Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
Without the backstop there is no deal.
Hypothetically if the Irish react to Parliament rejecting the deal by agreeing to drop the backstop, then would the amended deal pass Parliament?
I believe so. It would remove what many see as the most egregious aspect of the deal May has negotiated - the Hotel California Brexit where we can check out but never leave. The backstop remains in place until such time as the EU has finished extracting concessions out of us on the Trade Agreement (ie, never....).
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
It is very simple. We make a big profit from the USA. If we negotiate with Trump our big profit will become a small profit or possibly even a loss. That is £34bn (or part) lost.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
Ireland just got a cheque for £14Bn from Apple. You know - the American company.
#clueless
But that was because Ireland was doing what the EU fear a uk gvt outside of their sphere will do. Allowing multinationals to squat in ultra low tax areas of their single market, funnelling revenues from higher tax areas to lower tax areas and avoiding what they see as due.
It was an Eu ruling wasn’t it that required Apple to pay taxes back to Ireland?
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
I thought it had more chlorine and less salmonella, so it is a compromise. I would rather berate US chicken for lower standards of animal welfare (which is largely why chlorine is required). I also think that would be a more effective argument in UK. We are accustomed to chlorine in water, swimming pools, it is not a scary element. We are far more motivated by animal welfare.
As a consumer I would be more concerned about the use of growth hormones in meat.
Only fools need purchase it
We import all of our cigarettes. Mostly from the kindly EU (Germany, Poland and Romania).
Remainers wetting their knickers about Yankee swimming pool chicken whilst the EU sends us their coffin nails.
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
In the broader context, this is worth noting too from the same page:
"The UK ran a trade deficit with the EU of around £80 billion in year to June 2017, so we export less than we import...... This is primarily driven by goods—the UK had a trade deficit of just under £97 billion with the EU during that time. In terms of services, we had a surplus of £17 billion."
In May's agreement, the UK has committed to maintaining the same general open trading relationship that produced that £97bn deficit in goods, at the price of giving the EU and its individual member states huge leverage in resolving numerous specific issues through the resort to a backstop we cannot leave if the UK does not play ball. [Macron's signalled blackmail over fishing rights is just a taster.] On the other hand, in terms of the £17bn surplus in services, May has secured diddly squat in terms of an agreement to secure a continuation for the UK of the current arrangements for financial services, with the EU having the unilateral right to pull the plug on those arrangements giving notice of just one month.
So, in a nutshell, May's agreement protects the £97bn EU trade surplus in goods with the UK, yets endangers the £17bn UK surplus in services. Worst of all worlds.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Even if we invoke article 50 again, the withdrawal agreement has already been negotiated.
On this comparison of forecast future GDP between remain/deal/no-deal, presumably they have made population predictions as well, so wouldn't GDP per capita be a more pertinent stat to forecast?
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
It is very simple. We make a big profit from the USA. If we negotiate with Trump our big profit will become a small profit or possibly even a loss. That is £34bn (or part) lost.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
Ireland just got a cheque for £14Bn from Apple. You know - the American company.
#clueless
But that was because Ireland was doing what the EU fear a uk gvt outside of their sphere will do. Allowing multinationals to squat in ultra low tax areas of their single market, funnelling revenues from higher tax areas to lower tax areas and avoiding what they see as due.
It was an Eu ruling wasn’t it that required Apple to pay taxes back to Ireland?
Taken in the round thats definitely one of the stronger arguments for staying in.
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
It is very simple. We make a big profit from the USA. If we negotiate with Trump our big profit will become a small profit or possibly even a loss. That is £34bn (or part) lost.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
Ireland just got a cheque for £14Bn from Apple. You know - the American company.
#clueless
But that was because Ireland was doing what the EU fear a uk gvt outside of their sphere will do. Allowing multinationals to squat in ultra low tax areas of their single market, funnelling revenues from higher tax areas to lower tax areas and avoiding what they see as due.
It was an Eu ruling wasn’t it that required Apple to pay taxes back to Ireland?
Bev was moaning about the evils of the USA - well they are providing taxes, jobs and commerce to Ireland.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Even if we invoke article 50 again, the withdrawal agreement has already been negotiated.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
I thought it had more chlorine and less salmonella, so it is a compromise. I would rather berate US chicken for lower standards of animal welfare (which is largely why chlorine is required). I also think that would be a more effective argument in UK. We are accustomed to chlorine in water, swimming pools, it is not a scary element. We are far more motivated by animal welfare.
As a consumer I would be more concerned about the use of growth hormones in meat.
Only fools need purchase it
We import all of our cigarettes. Mostly from the kindly EU (Germany, Poland and Romania).
Remainers wetting their knickers about Yankee swimming pool chicken whilst the EU sends us their coffin nails.
UK really is full of whining jellies nowadays, no backbone.
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
In the broader context, this is worth noting too from the same page:
"The UK ran a trade deficit with the EU of around £80 billion in year to June 2017, so we export less than we import...... This is primarily driven by goods—the UK had a trade deficit of just under £97 billion with the EU during that time. In terms of services, we had a surplus of £17 billion."
