Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
Hopefully lessons have been learned from May conceding control.....
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
Boris will at minimum get a basic trade deal for goods, neither the EU or the UK want heavy tariffs and pure WTO terms next year. However as we are leaving the EU and single market and customs union there will not be time to get the full Canada ++ Deal within a year Boris ideally wants covering financial services etc as that would require longer to negotiate or more regulatory alignment than Boris is willing to give
Mate, Boris said there would be no border down the Irish Sea and then promptly negotiated a deal with a border down the Irish Sea.
He's willing to give quite a lot.
Narrator: Boris Johnson did more for Irish reunification than the IRA loving Jeremy Corbyn ever did.
[Sunil puts on his best Northern Irish accent] "The Brits partitioned my country too, you know!"
[And then suddenly clutches his head, screaming, as his Tebbit Chip takes over...] "Aaaaaaargh!"
[...before a more servile expression crosses his face...] "Must be loyal to Boris... must be loyal..."
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
It is quite bizarre how leavers have convinced themselves that going from being a member of the EU to being a third country overnight will have no adverse consequences for the British economy.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
Hopefully lessons have been learned from May conceding control.....
Boris will at minimum get a basic trade deal for goods, neither the EU or the UK want heavy tariffs and pure WTO terms next year. However as we are leaving the EU and single market and customs union there will not be time to get the full Canada ++ Deal within a year Boris ideally wants covering financial services etc as that would require longer to negotiate or more regulatory alignment than Boris is willing to give
Mate, Boris said there would be no border down the Irish Sea and then promptly negotiated a deal with a border down the Irish Sea.
He's willing to give quite a lot.
Narrator: Boris Johnson did more for Irish reunification than the IRA loving Jeremy Corbyn ever did.
I don't dislike or like Jeremy but Tens of thousands of people love the IRA, corbyn shouldn't be picked on because he's famous.
First. And what a mess the Conservatives are making of everything!
Realky.... they havent done anything yet!
That's the problem, lol.
Lol indeed but the first hurdle is easy.. the problems come later. I think the Labour Party need VAR to help make ludicrous decisions...
Talking about VAR, anyone who backed a draw or both to score would be raging.
*Sheffield Vs West Ham*
I am quite OK with VAR, and as a PL season ticket holder have seen it in action a fair bit first hand. Sure it does need a little fettling at the edges, but is is better than seeing a return of the egregious decisions on off-sides and penalties in the past.
In football these things even out over the season. The only thing worse than VAR would be the end of VAR.
How does it work in relation to the crowd at the match, do they show it on the big screen as they do in rugby?
At the King Power, the referee holds his hand to his ear. The scoreboard shows "VAR, possible red card" "VAR possible offside" etc. The crowd either groans or cheers depending on which team is involved.
When we beat Spurs 2:1, people focus on the Spurs goal that was disallowed as inches offside, but forget the goal by Ndidi disallowed a few minutes before, which was more clearly offside. Both would have been given as goals pre VAR.
Aother way. That happened against Leicester in the Spurs game, and also at Anfield to Man City.
It does need speeding up but is in principle the way forward.
Incidentally for gamblers a disallowed goal for team A may mean that team B to score next becomes value for 10 min, but perhaps something that @isam would have better stats on.
Football Stats analysts are incredibly smug, annoying, woke, left wing Americans. But they write some interesting stuff on football, and here is one about VAR
Well worth the read. Fewer off sides given is an interesting and plausible result. Possibly VAR actually results in more fast flowing football, albeit with pauses after goals instead.
I am finding not being able to celebrate a goal when it’s scored very, very hard to come to terms with.
First. And what a mess the Conservatives are making of everything!
Realky.... they havent done anything yet!
That's the problem, lol.
Lol indeed but the first hurdle is easy.. the problems come later. I think the Labour Party need VAR to help make ludicrous decisions...
Talking about VAR, anyone who backed a draw or both to score would be raging.
*Sheffield Vs West Ham*
I am quite OK with VAR, and as a PL season ticket holder have seen it in action a fair bit first hand. Sure it does need a little fettling at the edges, but is is better than seeing a return of the egregious decisions on off-sides and penalties in the past.
In football these things even out over the season. The only thing worse than VAR would be the end of VAR.
How does it work in relation to the crowd at the match, do they show it on the big screen as they do in rugby?
At the King Power, the referee holds his hand to his ear. The scoreboard shows "VAR, possible red card" "VAR possible offside" etc. The crowd either groans or cheers depending on which team is involved.
When we beat Spurs 2:1, people focus on the Spurs goal that was disallowed as inches offside, but forget the goal by Ndidi disallowed a few minutes before, which was more clearly offside. Both would have been given as goals pre VAR.
Aother way. That happened against Leicester in the Spurs game, and also at Anfield to Man City.
It does need speeding up but is in principle the way forward.
Incidentally for gamblers a disallowed goal for team A may mean that team B to score next becomes value for 10 min, but perhaps something that @isam would have better stats on.
Football Stats analysts are incredibly smug, annoying, woke, left wing Americans. But they write some interesting stuff on football, and here is one about VAR
Well worth the read. Fewer off sides given is an interesting and plausible result. Possibly VAR actually results in more fast flowing football, albeit with pauses after goals instead.
I am finding not being able to celebrate a goal when it’s scored very, very hard to come to terms with.
First. And what a mess the Conservatives are making of everything!
Realky.... they havent done anything yet!
That's the problem, lol.
Lol indeed but the first hurdle is easy.. the problems come later. I think the Labour Party need VAR to help make ludicrous decisions...
Talking about VAR, anyone who backed a draw or both to score would be raging.
