No country signs a trade deal without legally binding provisions . To suggest the EU should agree to something because the UK says it will adhere to certain things without that specifically written into a Treaty is even by this governments standards delusional.
And the level playing field is also there to protect UK firms . Those provisions will also be there in any deal with the USA .
Now the Tories are peddling so called Australia as a means to repackage a no deal on trade and dupe the public into thinking it’s all fine !
The EU are trying to redefine the term level playing field, to mean that we have to sign up blind to whatever is their next social law - maybe a compulsory 35 hour week, a ban on probationary periods or part-time working, or a cap on boardroom pay. We just don't know.
We won't be signing up to anything that Canada and Japan didn't agree to, and certainly not future alignment with new EU law.
Barnier talking about "unfair competitive advantages" - there's no such thing. Its like complaining about Liverpool's current dominance suggesting that because they're doing well is unfair. Competition is healthy.
Barnier also demanding access to fishing. Why should other areas be tied to fishing? Its just because that's our natural resource they want to strip - do we get access to their natural resources?
An unfair competitive advantage means, to use your analogy, that all the sides except Liverpool must conform to a wage cap.
In this example, it would be where Liverpool left the PFA but was allowed to continue to compete in the Premier League, and then the PFA introduced a wage cap without any requirement on Liverpool to do so.
You can ask how or when such a situation would arise in the real world, but it definitely exists. It's not a contradiction in terms.
Which is why the government have committed to upholding minimum standards. The EU and the UK can negotiate a high bar for those and codify them in the trade deal but they need to be fixed in time.
Mr. G, the UK (according to Google) allows 52 weeks of maternity leave. The EU minimum is 14 weeks.
MD no-one in UK gets 52 weeks paid maternity leave, you need to compare apples with apples, who can afford a year out without pay, UK gets minimum maternity benefit for some months and dependent on employer.
No country signs a trade deal without legally binding provisions . To suggest the EU should agree to something because the UK says it will adhere to certain things without that specifically written into a Treaty is even by this governments standards delusional.
And the level playing field is also there to protect UK firms . Those provisions will also be there in any deal with the USA .
Now the Tories are peddling so called Australia as a means to repackage a no deal on trade and dupe the public into thinking it’s all fine !
The EU are trying to redefine the term level playing field, to mean that we have to sign up blind to whatever is their next social law - maybe a compulsory 35 hour week, a ban on probationary periods or part-time working, or a cap on boardroom pay. We just don't know.
We won't be signing up to anything that Canada and Japan didn't agree to, and certainly not future alignment with new EU law.
Barnier talking about "unfair competitive advantages" - there's no such thing. Its like complaining about Liverpool's current dominance suggesting that because they're doing well is unfair. Competition is healthy.
Barnier also demanding access to fishing. Why should other areas be tied to fishing? Its just because that's our natural resource they want to strip - do we get access to their natural resources?
An unfair competitive advantage means, to use your analogy, that all the sides except Liverpool must conform to a wage cap.
In this example, it would be where Liverpool left the PFA but was allowed to continue to compete in the Premier League, and then the PFA introduced a wage cap without any requirement on Liverpool to do so.
You can ask how or when such a situation would arise in the real world, but it definitely exists. It's not a contradiction in terms.
Of course its a contradiction in terms. We need to treat each other as equal partners, we are not subservient to them and that is the problem, they perceive us as subservient. If they choose to introduce a wage cap then that is their unilateral choice it is not in the rules of the game - we aren't in their organsation so its not on us to do that.
To correct your analogy it would be like Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea unilaterally deciding they want a wage cap and expect to enforce that on Liverpool but Liverpool decides not to do so.
In your example, Liverpool should leave the League, or in the real world, reduce its access to the common market.
Premier League clubs can and do set the basis on which teams participate in the league and outvoted clubs, as in your example, can lump it or leave it.
No country signs a trade deal without legally binding provisions . To suggest the EU should agree to something because the UK says it will adhere to certain things without that specifically written into a Treaty is even by this governments standards delusional.
And the level playing field is also there to protect UK firms . Those provisions will also be there in any deal with the USA .
Now the Tories are peddling so called Australia as a means to repackage a no deal on trade and dupe the public into thinking it’s all fine !
The EU are trying to redefine the term level playing field, to mean that we have to sign up blind to whatever is their next social law - maybe a compulsory 35 hour week, a ban on probationary periods or part-time working, or a cap on boardroom pay. We just don't know.
We won't be signing up to anything that Canada and Japan didn't agree to, and certainly not future alignment with new EU law.
Barnier talking about "unfair competitive advantages" - there's no such thing. Its like complaining about Liverpool's current dominance suggesting that because they're doing well is unfair. Competition is healthy.
Barnier also demanding access to fishing. Why should other areas be tied to fishing? Its just because that's our natural resource they want to strip - do we get access to their natural resources?
An unfair competitive advantage means, to use your analogy, that all the sides except Liverpool must conform to a wage cap.
In this example, it would be where Liverpool left the PFA but was allowed to continue to compete in the Premier League, and then the PFA introduced a wage cap without any requirement on Liverpool to do so.
You can ask how or when such a situation would arise in the real world, but it definitely exists. It's not a contradiction in terms.
