour the donkeys in Westminster are wearing.
Name a Labour Government that has left the Country better off?
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
Worst government in history apparently
If you look at post war governments, by and large each left the country more prosperous than it was before their term. I interpret this as people and businesses pretty much getting on with life whatever the colour the donkeys in Westminster are wearing.
Name a Labour Government that has left the Country better off?
Isn't DD somewhat responsible for the current clusterfuck? Had he been more engaged in his last job, better prepared or just slightly more intelligent. I think it would be kinder and quicker if the Conservative party just legally dissolved itself. DD is as thick as shit with none of the utility of it...
I'm struggling to follow all this, but I think that nothing was achieved yesterday at the summit and we are no further forward.
Have I got this correct?
Not quite. We made another concession asking for the extension of the implementation period at the cost of another £10bn or so. That is a further period where we can be bullied by the EU because we are giving them all the power. They graciously said yes to this concession by us.
Another day nearer a GE. Poor old Tezza spinning so many plates - it's no wonder that even a person of her undoubted ability is struggling.
She has to take a risk. She is utterly incapable of that.
Topping is either stark raving mad or lives on the moon, there can be no sane person on earth who believes May has any talent.
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
Worst government in history apparently
If you look at post war governments, by and large each left the country more prosperous than it was before their term. I interpret this as people and businesses pretty much getting on with life whatever the colour the donkeys in Westminster are wearing.
Name a Labour Government that has left the Country better off?
Any of them. Even Labour '97-'10. UK GDP higher than when they took office. There is no government that hasn't done _some_ good, even Heath did useful things around widow's pensions.
Raab would be like ten times better if you want the job done.
Don't be so dismissive of DD. Perhaps a chronically lazy and malignantly stupid ideologue is what Brexit needs at this stage of the game. He was Head of European Photocopier Procurement at Tate & Lyle you know.
Raab would be like ten times better if you want the job done.
Don't be so dismissive of DD. Perhaps a chronically lazy and malignantly stupid ideologue is what Brexit needs at this stage of the game. He was Head of European Photocopier Procurement at Tate & Lyle you know.
The only reason to install him would be if for some reason you WANTED ten months of running the clock down (despite being three nil down).
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
Worst government in history apparently
If you look at post war governments, by and large each left the country more prosperous than it was before their term. I interpret this as people and businesses pretty much getting on with life whatever the colour the donkeys in Westminster are wearing.
Name a Labour Government that has left the Country better off?
1. Ask the Northern Irish in a referendum whether they are prepared to remain within the SM/CU without the ability to vote for the rules affecting them and with a border between them and the rest of the country they belong to. If they are, then the rest of us can hardly complain and we can do the deal that is apparently 85% agreed. If they are not, then the EU’s proposal breaches the principle of consent contained in the GFA.
2. Start planning immediately for a NoDeal exit and try, if at all possible, to have some mini-deals in place for planes, medecines etc. Then face life alone without the benefit of previous economic arrangements and see what trade deals can be agreed.
3. A referendum to see whether Britain wants to go ahead with a NoDeal or to Remain. This would have to be before 29 March and if Remain were to win we withdraw Article 50.
All have risks attached. But faffing about is no longer an option. I don’t care much about May’s future. She’s not up to it and a new face may help, who knows. Nor do I care about the Tories who have got us into this mess. But we need to get real - and fast - about the options open to us.
I agree with most of what you say. However when thinking about the issue of Northern Ireland we shouldn't forget that the Good Friday Agreement was difficult enough to achieve but was made much easier by the fact that both Eire and the UK were members of the EU. Leaving the EU is a big problem for NI. The EU's suggestion is based on what would be best for Eire, the country remaining in the EU whilst the UK's suggestion is based on what is best for TMay's government which is kept afloat by the DUP. As with a lot of things to do with Brexit, 'I wouldn't start from here'.
Agree - and of course NI voted to Remain. So given that the issue of the Irish border seems to be the issue here why not get the N Irish to vote on it. The DUP do not necessarily reflect the views of Northern Ireland.