In May's agreement, the UK has committed to maintaining the same general open trading relationship that produced that £97bn deficit in goods, at the price of giving the EU and its individual member states huge leverage in resolving numerous specific issues through the resort to a backstop we cannot leave if the UK does not play ball. [Macron's signalled blackmail over fishing rights is just a taster.] On the other hand, in terms of the £17bn surplus in services, May has secured diddly squat in terms of an agreement to secure a continuation for the UK of the current arrangements for financial services, with the EU having the unilateral right to pull the plug on those arrangements giving notice of just one month.
So, in a nutshell, May's agreement protects the £97bn EU trade surplus in goods with the UK, yets endangers the £17bn UK surplus in services. Worst of all worlds.
There is nothing good about Mrs May's Deal.
Other than it's anathema to the Tory lunatic fringe (about 50% of them) so it'll be defeated and we can have another referendum.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
I thought it had more chlorine and less salmonella, so it is a compromise. I would rather berate US chicken for lower standards of animal welfare (which is largely why chlorine is required). I also think that would be a more effective argument in UK. We are accustomed to chlorine in water, swimming pools, it is not a scary element. We are far more motivated by animal welfare.
As a consumer I would be more concerned about the use of growth hormones in meat.
Only fools need purchase it
We import all of our cigarettes. Mostly from the kindly EU (Germany, Poland and Romania).
Remainers wetting their knickers about Yankee swimming pool chicken whilst the EU sends us their coffin nails.
UK really is full of whining jellies nowadays, no backbone.
Many people are apparently as thick as two short planks, and therefore will be much stronger than most backbones.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
I thought it had more chlorine and less salmonella, so it is a compromise. I would rather berate US chicken for lower standards of animal welfare (which is largely why chlorine is required). I also think that would be a more effective argument in UK. We are accustomed to chlorine in water, swimming pools, it is not a scary element. We are far more motivated by animal welfare.
As a consumer I would be more concerned about the use of growth hormones in meat.
Only fools need purchase it
We import all of our cigarettes. Mostly from the kindly EU (Germany, Poland and Romania).
Remainers wetting their knickers about Yankee swimming pool chicken whilst the EU sends us their coffin nails.
UK really is full of whining jellies nowadays, no backbone.
One of the benefits of a clean Brexit exit- will toughen everyone up.
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
In the broader context, this is worth noting too from the same page:
"The UK ran a trade deficit with the EU of around £80 billion in year to June 2017, so we export less than we import...... This is primarily driven by goods—the UK had a trade deficit of just under £97 billion with the EU during that time. In terms of services, we had a surplus of £17 billion."
In May's agreement, the UK has committed to maintaining the same general open trading relationship that produced that £97bn deficit in goods, at the price of giving the EU and its individual member states huge leverage in resolving numerous specific issues through the resort to a backstop we cannot leave if the UK does not play ball. [Macron's signalled blackmail over fishing rights is just a taster.] On the other hand, in terms of the £17bn surplus in services, May has secured diddly squat in terms of an agreement to secure a continuation for the UK of the current arrangements for financial services, with the EU having the unilateral right to pull the plug on those arrangements giving notice of just one month.
So, in a nutshell, May's agreement protects the £97bn EU trade surplus in goods with the UK, yets endangers the £17bn UK surplus in services. Worst of all worlds.
There is nothing good about Mrs May's Deal.
Other than it's anathema to the Tory lunatic fringe (about 50% of them) so it'll be defeated and we can have another referendum.
Will you still be slapping May's Deal on the back when we slide into WTO Brexit as a consequence?
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
You're free to pose questions, Big G, but the lesson from Leave's victory is that the side that ignores the hard questions and simply goes "lalala we have a plan and it will be terrific" is the one that wins. Corbyn knows this very well.
So you are happy for remainers to act in the same way as leave
Surely remainers have been putting forward scenario after scenario for the last two years and debunking the "We will be fine - something will turn up!" trope pushed by many Leavers?
As for schedules, well they are out there. We have a hard deadline of March 2019. The CJEU are considering an important aspect of Brexit and the mechanisms for cancelling it. The case has been made over and over again about economic damage and the lies of the "We will be swamped by immigrants" strategy.
What more do you want?
I would want an absolute commitment by the EU that our rebate is safe and we remain as exactly as we are now with no hidden covenants or conditions
I would not be surprised if the rebate was the penalty for stopping the whole mess, but I do not know and it probably will have to wait on the CJEU ruling.
Even if we do lose the rebate, the EU would be wise to get us to agree to a sliding scale loss were we lose the rebate in increments across a period of (say) 10 or 15 years.
Any talk of lost rebate would be an open goal and make remain much less likely
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
In the broader context, this is worth noting too from the same page:
"The UK ran a trade deficit with the EU of around £80 billion in year to June 2017, so we export less than we import...... This is primarily driven by goods—the UK had a trade deficit of just under £97 billion with the EU during that time. In terms of services, we had a surplus of £17 billion."
In May's agreement, the UK has committed to maintaining the same general open trading relationship that produced that £97bn deficit in goods, at the price of giving the EU and its individual member states huge leverage in resolving numerous specific issues through the resort to a backstop we cannot leave if the UK does not play ball. [Macron's signalled blackmail over fishing rights is just a taster.] On the other hand, in terms of the £17bn surplus in services, May has secured diddly squat in terms of an agreement to secure a continuation for the UK of the current arrangements for financial services, with the EU having the unilateral right to pull the plug on those arrangements giving notice of just one month.