*Sheffield Vs West Ham*
I am quite OK with VAR, and as a PL season ticket holder have seen it in action a fair bit first hand. Sure it does need a little fettling at the edges, but is is better than seeing a return of the egregious decisions on off-sides and penalties in the past.
In football these things even out over the season. The only thing worse than VAR would be the end of VAR.
How does it work in relation to the crowd at the match, do they show it on the big screen as they do in rugby?
At the King Power, the referee holds his hand to his ear. The scoreboard shows "VAR, possible red card" "VAR possible offside" etc. The crowd either groans or cheers depending on which team is involved.
When we beat Spurs 2:1, people focus on the Spurs goal that was disallowed as inches offside, but forget the goal by Ndidi disallowed a few minutes before, which was more clearly offside. Both would have been given as goals pre VAR.
Aother way. That happened against Leicester in the Spurs game, and also at Anfield to Man City.
It does need speeding up but is in principle the way forward.
Incidentally for gamblers a disallowed goal for team A may mean that team B to score next becomes value for 10 min, but perhaps something that @isam would have better stats on.
Football Stats analysts are incredibly smug, annoying, woke, left wing Americans. But they write some interesting stuff on football, and here is one about VAR
Well worth the read. Fewer off sides given is an interesting and plausible result. Possibly VAR actually results in more fast flowing football, albeit with pauses after goals instead.
I am finding not being able to celebrate a goal when it’s scored very, very hard to come to terms with.
Indeed, Klopp’s stopped celebrating goals now, his celebrations were a highlight for me.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
Surely BJ will want a superb flagship fishing deal up front that ensures that the fisher folk can have their fishcake, eat their fishcake and sell their fishcake to the EU?
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Edinburgh councillor John McLellan (Con): detailed Scottish Conservative policies turn into electoral poison.
How Tories can win back Scots who don’t like Boris, Brexit or both
... there is a very small window for the winner to settle in and produce a strategy that gives the party a realistic chance of overtaking the SNP as the biggest single party at the 2021 Scottish elections.
The membership is certainly anxious to be talking about new Conservative policies for the 2021 campaign, an attractive, viable alternative programme for government, and for the 2021 campaign not to rely solely on opposition to a second independence referendum.
We know from the 2019 campaign in Scotland that those Conservatives who turned away did so because they didn’t like Boris Johnson or Brexit or both...
Downing Street’s pointless fight with Scottish Press
With the Scottish election looming and a new Scottish leader to bed in, whatever holy cattle are headed for the abattoir, Downing Street shouldn’t pick pointless fights with the Scottish Press.
Boris will at minimum get a basic trade deal for goods, neither the EU or the UK want heavy tariffs and pure WTO terms next year. However as we are leaving the EU and single market and customs union there will not be time to get the full Canada ++ Deal within a year Boris ideally wants covering financial services etc as that would require longer to negotiate or more regulatory alignment than Boris is willing to give
Mate, Boris said there would be no border down the Irish Sea and then promptly negotiated a deal with a border down the Irish Sea.
He's willing to give quite a lot.
Narrator: Boris Johnson did more for Irish reunification than the IRA loving Jeremy Corbyn ever did.
I don't dislike or like Jeremy but Tens of thousands of people love the IRA, corbyn shouldn't be picked on because he's famous.
Well if any one of those tens of thousands of people were running to br PM they would find their love of the IRA looked upon disfavourably too. Generally, we should regard terrorists and gangsters disfavourably.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Boris will at minimum get a basic trade deal for goods, neither the EU or the UK want heavy tariffs and pure WTO terms next year. However as we are leaving the EU and single market and customs union there will not be time to get the full Canada ++ Deal within a year Boris ideally wants covering financial services etc as that would require longer to negotiate or more regulatory alignment than Boris is willing to give
Mate, Boris said there would be no border down the Irish Sea and then promptly negotiated a deal with a border down the Irish Sea.
He's willing to give quite a lot.
Narrator: Boris Johnson did more for Irish reunification than the IRA loving Jeremy Corbyn ever did.
Very few people thus side of the Irish Sea would be particularly unhappy to see Irish unification* if it was as a result of internal NI democratic** politics. They would, however, be quite resistant to Irish unification if it was seen to be as a result of a successful campaign of IRA terror or as a result of external pressure.
*I was going to say 'reunification' - but not sure whether this would be historically accurate? **For a given value of 'democratic'
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Edinburgh councillor John McLellan (Con): detailed Scottish Conservative policies turn into electoral poison.
How Tories can win back Scots who don’t like Boris, Brexit or both
... there is a very small window for the winner to settle in and produce a strategy that gives the party a realistic chance of overtaking the SNP as the biggest single party at the 2021 Scottish elections.
The membership is certainly anxious to be talking about new Conservative policies for the 2021 campaign, an attractive, viable alternative programme for government, and for the 2021 campaign not to rely solely on opposition to a second independence referendum.
We know from the 2019 campaign in Scotland that those Conservatives who turned away did so because they didn’t like Boris Johnson or Brexit or both...
Downing Street’s pointless fight with Scottish Press
With the Scottish election looming and a new Scottish leader to bed in, whatever holy cattle are headed for the abattoir, Downing Street shouldn’t pick pointless fights with the Scottish Press.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
Boris will at minimum get a basic trade deal for goods, neither the EU or the UK want heavy tariffs and pure WTO terms next year. However as we are leaving the EU and single market and customs union there will not be time to get the full Canada ++ Deal within a year Boris ideally wants covering financial services etc as that would require longer to negotiate or more regulatory alignment than Boris is willing to give
Mate, Boris said there would be no border down the Irish Sea and then promptly negotiated a deal with a border down the Irish Sea.