There was no Dept for Exiting the EU before he floated the idea and had the PM ( @malcolmg that would be Theresa May that intellectual titan) agree to create it. He in short created the role for himself. In the same vein it would not be impossible, given this recent history, that he does the same thing wrt leader. Bonkers, obvs, but not impossible.
1. Ask the Northern Irish in a referendum whether they are prepared to remain within the SM/CU without the ability to vote for the rules affecting them and with a border between them and the rest of the country they belong to. If they are, then the rest of us can hardly complain and we can do the deal that is apparently 85% agreed. If they are not, then the EU’s proposal breaches the principle of consent contained in the GFA.
2. Start planning immediately for a NoDeal exit and try, if at all possible, to have some mini-deals in place for planes, medecines etc. Then face life alone without the benefit of previous economic arrangements and see what trade deals can be agreed.
3. A referendum to see whether Britain wants to go ahead with a NoDeal or to Remain. This would have to be before 29 March and if Remain were to win we withdraw Article 50.
All have risks attached. But faffing about is no longer an option. I don’t care much about May’s future. She’s not up to it and a new face may help, who knows. Nor do I care about the Tories who have got us into this mess. But we need to get real - and fast - about the options open to us.
I agree with most of what you say. However when thinking about the issue of Northern Ireland we shouldn't forget that the Good Friday Agreement was difficult enough to achieve but was made much easier by the fact that both Eire and the UK were members of the EU. Leaving the EU is a big problem for NI. The EU's suggestion is based on what would be best for Eire, the country remaining in the EU whilst the UK's suggestion is based on what is best for TMay's government which is kept afloat by the DUP. As with a lot of things to do with Brexit, 'I wouldn't start from here'.
Agree - and of course NI voted to Remain. So given that the issue of the Irish border seems to be the issue here why not get the N Irish to vote on it. The DUP do not necessarily reflect the views of Northern Ireland.
Arlene's bowler hat would be revolving at 10,000rpm at the mere thought of Option 1. The DUP would collapse the government immediately.
Isn't DD somewhat responsible for the current clusterfuck? Had he been more engaged in his last job, better prepared or just slightly more intelligent. I think it would be kinder and quicker if the Conservative party just legally dissolved itself. DD is as thick as shit with none of the utility of it...
To coin a phrase, DD is not the solution to the Brexit problem, he is the Brexit problem!
A sharp tool like Barnier made him look what he is - a clueless, lazy but jovial dullard.
Mega set of borrowing figures for the government. YTD £10bn reduction of the deficit and those August figures everyone was losing their collective marbles over have been revised downwards as well.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
Worst government in history apparently
If you look at post war governments, by and large each left the country more prosperous than it was before their term. I interpret this as people and businesses pretty much getting on with life whatever the colour the donkeys in Westminster are wearing.
Name a Labour Government that has left the Country better off?
Comments
But as she is responsible for all of these she has to go.
But she's set things up in such a way that it's in almost everyone's interests not to stop it.
The cabinet won't save her. Half of the cabinet want her job, and the other half just want her gone.
Labour and the SNP won't save her because the chaos undermines her government, might lead to another election, and even if it doesn't, the Tories will be forced to spend the next three years owning the fallout from their incompetence.
The DUP won't save her because their power comes from saying NO loud, and often.
The ERG won't save her, because they *want* the fallout.
The Soubryites and the Umunnites won't save her because they've calculated that the threat of a no deal will eventually lead to a second referendum, and if the chaos is bad enough, a demand to rejoin the EU soon after leaving.
The EU27 via Barnier won't save her because they've had enough of Britain's ridiculous behaviour, know they have us on the ropes, and are happy to run down the clock in the hope the UK will have to choice to capitulate totally.
“On Wednesday, after the U.K. bid to join the GPA stalled, “the U.K. minister for immigration contacted our ambassador in London,” Cojocaru said. “I hope they will be able to find a compromise.” “
However all new buses should be electric from 2020.
I still think a second referendum is a plausible possibility.
So why have we put a nervous ditherer, who was happy to stay an employee, in charge?
- Cost: Has been coming down and will continue as scale gets larger and battery tech continues getting cheaper. I think it's only a factor of two away from being in the zone already.