So, in a nutshell, May's agreement protects the £97bn EU trade surplus in goods with the UK, yets endangers the £17bn UK surplus in services. Worst of all worlds.
There's the election leaflet for "still no" for the People's vote written.
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
It is very simple. We make a big profit from the USA. If we negotiate with Trump our big profit will become a small profit or possibly even a loss. That is £34bn (or part) lost.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
Why would a free trade agreement with the US automatically mean a bigger loss?
Because the Trump administration has already said that it wants Trade Deals changed to America's benefit. That means they are not going to change the current deal to the UK's benefit.
Well I think his rhetoric was talking about the enormous trade deficit with countries such as China which have a much lower standards of living. He couldn't guarantee who trades with who in a free trade deal with us anyway.
It seems strange you want to protect the trade where we are making a loss (EU) and limit the trade where we make a profit (US).
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
You're free to pose questions, Big G, but the lesson from Leave's victory is that the side that ignores the hard questions and simply goes "lalala we have a plan and it will be terrific" is the one that wins. Corbyn knows this very well.
So you are happy for remainers to act in the same way as leave
Surely remainers have been putting forward scenario after scenario for the last two years and debunking the "We will be fine - something will turn up!" trope pushed by many Leavers?
As for schedules, well they are out there. We have a hard deadline of March 2019. The CJEU are considering an important aspect of Brexit and the mechanisms for cancelling it. The case has been made over and over again about economic damage and the lies of the "We will be swamped by immigrants" strategy.
What more do you want?
I would want an absolute commitment by the EU that our rebate is safe and we remain as exactly as we are now with no hidden covenants or conditions
I would not be surprised if the rebate was the penalty for stopping the whole mess, but I do not know and it probably will have to wait on the CJEU ruling.
Even if we do lose the rebate, the EU would be wise to get us to agree to a sliding scale loss were we lose the rebate in increments across a period of (say) 10 or 15 years.
Any talk of lost rebate would be an open goal and make remain much less likely
The talks already happening and if we weasel back to remaining now then we would be grovelling and desperate and in no position to insist on the rebate.
The EU will unanimously say "we will take you back without the rebate, take it or its no deal" and we would have no choice but to agree. They'll use the same tactics as they've used during this whole negotiation.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
Talk is cheap - it is why the EU as a body have to come up with a guarantee on the rebate
They could guarantee a deal today by backing down on the backstop. Why if we're too afraid to leave afterall should they back down on the hated rebate?
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
Yes but you are fighting a losing cause
So are you. Maths doesn't lie, where do you get a majority from?
200 plus conservative mps and the rest of the HOC
The rest of the HoC won't back this deal either. We can get a majority government deal if the Irish decide 99% of their cake is better than no cake.
I was talking of no deal
This deal [minus backstop] is better than no deal for everyone. It is the lowest common denominator that is acceptable since the UK won't fold and accept the backstop despite all expectations to now of the contrary.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
Talk is cheap - it is why the EU as a body have to come up with a guarantee on the rebate
They could guarantee a deal today by backing down on the backstop. Why if we're too afraid to leave afterall should they back down on the hated rebate?
I actually think they'd let us stay in on current terms if we asked. They'd just see it as ignoring another referendum they don't like which they have form for.
They might want a guarantee not to trigger article 50 again for a while though.
At any other time the Labour leadership would be testing out the bottom warmers in their ministerial Jags. Extraordinary really, After the Tories have fucked their party and the country still Labour are no closer to government than they were in 2010
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I hope so. It should have been from the first place. A good future relationship that settled the whole Brexit situation, and something that can settle the will of those who voted leave and remain. A close future relationship with the EU that offers no threat to our children and grandchildren wishing to live and work around the EU, which allows us to opt in to some of the beneficial EU protocols as we wish, but turns the UK into a fully independent state.
May is right we are all bored by Brexit, but in its current concoction it’s going to go on and on. The next two years will once again be utterly dominated by the trade relationship.
Parliament and the government are utterly paralysed, unable to deal with anything else.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Even if we invoke article 50 again, the withdrawal agreement has already been negotiated.
"Negotiated" - but not agreed.
Don’t give up. Perhaps one day you’ll be able to convince people it’s worth it.
Is there any way to bet on the following sequence of events?
I strongly believe that the logical consequence from here is that we will see Parliament reject the deal, we will see a change to the deal in the new year fixing the backstop, then Parliament [and our partners] will ratify the deal and we will leave in the first half of next year before the European Parliament elections (but potentially a few weeks later than March next year).
Any idea what odds could be got on a bet on that sequence?
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
I thought it had more chlorine and less salmonella, so it is a compromise. I would rather berate US chicken for lower standards of animal welfare (which is largely why chlorine is required). I also think that would be a more effective argument in UK. We are accustomed to chlorine in water, swimming pools, it is not a scary element. We are far more motivated by animal welfare.
As a consumer I would be more concerned about the use of growth hormones in meat.
Only fools need purchase it
We import all of our cigarettes. Mostly from the kindly EU (Germany, Poland and Romania).
Remainers wetting their knickers about Yankee swimming pool chicken whilst the EU sends us their coffin nails.
UK really is full of whining jellies nowadays, no backbone.
As opposed to the moaning turnips with backbones of the purest vegetable fibre ?