He's willing to give quite a lot.
Narrator: Boris Johnson did more for Irish reunification than the IRA loving Jeremy Corbyn ever did.
Very few people thus side of the Irish Sea would be particularly unhappy to see Irish unification* if it was as a result of internal NI democratic** politics. They would, however, be quite resistant to Irish unification if it was seen to be as a result of a successful campaign of IRA terror or as a result of external pressure.
*I was going to say 'reunification' - but not sure whether this would be historically accurate? **For a given value of 'democratic'
Mourinho hates us and I’m still traumatised by April 2014 when his team parked the bus, three Nimitz sized aircraft carriers, and the Berlin Wall in front of goal and denied us the title.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Mourinho hates us and I’m still traumatised by April 2014 when his team parked the bus, three Nimitz sized aircraft carriers, and the Berlin Wall in front of goal and denied us the title.
Boris will at minimum get a basic trade deal for goods, neither the EU or the UK want heavy tariffs and pure WTO terms next year. However as we are leaving the EU and single market and customs union there will not be time to get the full Canada ++ Deal within a year Boris ideally wants covering financial services etc as that would require longer to negotiate or more regulatory alignment than Boris is willing to give
Mate, Boris said there would be no border down the Irish Sea and then promptly negotiated a deal with a border down the Irish Sea.
He's willing to give quite a lot.
Narrator: Boris Johnson did more for Irish reunification than the IRA loving Jeremy Corbyn ever did.
Very few people thus side of the Irish Sea would be particularly unhappy to see Irish unification* if it was as a result of internal NI democratic** politics. They would, however, be quite resistant to Irish unification if it was seen to be as a result of a successful campaign of IRA terror or as a result of external pressure.
*I was going to say 'reunification' - but not sure whether this would be historically accurate? **For a given value of 'democratic'
Reunification is correct. The Act of Union of 1801 was between the Irish Parliament and the Parliament of Great Britain. The 6 counties of Northern Ireland and the Parliament at Stormont did not exist then as a separate political entity.
Mourinho hates us and I’m still traumatised by April 2014 when his team parked the bus, three Nimitz sized aircraft carriers, and the Berlin Wall in front of goal and denied us the title.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Lol @ Northamptonshire.
Yeah, I live in Northamptonshire.
It`s shit.
Neither fish nor fowl. The Midlands don't really claim it as one of their own. Too far north to be the SE. No Man's Land....
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
The trade intensity you want to discuss would tell how strongly a country might feel about the negotiations. I leave you to do the calculations you seem to be interested in.
Boris will at minimum get a basic trade deal for goods, neither the EU or the UK want heavy tariffs and pure WTO terms next year. However as we are leaving the EU and single market and customs union there will not be time to get the full Canada ++ Deal within a year Boris ideally wants covering financial services etc as that would require longer to negotiate or more regulatory alignment than Boris is willing to give
Mate, Boris said there would be no border down the Irish Sea and then promptly negotiated a deal with a border down the Irish Sea.
He's willing to give quite a lot.
Narrator: Boris Johnson did more for Irish reunification than the IRA loving Jeremy Corbyn ever did.
Very few people thus side of the Irish Sea would be particularly unhappy to see Irish unification* if it was as a result of internal NI democratic** politics. They would, however, be quite resistant to Irish unification if it was seen to be as a result of a successful campaign of IRA terror or as a result of external pressure.
*I was going to say 'reunification' - but not sure whether this would be historically accurate? **For a given value of 'democratic'
Reunification is correct. The Act of Union of 1801 was between the Irish Parliament and the Parliament of Great Britain. The 6 counties of Northern Ireland and the Parliament at Stormont did not exist then as a separate political entity.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I don't expect the EU to bestow that gift, which in itself is likely to lead to an austere outcome for the UK and less so for the EU.
I'm more interested in what Johnson is looking for from the negotiations. In general you are not likely to achieve much if you don't have any goals. I do expect Johnson will declare a success whatever turd he polishes.
Mourinho hates us and I’m still traumatised by April 2014 when his team parked the bus, three Nimitz sized aircraft carriers, and the Berlin Wall in front of goal and denied us the title.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Lol @ Northamptonshire.
Yeah, I live in Northamptonshire.
It`s shit.
Neither fish nor fowl. The Midlands don't really claim it as one of their own. Too far north to be the SE. No Man's Land....
I know people who use the phrase 'a bit Northamptonshire' to mean 'neither one thing nor the other' or 'a bit indecisive'.
He is not on the ticket in New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina.
He will likely go into Super Tuesday with absolutely nothing to his name.
He is astronomically unlikely to win the race in normal time, he will need a contested convention - and why give the nomination to someone with such a poor record?
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
The trade intensity you want to discuss would tell how strongly a country might feel about the negotiations. I leave you to do the calculations you seem to be interested in.
I know already. The percentage of UK GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market is higher than the GDP of any EU member state accounted for by exports to the UK.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I should add, Brexit is about making trade less free. To be fair to the Johnson regime, it implicitly accepts this with its "more friction" comments. Its priority is divergence, which is what you get by not agreeing any arrangement.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration. As stated earlier, both overall and when considering the substantial majority of individual countries the EU has a massive surplus of trade with the UK, especially trade in goods which is the part relevant to the single market.
As such the EU have every reason to try and arrive at an agreement on trade which will try to preserve as much of that as possible, which essentially means keeping the status quo in the face of a UK government which is more sceptical as to its benefits. Preserving the status quo by trying to frustrate the UK's exit from the EU (in fact or in name only) is no longer an option for the EU.