Which is why the government have committed to upholding minimum standards. The EU and the UK can negotiate a high bar for those and codify them in the trade deal but they need to be fixed in time.
That is a much more nuanced point about when a competitive advantage becomes and *unfair* competitive advantage.
Or equivalently, when does Qatar pouring money into Man City become unfair? At some point more than zero but less than £100 billion.
Mr. G, the UK (according to Google) allows 52 weeks of maternity leave. The EU minimum is 14 weeks.
MD no-one in UK gets 52 weeks paid maternity leave, you need to compare apples with apples, who can afford a year out without pay, UK gets minimum maternity benefit for some months and dependent on employer.
"Some months"? You might want to check the law, the minimum PAID paternity leave is roughly three times the EU minimum leave whether paid or unpaid.
What’s the problem with the UK adhering to minimum standards which are lower in the EU .
That should be pretty easy ! if you’re standards are much higher already it’s unlikely you’re going to get that much lower unless of course the government are lying !
The UK will be a competitor out of the EU and because of geography that’s why level playing field provisions are even more important than say in the Canada deal which still has some of those .
The most realistic scenario is where the EU (post-Brexit) 'raises' certain standards.
You have to question how many of those areas there really are.
Consumer and environmental protections are unlikely ever to be hugely controversial in the UK (some yes, lots no).
And of course we never subscribed to the social chapter. ] The other thing to consider is if we would ever be *forced* to lower standards, e.g. scrapping the GDPR in order to get a comprehensive trade deal with the US.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
That's a false dichotomy.
The obvious way of helping UK business export to the EU is to help them understand the necessary checks.
This is already something the UK provides in respect of exports to the US and China for example.
The Welsh Government had been enthusiastic about the Afan Valley project, with the Economy Minister, Ken Skates, and Huw Irranca-Davies AM appearing in a publicity video with Gavin. Woodhouse was awarded a £500,000 grant for one of his hotels, the Caer Rhun in the Conwy valley.
They have given 19 million pounds of money and support to ... err ... Aston-Martin, which looks like another Norton Motorbikes story in the making. Aston-Martin is teetering on bankruptcy, and its share price has plummeted from 17 pounds in 2018 to 4.70 now.
I could go on, but it is too depressing for Wales.
Basically, if you a crook or a shyster or mobster in England, I would recommend just asking the Welsh Government for money.
Those who run Wales are -- and this is the most generous interpretation -- too stupid to recognise a crook in plain sight, but they give them public assets, or they throw money at them.
You need to dress up your crooked scheme as ‘investment’, which allows the Welsh Government to crow about jobs created . . . and this deception encourages Labour to anticipate being re-elected as a reward for these ‘successes’.
Scoundrels, shysters, Ponzi schemers, crooks, gangsters, mafiosi, criminals ... just write to Mark Drakeford at National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, CF99 1NA.
And remember to mention bringing "much needed jobs and investment" in your fraud.
Politicians are not great at picking commercial winners. And they ought not to try to do so.
They shouldn’t pick winners in terms of individual companies, that risk should always be with the promoters, but they should pick sectors and provide the infrastructure, education, training, transport links etc which are going to make their area attractive to businesses in that sector.
Of course its a contradiction in terms. We need to treat each other as equal partners, we are not subservient to them and that is the problem, they perceive us as subservient. If they choose to introduce a wage cap then that is their unilateral choice it is not in the rules of the game - we aren't in their organsation so its not on us to do that.
To correct your analogy it would be like Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea unilaterally deciding they want a wage cap and expect to enforce that on Liverpool but Liverpool decides not to do so.
In your example, Liverpool should leave the League, or in the real world, reduce its access to the common market.
Premier League clubs can and do set the basis on which teams participate in the league and outvoted clubs, as in your example, can lump it or leave it.
And we're leaving. So they can't expect us to continue to follow their rules after we've left when that was the point of us leaving.
A better Premier League analogy is the Premier League itself and its relationship with the FA. The UK is the Premier League and the EU is the FA, the Premier League decided it didn't want to be a part of the FA anymore and left to set its own rules. It agreed a relationship and there is some migration each year between the two but the Premier League is not subservient to the FA and doesn't have to automatically adopt the FA's rules any more than the UK will be subservient to the EU or have to automatically adopt the EU's rules.
Guide for Shysters applying to the Welsh Labour Government for money.
1. You need prose a bit like this:
"Afan Valley Adventure Resort will offer activities for the whole family. From seasoned adrenaline junkies to those looking to try paint balling, go-karting and water zorbing, there’s plenty to do for everyone. The area has all the thrills of a popular and traditional ski resort complete with lifts, time gates, slalom courses, tubing, moguls, ski-school, toboggan runs and finishing the day with a backdrop of music, fireworks, professional ski displays and the bustling alpine bars are just some of the amazing selling points to this multi-million-pound project.”
You don't have to worry about credibility. Welsh Labour can't tell the difference between "a popular ski resort" with "bustling alpine bars" in the snow-decked Alps and the rain-drenched, depressed coal & steel towns north of Port Talbot.
2. And don't forget the winning line:
"One thousand full-time jobs will be created if the Afan Valley Adventure Resort goes ahead."
3. That is already worth half a million to you & you will get free media appearances from Labour AMs like Ken Skates and Huw Irranca-Davies, pushing the project.