- Capacity: We're looking at 250-350 miles becoming standard for new models. That's in the zone for quite a few already (especially if the third factor, charging speed, gets there). A factor of 1.5 to two out at most.
- Charging speed: Latest chargers coming from Ionity (a multi-company initiative across Europe) looks at an 80% charge on a 250-350 mile battery in twelve minutes. That's there or thereabouts, I'd say. A little longer than currently, but I could easily live with that.
- Safety: So far, they seem to be among the safest cars on the road.
The situation is too dynamic for a referendum.
Parliament can't vote for an option that is not on offer, they can only vote for or against what is before them. What is before them will be better than the alternative which is nothing at all.
'The market', as you put it, will be able to do it. However 'the state' will put a whole load of barriers in their way - some reasonable, others not. As an example, there will be various safety issues with cables over pavements, which means that streets will have to be dug up. Then there are the changes to electricity distribution that will have to be made.
These are all costs, and they are massive costs. Someone will have to pay.
(There is another potential complicating factor in the form of driverless cars which, if they become good enough, will utterly skew the car market. But I'm very bearish on driverless cars becoming 'good', yet alone 'good enough', in the near future.)
"The Irish backstop is unlikely to have a fixed end date, despite the Government's insistence on it being "temporary", Jeremy Hunt has conceded.
The Foreign Secretary told the Today programme this morning that the Irish border was the "only big outstanding issue" stopping negotiators from finalising the Withdrawal Agreement, but acknowledged that "if it doesn't have a time limit, there has to be a way we can exit from it".
He also refused to rule out any further money being paid by the United Kingdom to cover a longer transition period"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/19/brexit-latest-jeremy-hunt-admits-irish-backstop-likely-go-forever/
"No choice"?
Heh, I have a feeling this opinion won't age well. Plus it assumes that there's a single person anywhere who has fallen for May's "there is no alternative" schtick.
Rejecting May's botched deal doesn't mean Parliament wants No Deal, it means Parliament is rejecting May's botched deal. What happens afterwards is the interesting bit.
Electric vehicles are only as eco-friendly as the energy produced by the electricity generation. However, while generating capacity can be provided by multiple means ranging from coal to wind, IC vehicles have to burn hydrocarbons. Removing the power generation from however-many-tens-of-millions of points around the country, most privately owned, to a few points around the country helps as well.
https://twitter.com/notlarrysabato/status/1053023848772378625
The problem is that it wasn't enough for May. She wanted to be in and out of the Single Market, in and out of the Customs Union. Canada+ has been on offer since day one but May has rejected it. Had we been pushing this from day one we could have made progress.
Here was a man who'd been preaching disaster with Corbyn in charge able to see lely and believable pivot into support for Corbyn alike policies.
I may not like the man but it was an incredible performance.
New PM has one more shot with the EU.
If no deal can be reached then choice is no deal or no deal.
If a deal can be reached it will pass or it doesn't and no deal.
GE in 2022.
As far as aims, it is about getting rid of greenhouse gases - but the other point is that the switch is going to be global, and the question is more whether we'll be a leader or laggard.
For network effects, doing some rough calculations, 10 million EVs requiring (say) 20kW of charging per day (which allows for a rather generous 100 mile of travel apiece) is 20GW.
Much of that charging would/could be overnight, and the rest spread throughout the day, so peak extra demand would be maybe 4GW (which is around 10% of current demand), likely at night - when there's a lot of cheap available capacity ?
What matters is what can be agreed with the EU. If we have reached an agreement with the EU the decision for Parliament is take it or leave it.
I'm not advocating one, incidentally, I just think it's certainly possible and maybe even probable.
Looks like Hunt was sent out to wave the white flag.
Capacity means cost. I do wonder how much more we can squeeze out of existing battery chemistries on a weight or cost basis.
Charging speed. Again, it is debatable how much this can be improved with existing chemistries. And I daresay that people might find it rather trying to find and queue for one of the ten Ionity 'stations' there are in Europe.
I may be being a little cynical about this, but it does strike me as being potentially disastrous. Let's at least have a plan.
Batteries are limited by the rate you can discharge them without reducing lifetime.
So an HGV would need to carry a lot of batteries to have a decent range.
Buses on commuter routes could cope better with charging stations along the route.