"A slate of endangered House Democrats is coalescing behind Joe Biden for president as the Iowa caucuses approach — a surge of support triggered by fears that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket would cost them their seats.
More than a dozen swing-seat freshmen have taken part in at least one private call session with Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg in recent weeks. A handful have already gravitated toward the former vice president, and more are expected to follow before Democrats start voting on Feb. 3, according to interviews with 15 lawmakers, aides and campaign strategists."
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration. As stated earlier, both overall and when considering the substantial majority of individual countries the EU has a massive surplus of trade with the UK, especially trade in goods which is the part relevant to the single market.
As such the EU have every reason to try and arrive at an agreement on trade which will try to preserve as much of that as possible, which essentially means keeping the status quo in the face of a UK government which is more sceptical as to its benefits. Preserving the status quo by trying to frustrate the UK's exit from the EU (in fact or in name only) is no longer an option for the EU.
Rightly or wrongly, the EU doesn't think this. So it won't happen.
The EU isn't interested either in maintaining the status quo or frustrating the UK's exit. The total opposite actually.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
The trade intensity you want to discuss would tell how strongly a country might feel about the negotiations. I leave you to do the calculations you seem to be interested in.
I know already. The percentage of UK GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market is higher than the GDP of any EU member state accounted for by exports to the UK.
This looks like the fallacy of composition. The correct comparison is to consider each EU state's bilateral trade with the UK.
Well lets say that the Des Moine Register polls is accurate, that would mean a catastrophic result for Biden, he would probably miss the 15% threshold in a lot of areas and coming in 4th is a campaign ending result.
But Biden though with a campaign gravely wounded doesn't quit before Super Tuesday, lets say Warren sticks around too, that prevents Sanders from getting a majority of the delegates, at that point somehow with a lot of money Bloomberg buys the nomination in the Convention.
That is probably the only way Bloomberg wins. It requires Biden to do very bad, which is possible, Warren to still split the vote with Sanders, less possible but doable, and Bloomberg to bribe the convention delegates also. possible
"A slate of endangered House Democrats is coalescing behind Joe Biden for president as the Iowa caucuses approach — a surge of support triggered by fears that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket would cost them their seats.
More than a dozen swing-seat freshmen have taken part in at least one private call session with Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg in recent weeks. A handful have already gravitated toward the former vice president, and more are expected to follow before Democrats start voting on Feb. 3, according to interviews with 15 lawmakers, aides and campaign strategists."
"A slate of endangered House Democrats is coalescing behind Joe Biden for president as the Iowa caucuses approach — a surge of support triggered by fears that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket would cost them their seats.
More than a dozen swing-seat freshmen have taken part in at least one private call session with Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg in recent weeks. A handful have already gravitated toward the former vice president, and more are expected to follow before Democrats start voting on Feb. 3, according to interviews with 15 lawmakers, aides and campaign strategists."
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration. As stated earlier, both overall and when considering the substantial majority of individual countries the EU has a massive surplus of trade with the UK, especially trade in goods which is the part relevant to the single market.
As such the EU have every reason to try and arrive at an agreement on trade which will try to preserve as much of that as possible, which essentially means keeping the status quo in the face of a UK government which is more sceptical as to its benefits. Preserving the status quo by trying to frustrate the UK's exit from the EU (in fact or in name only) is no longer an option for the EU.
Rightly or wrongly, the EU doesn't think this. So it won't happen.
The EU isn't interested either in maintaining the status quo or frustrating the UK's exit. The total opposite actually.
The total opposite of preserving the status quo is that there will appear substantial barriers to trade between the UK and EU that will substantially reduce in absolute terms the EU's exports to the UK and its substantial trade surplus with the UK. I disagree with your view that this is the outcome that the EU is interested in achieving.
At this point, yes the EU isn't interested in frustrating the UK's exit. Obviously. 12 months ago it was more debatable. Certainly some elements in the EU's bureaucracy were, and I think the likes of Tony Blair and Gina Miller were working pretty closely with them.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Lol @ Northamptonshire.
Yeah, I live in Northamptonshire.
It`s shit.
Quite nice at the NE tip, and some of the bits near Market Harborough. Definitely a curates egg.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for.economy than it will do to ours.
I am alto the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goodsining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration. As stated earlier, both overall and when considering the substantial majority of individual countries the EU has a massive surplus of trade with the UK, especially trade in goods which is the part relevant to the single market.
As such the EU have every reason to try and arrive at an agreement on trade which will try to preserve as much of that as possible, which essentially means keeping the status quo in the face of a UK government which is more sceptical as to its benefits. Preserving the status quo by trying to frustrate the UK's exit from the EU (in fact or in name only) is no longer an option for the EU.
Of course the EU27 want a deal. But none of their economies needs one as much as our one does. It does seem as if the government is not too concerned about that, I agree. But that says to me that the governments of other countries that are less exposed than we are won’t be that concerned either. Which is why I agree with Mr Herdson.
Mourinho hates us and I’m still traumatised by April 2014 when his team parked the bus, three Nimitz sized aircraft carriers, and the Berlin Wall in front of goal and denied us the title.
Who do spurs play against?
Liverpool.
Are Liverpool resting players?
I think Spurs are often better without Kane. A bit like Vardy at Leicester, if you mark him out of the game the team is frustrated. Losing the CF sparks innovation and is harder for the opposition to play against.
Jose will destroy Spurs. I reckon he is a sleeper agent for Chelsea. That said, Spurs do look rather long.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for.economy than it will do to ours.
I am alto the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goodsining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration.