4. You have nothing to fear from the Welsh Press or Media.
Gavin's criminality was exposed by the pesky people at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
No country signs a trade deal without legally binding provisions . To suggest the EU should agree to something because the UK says it will adhere to certain things without that specifically written into a Treaty is even by this governments standards delusional.
And the level playing field is also there to protect UK firms . Those provisions will also be there in any deal with the USA .
Now the Tories are peddling so called Australia as a means to repackage a no deal on trade and dupe the public into thinking it’s all fine !
The EU are trying to redefine the term level playing field, to mean that we have to sign up blind to whatever is their next social law - maybe a compulsory 35 hour week, a ban on probationary periods or part-time working, or a cap on boardroom pay. We just don't know.
We won't be signing up to anything that Canada and Japan didn't agree to, and certainly not future alignment with new EU law.
Barnier talking about "unfair competitive advantages" - there's no such thing. Its like complaining about Liverpool's current dominance suggesting that because they're doing well is unfair. Competition is healthy.
Barnier also demanding access to fishing. Why should other areas be tied to fishing? Its just because that's our natural resource they want to strip - do we get access to their natural resources?
An unfair competitive advantage means, to use your analogy, that all the sides except Liverpool must conform to a wage cap.
In this example, it would be where Liverpool left the PFA but was allowed to continue to compete in the Premier League, and then the PFA introduced a wage cap without any requirement on Liverpool to do so.
You can ask how or when such a situation would arise in the real world, but it definitely exists. It's not a contradiction in terms.
Which is why the government have committed to upholding minimum standards. The EU and the UK can negotiate a high bar for those and codify them in the trade deal but they need to be fixed in time.
That is a much more nuanced point about when a competitive advantage becomes and *unfair* competitive advantage.
Or equivalently, when does Qatar pouring money into Man City become unfair? At some point more than zero but less than £100 billion.
Just noticed that the Iowa caucuses do not all start at 1am GMT (7pm CST). There are dozens of sites some of which start earlier. In fact the first caucus starts at 4pm GMT...in Tblisi, Georgia.
The EU are trying to redefine the term level playing field, to mean that we have to sign up blind to whatever is their next social law - maybe a compulsory 35 hour week, a ban on probationary periods or part-time working, or a cap on boardroom pay. We just don't know.
We won't be signing up to anything that Canada and Japan didn't agree to, and certainly not future alignment with new EU law.
Part of the reason we left was we rarely agreed with what was being proposed by the EU. We baulked at every plan to reduce working hours or other interventions into the labour market.
The UK claimed it was all about "flexibility" and allowing people to work the hours they chose (though that seemed less of an issue in Europe for some reason).
In the end, a deal was done via various opt-outs so our membership came to look increasingly semi-detached and half-hearted. That was part of the reason I voted LEAVE - the two coherent positions were fully in or fully out.
You be halfway in or halfway out when doing the hokey-cokey but it's not a coherent model for membership of a multi-nation political and economic organisation.
No country signs a trade deal without legally binding provisions . To suggest the EU should agree to something because the UK says it will adhere to certain things without that specifically written into a Treaty is even by this governments standards delusional.
And the level playing field is also there to protect UK firms . Those provisions will also be there in any deal with the USA .
Now the Tories are peddling so called Australia as a means to repackage a no deal on trade and dupe the public into thinking it’s all fine !
The EU are trying to redefine the term level playing field, to mean that we have to sign up blind to whatever is their next social law - maybe a compulsory 35 hour week, a ban on probationary periods or part-time working, or a cap on boardroom pay. We just don't know.
We won't be signing up to anything that Canada and Japan didn't agree to, and certainly not future alignment with new EU law.
Barnier talking about "unfair competitive advantages" - there's no such thing. Its like complaining about Liverpool's current dominance suggesting that because they're doing well is unfair. Competition is healthy.
Barnier also demanding access to fishing. Why should other areas be tied to fishing? Its just because that's our natural resource they want to strip - do we get access to their natural resources?
An unfair competitive advantage means, to use your analogy, that all the sides except Liverpool must conform to a wage cap.
In this example, it would be where Liverpool left the PFA but was allowed to continue to compete in the Premier League, and then the PFA introduced a wage cap without any requirement on Liverpool to do so.
You can ask how or when such a situation would arise in the real world, but it definitely exists. It's not a contradiction in terms.
Which is why the government have committed to upholding minimum standards. The EU and the UK can negotiate a high bar for those and codify them in the trade deal but they need to be fixed in time.
That is a much more nuanced point about when a competitive advantage becomes and *unfair* competitive advantage.
Or equivalently, when does Qatar pouring money into Man City become unfair? At some point more than zero but less than £100 billion.
Qatar have put money into Man City?
I mean Abu Dhabi apparently.
My club, Norwich, yet to receive big oil money (for some reason)
Mr. G, the UK (according to Google) allows 52 weeks of maternity leave. The EU minimum is 14 weeks.
MD no-one in UK gets 52 weeks paid maternity leave, you need to compare apples with apples, who can afford a year out without pay, UK gets minimum maternity benefit for some months and dependent on employer.
I think that you will find almost everyone in the public sector does. And almost no one in the private.
Mr. G, the UK (according to Google) allows 52 weeks of maternity leave. The EU minimum is 14 weeks.