As for schedules, well they are out there. We have a hard deadline of March 2019. The CJEU are considering an important aspect of Brexit and the mechanisms for cancelling it. The case has been made over and over again about economic damage and the lies of the "We will be swamped by immigrants" strategy.
What more do you want?
I would want an absolute commitment by the EU that our rebate is safe and we remain as exactly as we are now with no hidden covenants or conditions
Then there's the negotiated opt-out from ever closer union.
Who from the existing cabinet will be first to flip to Remain? Theresa May could do it after a second defeat of her draft agreement in the Commons, but she is more likely to be 1922-VONCed before that can happen and perhaps even before 11 December. Nobody will care if she flips from the back benches.
A referendum that pits xenophobia against faminophobia? Dinghies in Dover versus localised empty shelves in supermarkets? I fear the xenophobia and dinghies will be stronger. Lessons recently learnt can be fervently believed, but being ignored for decades is a powerful motivator. People need some kind of release.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
Talk is cheap - it is why the EU as a body have to come up with a guarantee on the rebate
They could guarantee a deal today by backing down on the backstop. Why if we're too afraid to leave afterall should they back down on the hated rebate?
I actually think they'd let us stay in on current terms if we asked. They'd just see it as ignoring another referendum they don't like which they have form for.
They might want a guarantee not to trigger article 50 again for a while though.
You forget how much our rebate is bitterly hated by the other 27 nations. This is a 100% they lose situation and they win billions by getting us to give it up. If we're to afraid to leave, have no time and no choice why wouldn't they extort it away from us?
I can't see very many people caring about a difference of 1.5% in GDP in 12 years time.
The subsequent rise in sterling (Speaking as an exporter) that would take place with staying in make it a no brainer for me personally to go with May's deal.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Notwithstanding occasional IGC nuisance, Europhobes are mostly the Conservative Party leader's problem, not the rest of the EU's problem. The UK leaving is the EU's problem, but in the event that the British had a rethink now it's unlikely that British PMs in the near future are going to risk ending their career the way Cameron did.
Not helping the problem go away now for fear that it may reoccur some time in the future, probably when you're no longer in that job and other unlucky person is lumbered with it, would be quite weird, especially in the EU, which never saw a can it didn't want to kick.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I presume that Norway+ would also be more expensive than the May deal ? FWIW, I'd be quite happy with it (as would some leavers - Smithson Jnr., for example).
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
Yes but you are fighting a losing cause
So are you. Maths doesn't lie, where do you get a majority from?
200 plus conservative mps and the rest of the HOC
The rest of the HoC won't back this deal either. We can get a majority government deal if the Irish decide 99% of their cake is better than no cake.
I was talking of no deal
This deal [minus backstop] is better than no deal for everyone. It is the lowest common denominator that is acceptable since the UK won't fold and accept the backstop despite all expectations to now of the contrary.
You are obsessed with the EU doing away with the backstop as much as the EU are obsessed with it.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I presume that Norway+ would also be more expensive than the May deal ? FWIW, I'd be quite happy with it (as would some leavers - Smithson Jnr., for example).
The cost of the May deal is unknown because it hasn’t been negotiated yet.
I can't see very many people caring about a difference of 1.5% in GDP in 12 years time.
How about donating 1.5% of GDP to split between the few of us who do ?
Would it make any difference to your life if GDP per head were 15% higher in 12 years time, or 16.5% higher?
You mean we are all 15% poorer now than we will be in 12 years time? Breadline Britain. Some people haven't replaced their Smartphone in over a year, and are still struggling with a 48" plasma TV.
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
Yes but you are fighting a losing cause
So are you. Maths doesn't lie, where do you get a majority from?
200 plus conservative mps and the rest of the HOC
The rest of the HoC won't back this deal either. We can get a majority government deal if the Irish decide 99% of their cake is better than no cake.
I was talking of no deal
This deal [minus backstop] is better than no deal for everyone. It is the lowest common denominator that is acceptable since the UK won't fold and accept the backstop despite all expectations to now of the contrary.
You are obsessed with the EU doing away with the backstop as much as the EU are obsessed with it.
Deadlock
Precisely! And the way to break the deadlock is to compromise.
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
So far we have compromised on everything else, they have not been in a position yet where we won't. If we go back to them in January and say actually this is serious we can't get this through otherwise, they face a real dilemma and a real choice they've not faced yet. Do you agree with that?
Is there any way to bet on the following sequence of events?
I strongly believe that the logical consequence from here is that we will see Parliament reject the deal, we will see a change to the deal in the new year fixing the backstop, then Parliament [and our partners] will ratify the deal and we will leave in the first half of next year before the European Parliament elections (but potentially a few weeks later than March next year).
Any idea what odds could be got on a bet on that sequence?
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
In the broader context, this is worth noting too from the same page:
"The UK ran a trade deficit with the EU of around £80 billion in year to June 2017, so we export less than we import...... This is primarily driven by goods—the UK had a trade deficit of just under £97 billion with the EU during that time. In terms of services, we had a surplus of £17 billion."
In May's agreement, the UK has committed to maintaining the same general open trading relationship that produced that £97bn deficit in goods, at the price of giving the EU and its individual member states huge leverage in resolving numerous specific issues through the resort to a backstop we cannot leave if the UK does not play ball. [Macron's signalled blackmail over fishing rights is just a taster.] On the other hand, in terms of the £17bn surplus in services, May has secured diddly squat in terms of an agreement to secure a continuation for the UK of the current arrangements for financial services, with the EU having the unilateral right to pull the plug on those arrangements giving notice of just one month.