Of course the EU27 want a deal. But none of their economies needs one as much as our one does. It does seem as if the government is not too concerned about that, I agree. But that says to me that the governments of other countries that are less exposed than we are won’t be that concerned either. Which is why I agree with Mr Herdson.
I think it is also worth noting that the EU prioritises the integrity of the Single Market and a level playing field over a Deal, and now 28+ Parliaments have a veto, some with little to lose.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for.economy than it will do to ours.
I am alto the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goodsining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration.
Of course the EU27 want a deal. But none of their economies needs one as much as our one does. It does seem as if the government is not too concerned about that, I agree. But that says to me that the governments of other countries that are less exposed than we are won’t be that concerned either. Which is why I agree with Mr Herdson.
I think it is also worth noting that the EU prioritises the integrity of the Single Market and a level playing field over a Deal, and now 28+ Parliaments have a veto, some with little to lose.
Can’t wait for @HYUFD ’s take on the Wallonia veto.
In 2024 The tories will claim Labour want to rejoin, and Labour being as stupid as they are will not deny this strong enough.
Labour's Brexit betrayal will not be forgotten easily.
Amusing. Please keep fighting the last war. After Brexit has happened no-one will give a sh*t. It will all depend on the economy.
The ball is in Boris’s court.
It's not just Brexit though. 'Leave' is not only a view on the EU, it is a cipher for a wider set of values which are commonly held in places like Blyth and Workington but not in the membership if the Labour Party. Merely putting Brexit in the past doesn't change this. The ball is in Boris's court to deliver; but the ball is also in Labour's court to show it understands, and likes, places like Grimsby. (Which rather calls into question the metaphor I am using - some vairiant of tennis with more than one ball?) In both cases, this is not just about bunging money to people.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for.economy than it will do to ours.
I am alto the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goodsining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration.
Of course the EU27 want a deal. But none of their economies needs one as much as our one does. It does seem as if the government is not too concerned about that, I agree. But that says to me that the governments of other countries that are less exposed than we are won’t be that concerned either. Which is why I agree with Mr Herdson.
I think it is also worth noting that the EU prioritises the integrity of the Single Market and a level playing field over a Deal, and now 28+ Parliaments have a veto, some with little to lose.
Can’t wait for @HYUFD ’s take on the Wallonia veto.
I am sure that there will be some polling...
In practice it may well be somewhere with a smaller trade that throws the spanner in the works. Perhaps an A8 or A2 state.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I am always amazed when people don’t understand that the EU is composed of 27 individual countries, none of which exports anything like as much to the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goods with 6 EU countries, a deficit with 16 and was broadly in balance with the remaining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
The trade intensity you want to discuss would tell how strongly a country might feel about the negotiations. I leave you to do the calculations you seem to be interested in.
I know already. The percentage of UK GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market is higher than the GDP of any EU member state accounted for by exports to the UK.
This looks like the fallacy of composition. The correct comparison is to consider each EU state's bilateral trade with the UK.
Why? The UK exports to the Single Market; 27 individual countries export to the UK.
Edinburgh councillor John McLellan (Con): detailed Scottish Conservative policies turn into electoral poison.
How Tories can win back Scots who don’t like Boris, Brexit or both
... there is a very small window for the winner to settle in and produce a strategy that gives the party a realistic chance of overtaking the SNP as the biggest single party at the 2021 Scottish elections.
The membership is certainly anxious to be talking about new Conservative policies for the 2021 campaign, an attractive, viable alternative programme for government, and for the 2021 campaign not to rely solely on opposition to a second independence referendum.
We know from the 2019 campaign in Scotland that those Conservatives who turned away did so because they didn’t like Boris Johnson or Brexit or both...
Downing Street’s pointless fight with Scottish Press
With the Scottish election looming and a new Scottish leader to bed in, whatever holy cattle are headed for the abattoir, Downing Street shouldn’t pick pointless fights with the Scottish Press.
The implication that the SCons have ever put detailed policies at the centre of a campaign is hilarious.
The Scottish Tories are a one-issue party, and have been for several decades now. I cannot see that changing prior to independence.
Their main problem is not lack of manifesto, London undermining their credibility, nor picking fights with the Scottish press. It is much more fundamental: lack of competent personnel.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration. As stated earlier, both overall and when considering the substantial majority of individual countries the EU has a massive surplus of trade with the UK, especially trade in goods which is the part relevant to the single market.
As such the EU have every reason to try and arrive at an agreement on trade which will try to preserve as much of that as possible, which essentially means keeping the status quo in the face of a UK government which is more sceptical as to its benefits. Preserving the status quo by trying to frustrate the UK's exit from the EU (in fact or in name only) is no longer an option for the EU.
Of course the EU27 want a deal. But none of their economies needs one as much as our one does. It does seem as if the government is not too concerned about that, I agree. But that says to me that the governments of other countries that are less exposed than we are won’t be that concerned either. Which is why I agree with Mr Herdson.
The UK's position is basically that we have a massive trade deficit with the EU especially in the area governed by the single market (goods) and to rub salt in the wound we also make a massive net contribution to the EU budget. That toxic combination is one experienced by no other EU country. The only country to make a net contribution to the EU budget on a comparable scale (Germany) enjoys in return a massive trade surplus in manufactured goods in the absence of trade barriers.
That's the perspective that I see as relevant. I appreciate that you approach it from a different point of view but I don't consider your way of looking at it valid. So I think we'll just have to disagree about the degree of exposure and about who needs one most.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration. As stated earlier, both overall and when considering the substantial majority of individual countries the EU has a massive surplus of trade with the UK, especially trade in goods which is the part relevant to the single market.