MD no-one in UK gets 52 weeks paid maternity leave, you need to compare apples with apples, who can afford a year out without pay, UK gets minimum maternity benefit for some months and dependent on employer.
"Some months"? You might want to check the law, the minimum PAID paternity leave is roughly three times the EU minimum leave whether paid or unpaid.
How do you work that out then , below shows minimum 2 months paid in EU versus 2 weeks in UK
EU Parental Leave
The Directive also changes the requirements for parental leave. Currently, parents have a right to at least four months of unpaid parental leave per parent with one nontransferable month. The Directive does not change the overall amount of parental leave but makes two months nontransferrable between parents and mandates that they be paid. (Id. art. 5.) In addition, Member States must ensure that parental leave may be taken in flexible forms, such as on a part-time basis. (Id. art. 5, para. 6.) The level of compensation is to be determined by the Member State. (Id. art. 8, para. 3.)
UK Employees can choose to take either 1 week or 2 consecutive weeks’ leave. The amount of time is the same even if they have more than one child (for example twins). Statutory Paternity Pay
Statutory Paternity Pay for eligible employees is either £148.68 a week or 90% of their average weekly earnings (whichever is lower). Tax and National Insurance need to be deducted.
Of course its a contradiction in terms. We need to treat each other as equal partners, we are not subservient to them and that is the problem, they perceive us as subservient. If they choose to introduce a wage cap then that is their unilateral choice it is not in the rules of the game - we aren't in their organsation so its not on us to do that.
To correct your analogy it would be like Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea unilaterally deciding they want a wage cap and expect to enforce that on Liverpool but Liverpool decides not to do so.
In your example, Liverpool should leave the League, or in the real world, reduce its access to the common market.
Premier League clubs can and do set the basis on which teams participate in the league and outvoted clubs, as in your example, can lump it or leave it.
And we're leaving. So they can't expect us to continue to follow their rules after we've left when that was the point of us leaving.
A better Premier League analogy is the Premier League itself and its relationship with the FA. The UK is the Premier League and the EU is the FA, the Premier League decided it didn't want to be a part of the FA anymore and left to set its own rules. It agreed a relationship and there is some migration each year between the two but the Premier League is not subservient to the FA and doesn't have to automatically adopt the FA's rules any more than the UK will be subservient to the EU or have to automatically adopt the EU's rules.
I don't think your analogy is helpful.
We are talking about continued UK access to EU markets.
Therefore we are thinking about a situation where UK and EU producers are competing in the same competition or league.
In order to compete in the same league, perhaps individual teams can have some level of external advantage without it being unfair.
If you think that we voted to 'Leave' the common market, then sure - Boris doesn't think so. He wants a deal that allows us to compete in Europe.
Mr. G, the UK (according to Google) allows 52 weeks of maternity leave. The EU minimum is 14 weeks.
MD no-one in UK gets 52 weeks paid maternity leave, you need to compare apples with apples, who can afford a year out without pay, UK gets minimum maternity benefit for some months and dependent on employer.
"Some months"? You might want to check the law, the minimum PAID paternity leave is roughly three times the EU minimum leave whether paid or unpaid.
How do you work that out then , below shows minimum 2 months paid in EU versus 2 weeks in UK
EU Parental Leave
The Directive also changes the requirements for parental leave. Currently, parents have a right to at least four months of unpaid parental leave per parent with one nontransferable month. The Directive does not change the overall amount of parental leave but makes two months nontransferrable between parents and mandates that they be paid. (Id. art. 5.) In addition, Member States must ensure that parental leave may be taken in flexible forms, such as on a part-time basis. (Id. art. 5, para. 6.) The level of compensation is to be determined by the Member State. (Id. art. 8, para. 3.)
UK Employees can choose to take either 1 week or 2 consecutive weeks’ leave. The amount of time is the same even if they have more than one child (for example twins). Statutory Paternity Pay
Statutory Paternity Pay for eligible employees is either £148.68 a week or 90% of their average weekly earnings (whichever is lower). Tax and National Insurance need to be deducted.
The EU's negotiating position (as quoted by Barnier this morning) is relatievly short and light on detail. I would say it encompassed pretty much all views between Boris' and May's, so Boris has moved the window a fair bit.
I see some sections of the media who only a few months ago were demanding the UK take back ISIS terrorists, claiming the government were heartless because people can change and we could always put them under supervision, and then called Boris all sorts of names for saying we need to change the law to stop early release of Islamist terrorists....are today up in arms about why a dangerous individual was released, who clearly hadn't changed his ways and managed to attack despite being under supervision.
Of course its a contradiction in terms. We need to treat each other as equal partners, we are not subservient to them and that is the problem, they perceive us as subservient. If they choose to introduce a wage cap then that is their unilateral choice it is not in the rules of the game - we aren't in their organsation so its not on us to do that.
To correct your analogy it would be like Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea unilaterally deciding they want a wage cap and expect to enforce that on Liverpool but Liverpool decides not to do so.
In your example, Liverpool should leave the League, or in the real world, reduce its access to the common market.
Premier League clubs can and do set the basis on which teams participate in the league and outvoted clubs, as in your example, can lump it or leave it.
And we're leaving. So they can't expect us to continue to follow their rules after we've left when that was the point of us leaving.