So, in a nutshell, May's agreement protects the £97bn EU trade surplus in goods with the UK, yets endangers the £17bn UK surplus in services. Worst of all worlds.
There is nothing good about Mrs May's Deal.
Other than it's anathema to the Tory lunatic fringe (about 50% of them) so it'll be defeated and we can have another referendum.
Will you still be slapping May's Deal on the back when we slide into WTO Brexit as a consequence?
In those circumstances I'd be in France if I could get a visa or find a Rumanian people trafficker to ferry me across the channel
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Notwithstanding occasional IGC nuisance, Europhobes are mostly the Conservative Party leader's problem, not the rest of the EU's problem. The UK leaving is the EU's problem, but in the event that the British had a rethink now it's unlikely that British PMs in the near future are going to risk ending their career the way Cameron did.
Not helping the problem go away now for fear that it may reoccur some time in the future, probably when you're no longer in that job and other unlucky person is lumbered with it, would be quite weird, especially in the EU, which never saw a can it didn't want to kick.
Europhobes do not need to be in power to cause the EU problems. Just look at Farage.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Notwithstanding occasional IGC nuisance, Europhobes are mostly the Conservative Party leader's problem, not the rest of the EU's problem. The UK leaving is the EU's problem, but in the event that the British had a rethink now it's unlikely that British PMs in the near future are going to risk ending their career the way Cameron did.
Not helping the problem go away now for fear that it may reoccur some time in the future, probably when you're no longer in that job and other unlucky person is lumbered with it, would be quite weird, especially in the EU, which never saw a can it didn't want to kick.
But, if you were an EU negotiator or political leader, wouldn't you want to have some fun trolling British politicians who were begging for you to agree to revoke A50?
Is there any way to bet on the following sequence of events?
I strongly believe that the logical consequence from here is that we will see Parliament reject the deal, we will see a change to the deal in the new year fixing the backstop, then Parliament [and our partners] will ratify the deal and we will leave in the first half of next year before the European Parliament elections (but potentially a few weeks later than March next year).
Any idea what odds could be got on a bet on that sequence?
1000 - 1
I'm happy to take that bet. Who can I bet that with?
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
Yes but you are fighting a losing cause
So are you. Maths doesn't lie, where do you get a majority from?
200 plus conservative mps and the rest of the HOC
The rest of the HoC won't back this deal either. We can get a majority government deal if the Irish decide 99% of their cake is better than no cake.
I was talking of no deal
This deal [minus backstop] is better than no deal for everyone. It is the lowest common denominator that is acceptable since the UK won't fold and accept the backstop despite all expectations to now of the contrary.
You are obsessed with the EU doing away with the backstop as much as the EU are obsessed with it.
Deadlock
Precisely! And the way to break the deadlock is to compromise.
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
So far we have compromised on everything else, they have not been in a position yet where we won't. If we go back to them in January and say actually this is serious we can't get this through otherwise, they face a real dilemma and a real choice they've not faced yet. Do you agree with that?
They will not move the backstop. It is TM deal or Norway or referendum
Is there any way to bet on the following sequence of events?
I strongly believe that the logical consequence from here is that we will see Parliament reject the deal, we will see a change to the deal in the new year fixing the backstop, then Parliament [and our partners] will ratify the deal and we will leave in the first half of next year before the European Parliament elections (but potentially a few weeks later than March next year).
Any idea what odds could be got on a bet on that sequence?
No, there isn't really a way to bet on that. Brexit in Apr-Jun next year (which covers your scenario and plenty of related ones) is about 6/1 on Betfair:
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
Yes but you are fighting a losing cause
So are you. Maths doesn't lie, where do you get a majority from?
200 plus conservative mps and the rest of the HOC
The rest of the HoC won't back this deal either. We can get a majority government deal if the Irish decide 99% of their cake is better than no cake.
I was talking of no deal
This deal [minus backstop] is better than no deal for everyone. It is the lowest common denominator that is acceptable since the UK won't fold and accept the backstop despite all expectations to now of the contrary.
You are obsessed with the EU doing away with the backstop as much as the EU are obsessed with it.
Deadlock
Precisely! And the way to break the deadlock is to compromise.
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
So far we have compromised on everything else, they have not been in a position yet where we won't. If we go back to them in January and say actually this is serious we can't get this through otherwise, they face a real dilemma and a real choice they've not faced yet. Do you agree with that?
They will not move the backstop. It is TM deal or Norway or referendum
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
Is there any way to bet on the following sequence of events?
I strongly believe that the logical consequence from here is that we will see Parliament reject the deal, we will see a change to the deal in the new year fixing the backstop, then Parliament [and our partners] will ratify the deal and we will leave in the first half of next year before the European Parliament elections (but potentially a few weeks later than March next year).
Any idea what odds could be got on a bet on that sequence?
1000 - 1
I'm happy to take that bet. Who can I bet that with?
I know nil about betting so do not take anything I say about betting as anything other a guess
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
Yes but you are fighting a losing cause
So are you. Maths doesn't lie, where do you get a majority from?