Good read here
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/how-china-charged-into-the-electric-bus-revolution/559571/
Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs. So yes someone (lots of us) will pay, but we will benefit also.
Edit just to add: the report says in the summary "The Committee calls on the Government to take the lead in ensuring charging points are provided nationwide and help local authorities access greater technical and financial support to develop charging infrastructure across the country, including in remote and rural areas."
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-energy-industrial-strategy/news-parliament-2017/electric-vehicles-report-published-17-19/
At this point some of her defenders seem to be arguing on the basis that she's already fucked everything up, so no point replacing her as the horse had already bolted. But as this week has proved, she's still getting fresh exciting new opportunities to screw up.
It will also increase the cost of building a house, yet we're told we need more affordable homes built. And it should probably be one charger per parking space, not per home.
As for network effects: people boiling kettles during ad breaks of popular programs can cause problems. People will want to charge them the moment they get home from work, in the early evening, just in case they need to nip out for some reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
All of these could be fixed by having a firm, understood plan and admitting that it'll cost consumers a heck of a lot of money. But that's not they way they're doing it.
Also, there has been a 1% real terms increase in departmental spending YTD.
We simply have not been in an environment where (oh the irony) X means X. And for the EU, that is exactly the framework they work within. Not to say the EU can't fudge but we are leaving and asking them to rewrite their founding principles and hence fudge might be more challenging.
But in essence, May brought a knife to a gunfight.
Capacity-versus-cost has indeed been a big thing; getting the 250+ mile range has been the province of the £70,000+ vehicles until this year; now it's moving towards the £30,000 range (eg the Hyundai Kona).
On things like the Iionity network - there's actually zero in the UK this year, the first coming next year, with 40 or so by 2020, and by 2025 or 2030 there could easily be several hundred. That, again, is the sort of thing Governments should be looking at.
For me, the biggest and easiest "win" is standardising on a given standard. CCS seems to be the key one here (Teslas also can recharge from CCS stations).
You hope.
"Overall the benefits from moving away from fossil fuels will far outweigh the costs."
I agree it might, if done right. This announcement isn't doing it right.
' Borrowing (Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks) in September 2018 was £4.1 billion, £0.8 billion less than in September 2017; this was the lowest September borrowing for 11 years (since 2007).
Borrowing in the current financial year-to-date (YTD) was £19.9 billion: £10.7 billion less than in the same period in 2017; the lowest year-to-date for 16 years (since 2002).
Borrowing in the financial year ending (FYE) March 2018 was £39.8 billion: £5.7 billion less than in FYE March 2017; the lowest financial year for 11 years (since FYE 2007). '
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/september2018#revisions-since-previous-release
It will be interesting to see if the OBR finally accepts reality in its next report.
Google and Uber aren't getting into self-driving cars to sell cars; they're aiming to provide mobility as a service. Tell your phone where you want to go; a car turns up at your doorstep five minutes later; it drops you off and then goes to do its next round. There is no reason for the car to be sitting round idle for the 95% of the time you're not in it.
Personal car ownership is on the way out and Government should be planning for that, not just for a relatively minor change in power source.
(Technically August was revised down by £1.1bn; the other £0.9bn was elsewhere in the YTD)
Longer to implement those things we will definitely be leaving, e.g. revolutionalise passport control; manage EU citizens in the UK; etc.
Longer to get a sense of what the public might actually want!!
I'll happily bet that electric cars will, like for like, be much cheaper in 2032 than they are now.
The problem was people like you - constantly barracking for a soft Brexit, you pushed May to request exactly the deal you are now saying is not available. Leavers knew that all along. We only ever wanted a free trade deal.
The trade deal was easy. The EU are playing hardball because May is weak, and they know if she does cave on the completely unacceptable NI backstop people like you will applaud.
In engineering, the early wins are frequently the easiest. The more efficient something becomes, the harder it becomes to get more efficiency out of the system. The same goes for cost, performance and other metrics.
That's what concerns me when people say: "Look how much we've progressed in the last x years!". There's no guarantee that progress will continue, yet alone at that rate.
Moore's Law has spoilt us - and even that's nearly had its day.