A better Premier League analogy is the Premier League itself and its relationship with the FA. The UK is the Premier League and the EU is the FA, the Premier League decided it didn't want to be a part of the FA anymore and left to set its own rules. It agreed a relationship and there is some migration each year between the two but the Premier League is not subservient to the FA and doesn't have to automatically adopt the FA's rules any more than the UK will be subservient to the EU or have to automatically adopt the EU's rules.
I don't think your analogy is helpful.
We are talking about continued UK access to EU markets.
Therefore we are thinking about a situation where UK and EU producers are competing in the same competition or league.
In order to compete in the same league, perhaps individual teams can have some level of external advantage without it being unfair.
If you think that we voted to 'Leave' the common market, then sure - Boris doesn't think so. He wants a deal that allows us to compete in Europe.
But if Nissan, for example, are to have unlimited access to the EU it is not unreasonable that we have rules stopping us from bribing them to switch production here. And vice versa of course. These are essential provisions for any trade deal.
Of course its a contradiction in terms. We need to treat each other as equal partners, we are not subservient to them and that is the problem, they perceive us as subservient. If they choose to introduce a wage cap then that is their unilateral choice it is not in the rules of the game - we aren't in their organsation so its not on us to do that.
To correct your analogy it would be like Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea unilaterally deciding they want a wage cap and expect to enforce that on Liverpool but Liverpool decides not to do so.
In your example, Liverpool should leave the League, or in the real world, reduce its access to the common market.
Premier League clubs can and do set the basis on which teams participate in the league and outvoted clubs, as in your example, can lump it or leave it.
And we're leaving. So they can't expect us to continue to follow their rules after we've left when that was the point of us leaving.
A better Premier League analogy is the Premier League itself and its relationship with the FA. The UK is the Premier League and the EU is the FA, the Premier League decided it didn't want to be a part of the FA anymore and left to set its own rules. It agreed a relationship and there is some migration each year between the two but the Premier League is not subservient to the FA and doesn't have to automatically adopt the FA's rules any more than the UK will be subservient to the EU or have to automatically adopt the EU's rules.
I don't think your analogy is helpful.
We are talking about continued UK access to EU markets.
Therefore we are thinking about a situation where UK and EU producers are competing in the same competition or league.
In order to compete in the same league, perhaps individual teams can have some level of external advantage without it being unfair.
If you think that we voted to 'Leave' the common market, then sure - Boris doesn't think so. He wants a deal that allows us to compete in Europe.
No we aren't talking about that. Liverpool competes against Barcelona and Real Madrid but does that mean that they are in La Liga? Liverpool played against Flamengo in the Club World Cup Final does that mean that they are in the same Brazilian League?
The UK will compete with and trade with the EU, that does not make us within the Common Market. And yes Boris did say we are leaving the Single Market - explicitly, repeatedly and during the referendum campaign.
I think that you will find almost everyone in the public sector does. And almost no one in the private.
At last we get to the heart of the whole thing. It's not the question of a standard, it's the disparity that's the problem.
As usual, we get the notion that public sector workers have all the benefits, they have it easy with job security, generous pay and pensions for which they don't have to do a lot.
On the other hand, the poor old private sector, the true engine of the economy is apparently weighed down by regulation, Government interference, heavily over-taxed where workers work long hours for next to nothing.
This mantra of "private good, public bad" pervades so much of our national political debate. It is of course much more complicated than that but that would involve people having to think outside the mantra.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
I saw it and thought crikey that was quite a spectacle and a half (and I don't even like JLo or Shakari), all the stuff about latinos vs whites, women vs men, old vs young, those not from Miami vs locals didn't enter my head.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
Personal growth?
Of course not. I’m very happy to sit back, point out the flaws, inconsistencies, and hypocrisy in the Government’s plans and watch the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
Last week Alistair Stewart gets cancelled....This week, George Eaton has been ‘promoted’ to the position of senior online editor at the New Statesman. He was demoted from his role as deputy editor to become an assistant editor of the magazine following his hit job on Roger Scruton.
Interesting how those who have made no attempt to reconcile the culture war expect others to do just that as part of some scorched earth absolute victory. Don’t think so.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
Personal growth?
Of course not. I’m very happy to sit back, point out the flaws, inconsistencies, and hypocrisy in the Government’s plans and watch the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
And when it doesn't? The government position is surprisingly consistent. It's not asking for cake and eating of said cake as Theresa May was.
I think that you will find almost everyone in the public sector does. And almost no one in the private.
At last we get to the heart of the whole thing. It's not the question of a standard, it's the disparity that's the problem.
As usual, we get the notion that public sector workers have all the benefits, they have it easy with job security, generous pay and pensions for which they don't have to do a lot.
On the other hand, the poor old private sector, the true engine of the economy is apparently weighed down by regulation, Government interference, heavily over-taxed where workers work long hours for next to nothing.
This mantra of "private good, public bad" pervades so much of our national political debate. It is of course much more complicated than that but that would involve people having to think outside the mantra.
It's many, many years since I was an employer, but I clearly recall paying women on maternity leave, and claiming most, if not all of said payment back through the PAYE system. Don't know if it still works that way. I also recall having to keep someone's job open for them, to the annoyance of their line manager. The annoyance was primarily due to the fact that the woman who was going on maternity leave had, only a month earlier, returned from her first such leave.