200 plus conservative mps and the rest of the HOC
The rest of the HoC won't back this deal either. We can get a majority government deal if the Irish decide 99% of their cake is better than no cake.
I was talking of no deal
This deal [minus backstop] is better than no deal for everyone. It is the lowest common denominator that is acceptable since the UK won't fold and accept the backstop despite all expectations to now of the contrary.
You are obsessed with the EU doing away with the backstop as much as the EU are obsessed with it.
Deadlock
Precisely! And the way to break the deadlock is to compromise.
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
So far we have compromised on everything else, they have not been in a position yet where we won't. If we go back to them in January and say actually this is serious we can't get this through otherwise, they face a real dilemma and a real choice they've not faced yet. Do you agree with that?
They will not move the backstop. It is TM deal or Norway or referendum
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
Is there any way to bet on the following sequence of events?
I strongly believe that the logical consequence from here is that we will see Parliament reject the deal, we will see a change to the deal in the new year fixing the backstop, then Parliament [and our partners] will ratify the deal and we will leave in the first half of next year before the European Parliament elections (but potentially a few weeks later than March next year).
Any idea what odds could be got on a bet on that sequence?
No, there isn't really a way to bet on that. Brexit in Apr-Jun next year (which covers your scenario and plenty of related ones) is about 6/1 on Betfair:
Shame. Under my scenario we might still leave on time to Apr-Jun doesn't really cover it. The key element is that the deal will be renegotiated then approved.
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
Yes but you are fighting a losing cause
So are you. Maths doesn't lie, where do you get a majority from?
200 plus conservative mps and the rest of the HOC
The rest of the HoC won't back this deal either. We can get a majority government deal if the Irish decide 99% of their cake is better than no cake.
I was talking of no deal
This deal [minus backstop] is better than no deal for everyone. It is the lowest common denominator that is acceptable since the UK won't fold and accept the backstop despite all expectations to now of the contrary.
You are obsessed with the EU doing away with the backstop as much as the EU are obsessed with it.
Deadlock
Precisely! And the way to break the deadlock is to compromise.
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
So far we have compromised on everything else, they have not been in a position yet where we won't. If we go back to them in January and say actually this is serious we can't get this through otherwise, they face a real dilemma and a real choice they've not faced yet. Do you agree with that?
They will not move the backstop. It is TM deal or Norway or referendum
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
No idea
You have no idea if they were convinced that May would accept the backstop? Seriously? We all knew she would.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Even if we invoke article 50 again, the withdrawal agreement has already been negotiated.
"Negotiated" - but not agreed.
Don’t give up. Perhaps one day you’ll be able to convince people it’s worth it.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Even if we invoke article 50 again, the withdrawal agreement has already been negotiated.
"Negotiated" - but not agreed.
Don’t give up. Perhaps one day you’ll be able to convince people it’s worth it.
March 30th, 2019......
Hah! I look forward to you futile attempts on that day.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
Massively price inelastic service with the advent of smartphones that only appeals to low information consumers who don't desire to access the internet.
"The Labour leadership is determined to reject the idea gaining ground at Westminster of a Norway-plus deal. The Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Tuesday she hoped a majority could coalesce around the proposal, which is being promoted by the Conservative backbencher Nick Boles. However, senior Labour sources insisted they regarded it as an unacceptable abrogation of sovereignty that would fail to honour the referendum result"
Of course, you would expect Labour to nix the proposal that is actually closest to their stated policy.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
£20 would be an ‘on the side of a bus’ figure and only if you are too lazy to write the number down and ask them to connect you. It’s closer to the already outrageous £7 a call. Wonder how much the old 40p reflected the cost of the provision of service though and how much we all ended up susbisidising the service through our bills.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
It was deregulated during Blair’s second term, as was price controls on all residential telecoms and price controls on residential gas and electricity.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
£20 would be an ‘on the side of a bus’ figure and only if you are too lazy to write the number down and ask them to connect you. It’s closer to the already outrageous £7 a call. Wonder how much the old 40p reflected the cost of the provision of service though and how much we all ended up susbisidising the service through our bills.
@Pulpstar's point is the key one: the people who use these services has completely changed. It is no longer a service in widespread use. Indeed I doubt anyone under 30 has ever called a directory enquiries service.
Edit: I'm not saying we shouldn't regulate it, or that £7 a call is not outrageous, or that people calling are more vulnerable than the typical consumer. Let's regulate it on that basis, not on the basis that it is a public service that should be run by government.
Europhobes do not need to be in power to cause the EU problems. Just look at Farage.
No doubt he's mild PITA on the rare occasions that he shows up for work but on the scale of problems the EU deals with he doesn't really rate.
That's an interesting take. Europhobia represents a real and clear danger to the European project, being present in many countries to varying degrees. We were, most of the time. the loudest and fiercest of their critics via the likes of Farage.
But he, and we, are not alone. I'm unsure having us as an openly Eurosceptic - at a minimum - country within the EU holds any appeal to them.
The public are exhausted and want Brexit over. What happens when they realise the WA was just the starter and now we can start wrangling over the future trade deal with another 2 year timer?
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
£20 would be an ‘on the side of a bus’ figure and only if you are too lazy to write the number down and ask them to connect you. It’s closer to the already outrageous £7 a call. Wonder how much the old 40p reflected the cost of the provision of service though and how much we all ended up susbisidising the service through our bills.