Presumably delivery trucks and HGVs that are on constant shuttle runs between eg Glasgow & Edinburgh are better candidates for electrification.
I suspect a lot of European banks are going to have a similar choice to make and we may, at least in the short term, see an increase in jobs in London due to banks moving staff from Europe into the UK to satisfy regulators.
Brexiteers had no plan and May has been unable to formulate one and triggered Article 50 far too early. She appointed the wrong people to key posts, refused to listen to advice, was divisive when she should have been conciliatory and thought it more important to be more Bexity than the Brexiteers. She had no strategy, took the wrong risks and dithered when action was needed. Utterly hopeless.
The EU too has behaved badly. I do not criticise them for not wanting to damage the integrity of the SM. But to expect a country to have an internal border in order to avoid the reality that the EU’s external border with the UK will be in the middle of Ireland is a stupid step which will likely lead to the very thing the Irish fear the most. And it will build resentment. I am not at all sure that they do want a FTA.
If chaos ensues Britain will be massively harmed and the Brexiteers will be responsible. But the EU should, if it had any understanding of its own history, realise that aiding the humiliation of a neighbour and allowing resentments to develop is not a sensible long-term strategy. Chaos in Britain will impact the EU both in the short and long-term. What does it say of the EU that it is unable to reach an agreement with its former member and near neighbour?
I see only 3 possible ways out:
1. Ask the Northern Irish in a referendum whether they are prepared to remain within the SM/CU without the ability to vote for the rules affecting them and with a border between them and the rest of the country they belong to. If they are, then the rest of us can hardly complain and we can do the deal that is apparently 85% agreed. If they are not, then the EU’s proposal breaches the principle of consent contained in the GFA.
2. Start planning immediately for a NoDeal exit and try, if at all possible, to have some mini-deals in place for planes, medecines etc. Then face life alone without the benefit of previous economic arrangements and see what trade deals can be agreed.
3. A referendum to see whether Britain wants to go ahead with a NoDeal or to Remain. This would have to be before 29 March and if Remain were to win we withdraw Article 50.
All have risks attached. But faffing about is no longer an option. I don’t care much about May’s future. She’s not up to it and a new face may help, who knows. Nor do I care about the Tories who have got us into this mess. But we need to get real - and fast - about the options open to us.
It makes no sense to rejoin unless there is a very clear majority for joining in the country and doing so from a position of weakness is the worst possible basis for rejoining. It will simply repeat the same mistake we made in 1973 when we joined because of our lack of economic and political confidence in ourselves. And the EU would be crazy to let us rejoin in such a frame of mind.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-45900253/sir-paul-beresford-struggles-with-scottish-accent
It’s an ill wind that blows no cunt nae good.
However when thinking about the issue of Northern Ireland we shouldn't forget that the Good Friday Agreement was difficult enough to achieve but was made much easier by the fact that both Eire and the UK were members of the EU.
Leaving the EU is a big problem for NI. The EU's suggestion is based on what would be best for Eire, the country remaining in the EU whilst the UK's suggestion is based on what is best for TMay's government which is kept afloat by the DUP.
As with a lot of things to do with Brexit, 'I wouldn't start from here'.
Raab would be like ten times better if you want the job done.
http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-10-31
We'd be 10 months down the line and no closer to a resolution
Another bonus is David Davis is an ex council house lad from York who made good .
Be nice for the city to be associated with a new Prime Minster.
Harold Wilson as a boy lived in York for while.
His father ran the poor house.
My grandfather on my mother's side ,always said up to his death his dread of ever having to go there.
Which thankfully was never the case.
https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-semi/
There was no Dept for Exiting the EU before he floated the idea and had the PM ( @malcolmg that would be Theresa May that intellectual titan) agree to create it. He in short created the role for himself. In the same vein it would not be impossible, given this recent history, that he does the same thing wrt leader. Bonkers, obvs, but not impossible.
https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/1052962484422893568
Would surely have to involve a Winter general election for DD to try and get a majority from somewhere though?
Long haul trucking in the US would only be really economic with a doubling of battery capacity/kilo, though. Should take 6-7 years.
A sharp tool like Barnier made him look what he is - a clueless, lazy but jovial dullard.