I think that you will find almost everyone in the public sector does. And almost no one in the private.
At last we get to the heart of the whole thing. It's not the question of a standard, it's the disparity that's the problem.
As usual, we get the notion that public sector workers have all the benefits, they have it easy with job security, generous pay and pensions for which they don't have to do a lot.
On the other hand, the poor old private sector, the true engine of the economy is apparently weighed down by regulation, Government interference, heavily over-taxed where workers work long hours for next to nothing.
This mantra of "private good, public bad" pervades so much of our national political debate. It is of course much more complicated than that but that would involve people having to think outside the mantra.
I am not suggesting it isn’t. But sick pay is another example. Typically in the public sector there is an entitlement to 6 months on full pay and 6 months on half pay. It makes the statutory sick pay scheme look even more derisory than it is. And most of the “self employed” don’t even get that.
This doesn’t make public sector employment bad, in-fact it makes it highly desirable if you are of child bearing age. But it does make it very expensive for those paying for it.
Back in the days before Brown wreaked our final salary pension schemes the major difference was much less marked but now we have increasing poverty amongst those that retire from the private sector. It is an increasing social divide. I am not sure what we do about it.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
Personal growth?
Of course not. I’m very happy to sit back, point out the flaws, inconsistencies, and hypocrisy in the Government’s plans and watch the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
And when it doesn't? The government position is surprisingly consistent. It's not asking for cake and eating of said cake as Theresa May was.
I saw it and thought crikey that was quite a spectacle and a half (and I don't even like JLo or Shakari), all the stuff about latinos vs whites, women vs men, old vs young, those not from Miami vs locals didn't enter my head.
I didn't realise that Shakira was 10 years older than Pique. It still amuses me that her music is banned from the Bernabeu.
I saw it and thought crikey that was quite a spectacle and a half (and I don't even like JLo or Shakari), all the stuff about latinos vs whites, women vs men, old vs young, those not from Miami vs locals didn't enter my head.
Wow. The rest of us just saw a well-produced mini pop concert, and maybe thought of all the effort taken by hundreds of people over a couple of months to put together the show.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
Well, TBF I did, then I read a bit further down. Reads to me as though it was one of several ideas bounced around at an executive awayday, after the fourth round of saki!
Have stuck a tiny amount more money on Big Liz for the nom. Given the polling divergence in Iowa she seems like a decent wildcard outcome of a strong showing.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
It's been happening to a limited degree in the real world, especially in financial services, but until now there has always been the expectation that there will be an 'ambititous trade deal' which would mean that relocation isn't necessary. Depending on which of Boris's flat-out contradictory statements one believes, if any, it looks as at today that there may be only a very minimal trade deal, or none at all (the 'Australia' deal, to use the latest spin). Now that we have actually have some certainty - we've definitely left, domestic political uncertainty is fixed, and we know for near-certain that we're crashing out of the single market on a specific date - businesses now have enough information to make their plans. I expect they will use it, in many cases to move operations.
As for whether we should accept EU regulations and dynamic alignment, it's a daft question. There's no 'should' about it: we either do or we don't. If we don't, there will be enormous damage to some sectors (car manufacturing, aerospace etc), and non-negligible damage to other sectors, notably some sectors of the City and pharma, and possibly information processing of all kinds. That's fine, if people really want that, and don't kid themselves. But let's not pretend there's no trade-off, or that the EU will be any more impressed by Boris bluster this time than they were on the WIthdrawal Agreement.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
Interesting how those who have made no attempt to reconcile the culture war expect others to do just that as part of some scorched earth absolute victory. Don’t think so.
No. We fight on. And when Bernie takes down the Global Gammon-in-Chief in November that victory will reverse all defeats and then some. It will be like - no I will not bother elaborating on what it will be like. This lily needs no gilding.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article from which this is cribbed. The FT is hugely europhile. It’s Remainer central. Yet they print this
Mr. Urquhart, funny you should mention Eaton. Saw a tweet from him recently, first for a while (get stuff RTed on my politics list) bemoaning that Scotland and Northern voted to Remain, as did London, Leeds, Manchester etc.
A rather inconsistent view given Leeds was 50.2% Remain yet counts as a Remain city whereas the UK voted 52% to Leave yet Eaton was trying to portray that as somehow false or invalid. Similarly, many in Scotland voted to Leave. He cherrypicked some English cities as though city voters are more worthwhile than town and village voters, and ignored the existence of Wales.
Incidentally, I do find it wryly amusing that the government is now claiming that an 'Australia' deal (i.e no trade deal) would be a good outcome, and might happen. If that's a good outcome, why the hell did they agree to paying the EU billions of pounds for nothing in return? We could have gone straight to an 'Australia' deal without all the concessions of the WA.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article from which this is cribbed. The FT is hugely europhile. It’s Remainer central. Yet they print this
You clearly haven’t read it. It talks about a possible plan, drafted under previous leadership, which might happen, or it might not.
However you lead with: ‘Nissan WILL expand the Sunderland plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
I’m happy to discuss the article. Its certainly interesting.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy, the MP for Streatham, has been at the scene of the attack. She said: “The perpetrator didn’t serve his full sentence, which is questionable – what is more questionable is why he needed to be under surveillance. If someone needs to be under surveillance it brings the question on why they were released in the first place.”