@Pulpstar's point is the key one: the people who use these services has completely changed. It is no longer a service in widespread use. Indeed I doubt anyone under 30 has ever called a directory enquiries service.
Or knows what it is, all their friends will have mobile numbers which won’t be in their database. A friend of mine has a 5 yr old daughter. They have a landline just because you need one for broadband, but the telephone plugged in it is literally never used.
Someone rang them the other week on the number, when the phone rang, his daughter was confused, she had never heard the phone ring, didn’t really know why the phone had a wire to the wall.
SDP seem to have shifted a long way from the party that I voted for in 1983. One of many reasons to break from Labour was Labour's policy to leave the EEC.
Effectively a group of UKIPPERS have taken over the shell of the SDP. The BBC article mentions Winstone but there also people like Sam Watts who was the UKIP parliamentary candidate for Corby and Kevin Hickson from Crewe.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
Massively price inelastic service with the advent of smartphones that only appeals to low information consumers who don't desire to access the internet.
The public are exhausted and want Brexit over. What happens when they realise the WA was just the starter and now we can start wrangling over the future trade deal with another 2 year timer?
99% will just switch off again until the next deadline approaches. In any event the WA fall-out is likely to make non-Brexit politics much more prominent next year imo.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
It probably cost 5p or so when it was a state-owned monopoly, or the same as any other two-minute call.
Margins on gas and electricity supply to households increased somewhat after privatisation, i.e. because private sector interest rates are higher. The margins roughly doubled again when they were deregulated. Also new costs appeared out of nowhere, e.g. price comparison websites, which consumers have to pay for.
Water is still a regulated monopoly. Coincidentally or not, people in England and Wales pay an average £400/year for water and sewage disposal combined. But they pay £600-700/year for both gas and electricity.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
£20 would be an ‘on the side of a bus’ figure and only if you are too lazy to write the number down and ask them to connect you. It’s closer to the already outrageous £7 a call. Wonder how much the old 40p reflected the cost of the provision of service though and how much we all ended up susbisidising the service through our bills.
@Pulpstar's point is the key one: the people who use these services has completely changed. It is no longer a service in widespread use. Indeed I doubt anyone under 30 has ever called a directory enquiries service.
Edit: I'm not saying we shouldn't regulate it, or that £7 a call is not outrageous, or that people calling are more vulnerable than the typical consumer. Let's regulate it on that basis, not on the basis that it is a public service that should be run by government.
I'd say that given the demoigraphics using these services are some of the most vulnerable people in society, that should encourage more regulation not less.
As always these organisations simply take advantage of the regulatory framework they've been given, so the real blame lays with the government and the regulator for letting this happen.
I think that is a smart move given where we are by No. 10.
I'm not sure it (practically) makes much difference. There's unlikely to be a majority for any amendments anyway.
Make vote conditional on a general election - Tories will vote against Make vote conditional on a referendum - Tories against, Labour abstain Make vote a MV to remain - Tories against, Labour against Make vote a MV to Norway+ - Tories against, Labour... free vote?
The public are exhausted and want Brexit over. What happens when they realise the WA was just the starter and now we can start wrangling over the future trade deal with another 2 year timer?
The WA regrettably has multiple pinch points built into it (culminating of course in the backstop). IMHO, it would be better to pay more upfront and only have the one transition date (ideally in 2021 not 2022).
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
No, the deregulation of telecoms in the 80s was a good thing.
The completely bungled mess that Blair made of this was not. The stated goal was to have "competition" but he didn't just allow new companies to launch their own services, he shut down BT's well-known and well-remembered 192 service. The very purpose of directory inquiries is that you don't know a number so it needs a memorable number and people remembered 192.
As a result of this bungled process a whole sweep of hard to remember numbers launched, some were cheaper than the old and now shut down 192 but the only one people could remember was the one that needed millions of pounds of advertising behind it (and thus increased costs).
The launch of the 118 numbers could have happened without the closure of 192. Would have made it all considerably cheaper.
Steve Richards has a point. The nutters are going to squeal 'betrayal' whatever happens, so let parliament just cancel Brexit and give the rest of us some peace.
I think that is a smart move given where we are by No. 10.
I'm not sure it (practically) makes much difference. There's unlikely to be a majority for any amendments anyway.
Make vote conditional on a general election - Tories will vote against Make vote conditional on a referendum - Tories against, Labour abstain Make vote a MV to remain - Tories against, Labour against Make vote a MV to Norway+ - Tories against, Labour... free vote?
It's useful in that it will show many of the scenarios other than the meaningful vote to not be viable to parliament. Perhaps one will get through. That's useful too.
Previously, their line on Theresa May would be more like "Hell awaits this evil traitor."
I don't get it. Maybe I'm being thick, but what does the Mail stand to gain from acting like a sycophantic junior minister to a doomed PM whose remaining time in office is now being measured in hours?
It seems to make neither political nor business sense.
At the outside it's possible they're trying to make a play for the Tory centre ground, but that means trying to court a fickle and non-loyal readership at the probable expense of the readership who have been loyal to it for decades for its, uh, forthright opinions.
It just seems like bad business. It seems like they're taking a huge risk with little real potential upside.