As such the EU have every reason to try and arrive at an agreement on trade which will try to preserve as much of that as possible, which essentially means keeping the status quo in the face of a UK government which is more sceptical as to its benefits. Preserving the status quo by trying to frustrate the UK's exit from the EU (in fact or in name only) is no longer an option for the EU.
Rightly or wrongly, the EU doesn't think this. So it won't happen.
The EU isn't interested either in maintaining the status quo or frustrating the UK's exit. The total opposite actually.
The total opposite of preserving the status quo is that there will appear substantial barriers to trade between the UK and EU that will substantially reduce in absolute terms the EU's exports to the UK and its substantial trade surplus with the UK. I disagree with your view that this is the outcome that the EU is interested in achieving.
At this point, yes the EU isn't interested in frustrating the UK's exit. Obviously. 12 months ago it was more debatable. Certainly some elements in the EU's bureaucracy were, and I think the likes of Tony Blair and Gina Miller were working pretty closely with them.
The EU hasn't worked out a viable framework for close, independent countries which doesn't offer the benefits of membership but is still valuable for countries that choose to go down this route. The UK as the country most affected should be making constructive proposals on this.
The UK is exercised by being unable to avoid both barriers to trade and rule taking. That tension isn't an EU concern.
In 2024 The tories will claim Labour want to rejoin, and Labour being as stupid as they are will not deny this strong enough.
Labour's Brexit betrayal will not be forgotten easily.
Amusing. Please keep fighting the last war. After Brexit has happened no-one will give a sh*t. It will all depend on the economy.
The ball is in Boris’s court.
It's not just Brexit though. 'Leave' is not only a view on the EU, it is a cipher for a wider set of values which are commonly held in places like Blyth and Workington but not in the membership if the Labour Party. Merely putting Brexit in the past doesn't change this. The ball is in Boris's court to deliver; but the ball is also in Labour's court to show it understands, and likes, places like Grimsby. (Which rather calls into question the metaphor I am using - some vairiant of tennis with more than one ball?) In both cases, this is not just about bunging money to people.
Don’t disagree but that’s a completely different issue to the “Brexit betrayal”.
Anyway what are these values beyond “murr foreigners”?
Labour isn’t going to water down its social values to appeal to those with backwards views. It merely has to persuade that there is nothing to fear.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
The deal is between the UK and a bloc of 27 countries. Each party will be trying to maximise the benefit to themselves. We shall see who gets the best deal. Similar applies to a deal between the UK and the United States. It's not irrational to fear that the smaller party may not get the best of it in either of those cases.
Of course the EU27 want a deal. But none of their economies needs one as much as our one does. It does seem as if the government is not too concerned about that, I agree. But that says to me that the governments of other countries that are less exposed than we are won’t be that concerned either. Which is why I agree with Mr Herdson.
Yes. When Johnson says "fuck business" he means it, maybe a little surprisingly. He also seems to think no-one will notice or care.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
Mourinho hates us and I’m still traumatised by April 2014 when his team parked the bus, three Nimitz sized aircraft carriers, and the Berlin Wall in front of goal and denied us the title.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
The deal is between the UK and a bloc of 27 countries. Each party will be trying to maximise the benefit to themselves. We shall see who gets the best deal. Similar applies to a deal between the UK and the United States. It's not irrational to fear that the smaller party may not get the best of it in either of those cases.
But we have Boris and his air of cheery optimism! Under such a circumstance a loss will feel like a win anyway. Take the WA as a benchmark.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Lol @ Northamptonshire.
Yeah, I live in Northamptonshire.
It`s shit.
Its Anglican Cathedral is in Peterborough. One of the Henrican conversions.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for.economy than it will do to ours.
I am alto the UK as we export to the Single Market.
"The UK recorded a trade surplus in goodsining 5. The largest goods surplus was with Ireland (£7 billion); the largest goods deficit was with Germany (-£32 billion). " (in 2018) - Statistics on UK-EU trade, HoC Library
And? We export far more to the Single Market than any EU member state exports to us.
Of course, but within the EU each country considers its own national interest. The overall EU position (large surplus) is a consideration for Brussels, but the negotiating mandate is given by the individual states.
Yep - now compare the individual GDP of each EU member state that is accounted for by exports to the UK to the percentage if the UK’s GDP accounted for by exports to the Single Market.
I've considered it many times and concluded that it is a totally irrelevant consideration.
Of course the EU27 want a deal. But none of their economies needs one as much as our one does. It does seem as if the government is not too concerned about that, I agree. But that says to me that the governments of other countries that are less exposed than we are won’t be that concerned either. Which is why I agree with Mr Herdson.
I think it is also worth noting that the EU prioritises the integrity of the Single Market and a level playing field over a Deal, and now 28+ Parliaments have a veto, some with little to lose.
Can’t wait for @HYUFD ’s take on the Wallonia veto.
Wallonia backed down and there is now an EU Canada trade deal.
We do not want to stay in the Single Market, just a Canada style FTA even Barnier has said we can have now the Withdrawal Agreement has been agreed with the EU and passed the Commons
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
Are you Mark Francois?
We stuck it to Johnny Foreigner in 1918, 1945 and 1966. We'll stick to 'em again! Delusional!
Well lets say that the Des Moine Register polls is accurate, that would mean a catastrophic result for Biden, he would probably miss the 15% threshold in a lot of areas and coming in 4th is a campaign ending result.
But Biden though with a campaign gravely wounded doesn't quit before Super Tuesday, lets say Warren sticks around too, that prevents Sanders from getting a majority of the delegates, at that point somehow with a lot of money Bloomberg buys the nomination in the Convention.