Good question...now if only we had a Labour government...
Ms Abbott suggested she is against such tougher sentencing as she tweeted a quote from, and a link to, a column published by the Guardian entitled 'locking up extremists isn't working in our cash-strapped prisons'.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
I wondered how long it would take for the us and them mentality to rear it's ugly head. There is no "side" to this. Of course the EU is going to negotiate from the point of view of the good of the 27. Just because 1 country decides to commit economic and social suicide doesn't mean they all have to. O/T I haven't seen Byronic for a few days, do you think he has recovered from his rant?
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article from which this is cribbed. The FT is hugely europhile. It’s Remainer central. Yet they print this
You clearly haven’t read it. It talks about a possible plan, drafted under previous leadership, which might happen, or it might not.
However you lead with: ‘Nissan WILL expand the Sunderland plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
I’m happy to discuss the article. Its certainly interesting.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
But your attitudes are actually treasonous. It’s not froth. It’s the case. You really should emigrate for your own emotional health coz you ain’t going to be happy in Brexit Britain.
Incidentally, I do find it wryly amusing that the government is now claiming that an 'Australia' deal (i.e no trade deal) would be a good outcome, and might happen. If that's a good outcome, why the hell did they agree to paying the EU billions of pounds for nothing in return? We could have gone straight to an 'Australia' deal without all the concessions of the WA.
As I understand it we owed a lot of that money as ongoing contributions and commitments. And a lot of it is just because we delayed Brexit so long. Tho I think we got shafted on Galileo
Ah yes it’s because of those Remoaners. It’s always their fault, I forgot.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
Personally I ALWAYS reserve the right to oppose my government if I think they're being unreasonable. It's called living in a free country.
If I was Russian and disagreed with Putin on, say, Crimea, I would be taking the risk of being called an agent of foreign powers, perhaps even a traitor (cf Eadric's post). Is that the political culturee that Animal and eadric would like to have here? If so, I'm afraid they are profoundly un-British.
As for whether we should accept EU regulations and dynamic alignment, it's a daft question. There's no 'should' about it: we either do or we don't. If we don't, there will be enormous damage to some sectors (car manufacturing, aerospace etc), and non-negligible damage to other sectors, notably some sectors of the City and pharma, and possibly information processing of all kinds. That's fine, if people really want that, and don't kid themselves. But let's not pretend there's no trade-off, or that the EU will be any more impressed by Boris bluster this time than they were on the WIthdrawal Agreement.
Presumably, it's possible (though not guaranteed) to have a sectoral agreement, accepting alignment in (say) agriculture but not (say) finance?
No country signs a trade deal without legally binding provisions . To suggest the EU should agree to something because the UK says it will adhere to certain things without that specifically written into a Treaty is even by this governments standards delusional.
And the level playing field is also there to protect UK firms . Those provisions will also be there in any deal with the USA .
Now the Tories are peddling so called Australia as a means to repackage a no deal on trade and dupe the public into thinking it’s all fine !
The government is going for a No Deal departure at the end of this year. It’s what the ultra-Brexiteers wanted all along and, having captured the government, that is what they will impose.
My tiny business has been sent something from the government about trading with the EU and I am now looking at setting up an Irish company to do so. I will also start saving a bit harder so that I have money to pay for the increased price rises arising from the imposition of tariffs. Have I missed anything?
Incidentally, I do find it wryly amusing that the government is now claiming that an 'Australia' deal (i.e no trade deal) would be a good outcome, and might happen. If that's a good outcome, why the hell did they agree to paying the EU billions of pounds for nothing in return? We could have gone straight to an 'Australia' deal without all the concessions of the WA.
As I understand it we owed a lot of that money as ongoing contributions and commitments. And a lot of it is just because we delayed Brexit so long. Tho I think we got shafted on Galileo
Ah yes it’s because of those Remoaners. It’s always their fault, I forgot.
Indeed but thankfully they're no longer relevant following the last General Election. Now the government can just get on with it.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article from which this is cribbed. The FT is hugely europhile. It’s Remainer central. Yet they print this
You clearly haven’t read it. It talks about a possible plan, drafted under previous leadership, which might happen, or it might not.
However you lead with: ‘Nissan WILL expand the Sunderland plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
I’m happy to discuss the article. Its certainly interesting.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
But your attitudes are actually treasonous. It’s not froth. It’s the case. You really should emigrate for your own emotional health coz you ain’t going to be happy in Brexit Britain.
That is genuine advice. You seem deeply unhappy.
No thanks. I’m here to stay and fight.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that. Eurosceptics fought their cause from the fringe to the centre to victory in forty years. And rejoin is a noble idea. Worth pursuing.
However if you actively support the policies of a trading rival over Britain you will be called out for treachery because that is what it is. We are no longer part of the European Union . The E.U. is. a friend and ally, hopefully, but also a competitor and sometimes opponent. It is no more part of us than Russia or Brazil. Or indeed America.
You could equally call ‘misleading half the nation to vote for an act of self-sabotage’ treachery.