Comments
But that was because Ireland was doing what the EU fear a uk gvt outside of their sphere will do. Allowing multinationals to squat in ultra low tax areas of their single market, funnelling revenues from higher tax areas to lower tax areas and avoiding what they see as due.
It was an Eu ruling wasn’t it that required Apple to pay taxes back to Ireland?
Remainers wetting their knickers about Yankee swimming pool chicken whilst the EU sends us their coffin nails.
It seems strange you want to protect the trade where we are making a loss (EU) and limit the trade where we make a profit (US).
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
The EU will unanimously say "we will take you back without the rebate, take it or its no deal" and we would have no choice but to agree. They'll use the same tactics as they've used during this whole negotiation.
They might want a guarantee not to trigger article 50 again for a while though.
May is right we are all bored by Brexit, but in its current concoction it’s going to go on and on. The next two years will once again be utterly dominated by the trade relationship.
Parliament and the government are utterly paralysed, unable to deal with anything else.
I strongly believe that the logical consequence from here is that we will see Parliament reject the deal, we will see a change to the deal in the new year fixing the backstop, then Parliament [and our partners] will ratify the deal and we will leave in the first half of next year before the European Parliament elections (but potentially a few weeks later than March next year).
Any idea what odds could be got on a bet on that sequence?
Who from the existing cabinet will be first to flip to Remain? Theresa May could do it after a second defeat of her draft agreement in the Commons, but she is more likely to be 1922-VONCed before that can happen and perhaps even before 11 December. Nobody will care if she flips from the back benches.
A referendum that pits xenophobia against faminophobia? Dinghies in Dover versus localised empty shelves in supermarkets? I fear the xenophobia and dinghies will be stronger. Lessons recently learnt can be fervently believed, but being ignored for decades is a powerful motivator. People need some kind of release.
Not helping the problem go away now for fear that it may reoccur some time in the future, probably when you're no longer in that job and other unlucky person is lumbered with it, would be quite weird, especially in the EU, which never saw a can it didn't want to kick.
FWIW, I'd be quite happy with it (as would some leavers - Smithson Jnr., for example).
Deadlock
He really is a miserable grey managerial sod.
Do you agree with my premise that so far they were convinced May would back down and accept the backstop?
So far we have compromised on everything else, they have not been in a position yet where we won't. If we go back to them in January and say actually this is serious we can't get this through otherwise, they face a real dilemma and a real choice they've not faced yet. Do you agree with that?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130856098
Take a look at the BoE's Inflation Report fancharts.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
More than a minor irritation.
"The Labour leadership is determined to reject the idea gaining ground at Westminster of a Norway-plus deal. The Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Tuesday she hoped a majority could coalesce around the proposal, which is being promoted by the Conservative backbencher Nick Boles. However, senior Labour sources insisted they regarded it as an unacceptable abrogation of sovereignty that would fail to honour the referendum result"
Of course, you would expect Labour to nix the proposal that is actually closest to their stated policy.
Sigh.
Edit: I'm not saying we shouldn't regulate it, or that £7 a call is not outrageous, or that people calling are more vulnerable than the typical consumer. Let's regulate it on that basis, not on the basis that it is a public service that should be run by government.
But he, and we, are not alone. I'm unsure having us as an openly Eurosceptic - at a minimum - country within the EU holds any appeal to them.
Someone rang them the other week on the number, when the phone rang, his daughter was confused, she had never heard the phone ring, didn’t really know why the phone had a wire to the wall.
To her a phone is a mobile smartphone.
Previously, their line on Theresa May would be more like "Hell awaits this evil traitor."
https://youtu.be/ab8GtuPdrUQ
Margins on gas and electricity supply to households increased somewhat after privatisation, i.e. because private sector interest rates are higher. The margins roughly doubled again when they were deregulated. Also new costs appeared out of nowhere, e.g. price comparison websites, which consumers have to pay for.
Water is still a regulated monopoly. Coincidentally or not, people in England and Wales pay an average £400/year for water and sewage disposal combined. But they pay £600-700/year for both gas and electricity.
As always these organisations simply take advantage of the regulatory framework they've been given, so the real blame lays with the government and the regulator for letting this happen.
Make vote conditional on a general election - Tories will vote against
Make vote conditional on a referendum - Tories against, Labour abstain
Make vote a MV to remain - Tories against, Labour against
Make vote a MV to Norway+ - Tories against, Labour... free vote?
The completely bungled mess that Blair made of this was not. The stated goal was to have "competition" but he didn't just allow new companies to launch their own services, he shut down BT's well-known and well-remembered 192 service. The very purpose of directory inquiries is that you don't know a number so it needs a memorable number and people remembered 192.
As a result of this bungled process a whole sweep of hard to remember numbers launched, some were cheaper than the old and now shut down 192 but the only one people could remember was the one that needed millions of pounds of advertising behind it (and thus increased costs).
The launch of the 118 numbers could have happened without the closure of 192. Would have made it all considerably cheaper.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/28/forget-peoples-vote-parliament-ditch-brexit-article-50
Perhaps one will get through. That's useful too.
It seems to make neither political nor business sense.
At the outside it's possible they're trying to make a play for the Tory centre ground, but that means trying to court a fickle and non-loyal readership at the probable expense of the readership who have been loyal to it for decades for its, uh, forthright opinions.
It just seems like bad business. It seems like they're taking a huge risk with little real potential upside.