That is probably the only way Bloomberg wins. It requires Biden to do very bad, which is possible, Warren to still split the vote with Sanders, less possible but doable, and Bloomberg to bribe the convention delegates also. possible
Not going to happen, for starters there are likely not enough superdelegates to bribe to get Bloomberg the nomination if he has not won many primaties and second even if there were the convention would literally turn into a riot if Sanders won most primaries and Bloomberg brought superdelegates votes to get the nomination
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
Are you Mark Francois?
We stuck it to Johnny Foreigner in 1918, 1945 and 1966. We'll stick to 'em again! Delusional!
You of course could display your understanding of the situation by saying what the EU could offer the UK to agree to their wish list. If you match their need for an FTA with the UK then what do they offer for all the rest?
Of course the EU27 want a deal. But none of their economies needs one as much as our one does. It does seem as if the government is not too concerned about that, I agree. But that says to me that the governments of other countries that are less exposed than we are won’t be that concerned either. Which is why I agree with Mr Herdson.
Yes. When Johnson says "fuck business" he means it, maybe a little surprisingly. He also seems to think no-one will notice or care.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
Wallonia backed down and there is now an EU Canada trade deal.
We do not want to stay in the Single Market, just a Canada style FTA even Barnier has said we can have now the Withdrawal Agreement has been agreed with the EU and passed the Commons
It’s nice that Barnier has said we can have some scraps from the table. We best stay in his good books.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
Don’t be ridiculous. The EU are going to drop all of those requirements because they are desperate to have access to our markets. We hold all the cards.
I don't understand Johnson's negotiating objectives.
His priority appears to be the ability to diverge. But you don't negotiate divergence; it's what you have if you don't agree.
By implication, Johnson doesn't want No Deal, which is a double negative and meaningless as a negotiating objectives.
I guess he will take what he can get, consistent with diverge-ability. Which won't be a lot, I suspect. Sounds like a recipe for longish term uncertainty.
It's quite bizarre how remainers have convinced themselves that a trade deal will be a gift bestowed by the EU that the UK must pay any price for. We have a trade deficit with the EU. Continued free trade with the UK is what *they* get out of it, and it adds more value in real terms to their economy than it will do to ours.
The deal is between the UK and a bloc of 27 countries. Each party will be trying to maximise the benefit to themselves. We shall see who gets the best deal. Similar applies to a deal between the UK and the United States. It's not irrational to fear that the smaller party may not get the best of it in either of those cases.
But we have Boris and his air of cheery optimism! Under such a circumstance a loss will feel like a win anyway. Take the WA as a benchmark.
I expect that trade in goods and agriculture will be tariff and quota free, though with compliance with EU regs that could be fairly light initially, but will be heavier if we deviate from EU regs or drop our standards to non EU countries.
This will suit the EU, but perhaps our manufacturers less so, as UK content in an EU auto may be a problem for local content rules for example. Such a bare bones deal will suit our service industries much less so.
I think we will continue to have a substantial, perhaps even increased trade deficit. On the other hand our consumers will still be able to enjoy EU products freely.
On fish, I expect not much change. Indeed Gove has promised to continue the current quota system, so I wouldn't expect a revival of the British fishing fleet.
Of course Johnson will try to sell this as a triumph, but you can only go so far when buyers remorse sets in.
Interesting to see that already Brexit has already cost our economy more than the entirety of our 47 years of EU contributions, but it is about nationalism not economics.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
Because both sides have bigger fish to fry (ha!). It's in neither side's interest to allow their powerful fishing lobbies to hijack the process. We'll see.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
I expect you will criticise Boris Johnson if we do indeed retain the status quo? Or will that also be the fault of the Remoaners?
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
I think that is true, but will be quite a barrier to deals elsewhere, particularly agricultural standards.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
I expect you will criticise Boris Johnson if we do indeed retain the status quo? Or will that also be the fault of the Remoaners?
Of course. I have never been a Boris fan, so I'm no stranger to criticising him. However, lately he is proving me wrong by having a habit of saying he will do something and then doing it. I have no reason to suppose he is suddenly going to roll over in this instance, and the hopes of the EU that he will seem misplaced.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
I am saying the UK will not agree to the EU LPF demands. One of the reasons why is your last point, so we can do FTA's easier with other countries.
Though older less efficient coal plants are being decommissioned. Overall electricity production in H1 2019 in Germany was 46% renewables, with coal sourced electricity down 24%.
But I am glad that you want to see things move faster to make fossil fuels history, and want to speed up the transition. We all need to do so if we want the world from overheating.
I found out yesterday that a friend in Australia got burnt out at the weekend. House and livestock all gone, but they got out with their dogs and horses.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
I am saying the UK will not agree to the EU LPF demands. One of the reasons why is your last point, so we can do FTA's easier with other countries.
Then there will be no FTA with the EU surely, even a basic one? I can’t see the EU dropping it, especially after reading their “negotiating objectives” documentation.
Comments
"The Brits partitioned my country too, you know!"
[And then suddenly clutches his head, screaming, as his Tebbit Chip takes over...]
"Aaaaaaargh!"
[...before a more servile expression crosses his face...]
"Must be loyal to Boris... must be loyal..."
I jest of course..
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/opinion/bernie-sanders-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Biden most likely.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-is-the-front-runner-but-there-is-no-clear-favorite/
How Tories can win back Scots who don’t like Boris, Brexit or both
... there is a very small window for the winner to settle in and produce a strategy that gives the party a realistic chance of overtaking the SNP as the biggest single party at the 2021 Scottish elections.
The membership is certainly anxious to be talking about new Conservative policies for the 2021 campaign, an attractive, viable alternative programme for government, and for the 2021 campaign not to rely solely on opposition to a second independence referendum.
We know from the 2019 campaign in Scotland that those Conservatives who turned away did so because they didn’t like Boris Johnson or Brexit or both...
Downing Street’s pointless fight with Scottish Press
With the Scottish election looming and a new Scottish leader to bed in, whatever holy cattle are headed for the abattoir, Downing Street shouldn’t pick pointless fights with the Scottish Press.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/how-tories-can-win-back-scots-who-don-t-like-boris-brexit-or-both-john-mclellan-1-5073233/amp
Generally, we should regard terrorists and gangsters disfavourably.
It`s shit.
*I was going to say 'reunification' - but not sure whether this would be historically accurate?
**For a given value of 'democratic'
Mourinho hates us and I’m still traumatised by April 2014 when his team parked the bus, three Nimitz sized aircraft carriers, and the Berlin Wall in front of goal and denied us the title.
I'm more interested in what Johnson is looking for from the negotiations. In general you are not likely to achieve much if you don't have any goals. I do expect Johnson will declare a success whatever turd he polishes.
He is currently around 9/1.
He is polling <1% in Iowa.
He is not on the ticket in New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina.
He will likely go into Super Tuesday with absolutely nothing to his name.
He is astronomically unlikely to win the race in normal time, he will need a contested convention - and why give the nomination to someone with such a poor record?
As such the EU have every reason to try and arrive at an agreement on trade which will try to preserve as much of that as possible, which essentially means keeping the status quo in the face of a UK government which is more sceptical as to its benefits. Preserving the status quo by trying to frustrate the UK's exit from the EU (in fact or in name only) is no longer an option for the EU.
I'm currently deciding how heavily to lay him with the proceeds.
More than a dozen swing-seat freshmen have taken part in at least one private call session with Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg in recent weeks. A handful have already gravitated toward the former vice president, and more are expected to follow before Democrats start voting on Feb. 3, according to interviews with 15 lawmakers, aides and campaign strategists."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/endangered-2020-democrats-downballot-carnage-097315
The EU isn't interested either in maintaining the status quo or frustrating the UK's exit. The total opposite actually.
The correct comparison is to consider each EU state's bilateral trade with the UK.
But Biden though with a campaign gravely wounded doesn't quit before Super Tuesday, lets say Warren sticks around too, that prevents Sanders from getting a majority of the delegates, at that point somehow with a lot of money Bloomberg buys the nomination in the Convention.
That is probably the only way Bloomberg wins.
It requires Biden to do very bad, which is possible, Warren to still split the vote with Sanders, less possible but doable, and Bloomberg to bribe the convention delegates also. possible
2020 May be the last death throws of Brexit rows but beyond that it’s as relevant as the Falklands war.
At this point, yes the EU isn't interested in frustrating the UK's exit. Obviously. 12 months ago it was more debatable. Certainly some elements in the EU's bureaucracy were, and I think the likes of Tony Blair and Gina Miller were working pretty closely with them.
Throes btw.
The ball is in Boris’s court.
Jose will destroy Spurs. I reckon he is a sleeper agent for Chelsea. That said, Spurs do look rather long.
In practice it may well be somewhere with a smaller trade that throws the spanner in the works. Perhaps an A8 or A2 state.
Their main problem is not lack of manifesto, London undermining their credibility, nor picking fights with the Scottish press. It is much more fundamental: lack of competent personnel.
That's the perspective that I see as relevant. I appreciate that you approach it from a different point of view but I don't consider your way of looking at it valid. So I think we'll just have to disagree about the degree of exposure and about who needs one most.
The UK is exercised by being unable to avoid both barriers to trade and rule taking. That tension isn't an EU concern.
Anyway what are these values beyond “murr foreigners”?
Labour isn’t going to water down its social values to appeal to those with backwards views. It merely has to persuade that there is nothing to fear.
We shall see who gets the best deal.
Similar applies to a deal between the UK and the United States.
It's not irrational to fear that the smaller party may not get the best of it in either of those cases.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-51075235
How can they possibly justify that decision?
https://twitter.com/junkscience/status/1215652782931357696?s=21
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
We do not want to stay in the Single Market, just a Canada style FTA even Barnier has said we can have now the Withdrawal Agreement has been agreed with the EU and passed the Commons
We stuck it to Johnny Foreigner in 1918, 1945 and 1966. We'll stick to 'em again! Delusional!
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
We best stay in his good books.
Rule Britannia.
This will suit the EU, but perhaps our manufacturers less so, as UK content in an EU auto may be a problem for local content rules for example. Such a bare bones deal will suit our service industries much less so.
I think we will continue to have a substantial, perhaps even increased trade deficit. On the other hand our consumers will still be able to enjoy EU products freely.
On fish, I expect not much change. Indeed Gove has promised to continue the current quota system, so I wouldn't expect a revival of the British fishing fleet.
Of course Johnson will try to sell this as a triumph, but you can only go so far when buyers remorse sets in.
Interesting to see that already Brexit has already cost our economy more than the entirety of our 47 years of EU contributions, but it is about nationalism not economics.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1215737320973971463?s=19
Or will that also be the fault of the Remoaners?
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1215998546761146368?s=21
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-generated-nearly-half-germanys-electricity-q2
But I am glad that you want to see things move faster to make fossil fuels history, and want to speed up the transition. We all need to do so if we want the world from overheating.
I found out yesterday that a friend in Australia got burnt out at the weekend. House and livestock all gone, but they got out with their dogs and horses.