As for whether we should accept EU regulations and dynamic alignment, it's a daft question. There's no 'should' about it: we either do or we don't. If we don't, there will be enormous damage to some sectors (car manufacturing, aerospace etc), and non-negligible damage to other sectors, notably some sectors of the City and pharma, and possibly information processing of all kinds. That's fine, if people really want that, and don't kid themselves. But let's not pretend there's no trade-off, or that the EU will be any more impressed by Boris bluster this time than they were on the WIthdrawal Agreement.
Presumably, it's possible (though not guaranteed) to have a sectoral agreement, accepting alignment in (say) agriculture but not (say) finance?
Yes, and that may be the outcome (although in the past the EU have said they're against that idea).
Interesting how those who have made no attempt to reconcile the culture war expect others to do just that as part of some scorched earth absolute victory. Don’t think so.
No. We fight on. And when Bernie takes down the Global Gammon-in-Chief in November that victory will reverse all defeats and then some. It will be like - no I will not bother elaborating on what it will be like. This lily needs no gilding.
It will need no gilding because it doesn't exist. I want to see Trump gone but there's about as much chance of Sanders becoming President as Jo Swinson had a chance of becoming PM and cancelling Brexit.
Incidentally, I do find it wryly amusing that the government is now claiming that an 'Australia' deal (i.e no trade deal) would be a good outcome, and might happen. If that's a good outcome, why the hell did they agree to paying the EU billions of pounds for nothing in return? We could have gone straight to an 'Australia' deal without all the concessions of the WA.
As I understand it we owed a lot of that money as ongoing contributions and commitments. And a lot of it is just because we delayed Brexit so long. Tho I think we got shafted on Galileo
Ah yes it’s because of those Remoaners. It’s always their fault, I forgot.
Indeed but thankfully they're no longer relevant following the last General Election. Now the government can just get on with it.
I’m sure it will become relevant again when the government needs somebody to blame for it all going down the toilet.
Also this is the problem. The government is making no consideration for 48% of the country and expects us to fall in line or be described as traitors. Don’t think so.
Indeed but thankfully they're no longer relevant following the last General Election. Now the government can just get on with it.
No, we live in a democracy and the Government is open to scrutiny and needs to be held to account. Those of us who didn't vote Conservative last month aren't just going to give up and be quiet for 5 years while Johnson ruins this great country.
Incidentally, I do find it wryly amusing that the government is now claiming that an 'Australia' deal (i.e no trade deal) would be a good outcome, and might happen. If that's a good outcome, why the hell did they agree to paying the EU billions of pounds for nothing in return? We could have gone straight to an 'Australia' deal without all the concessions of the WA.
As I understand it we owed a lot of that money as ongoing contributions and commitments. And a lot of it is just because we delayed Brexit so long. Tho I think we got shafted on Galileo
Ah yes it’s because of those Remoaners. It’s always their fault, I forgot.
Indeed but thankfully they're no longer relevant following the last General Election. Now the government can just get on with it.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
I wondered how long it would take for the us and them mentality to rear it's ugly head. There is no "side" to this. Of course the EU is going to negotiate from the point of view of the good of the 27. Just because 1 country decides to commit economic and social suicide doesn't mean they all have to. O/T I haven't seen Byronic for a few days, do you think he has recovered from his rant?
"Them and us mentality"? The UK is not a member of the EU any more - they are, to us, a third party state/power/federation*. It's not a mentality, it's a legal status, you nincompoop.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
Personally I ALWAYS reserve the right to oppose my government if I think they're being unreasonable. It's called living in a free country.
If I was Russian and disagreed with Putin on, say, Crimea, I would be taking the risk of being called an agent of foreign powers, perhaps even a traitor (cf Eadric's post). Is that the political culturee that Animal and eadric would like to have here? If so, I'm afraid they are profoundly un-British.
It's the Patriot's Paradox, innit?
Indeed. All the guff about bringing the country together is just that guff - if you don’t agree with everything Boris wants you are apparently a traitor or saboteur, according to Boris’s fans on here.
Well, stuff that. The Boris fan club does not get to define patriotism or what it means to be British.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
I wondered how long it would take for the us and them mentality to rear it's ugly head. There is no "side" to this. Of course the EU is going to negotiate from the point of view of the good of the 27. Just because 1 country decides to commit economic and social suicide doesn't mean they all have to. O/T I haven't seen Byronic for a few days, do you think he has recovered from his rant?
"Them and us mentality"? The UK is not a member of the EU any more - they are, to us, a third party state/power/federation*. It's not a mentality, it's a legal status, you nincompoop.
*delete according to preference
Welcome to the Ulsterisation of Great Britain. You did this.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
I wondered how long it would take for the us and them mentality to rear it's ugly head. There is no "side" to this. Of course the EU is going to negotiate from the point of view of the good of the 27. Just because 1 country decides to commit economic and social suicide doesn't mean they all have to. O/T I haven't seen Byronic for a few days, do you think he has recovered from his rant?
"Them and us mentality"? The UK is not a member of the EU any more - they are, to us, a third party state/power/federation*. It's not a mentality, it's a legal status, you nincompoop.
Europhiles deceived the ENTIRE COUNTRY for forty seven years. No loss of sovereignty. Yes you can have a referendum, no you can’t. Yes it a constitution oops no it isn’t. Yes we are lying to all of you and we don’t care.
Endless massive lies. The E.U. was built on one enormous lie. Told time and again.
Enough. The culture war has to end. We all have grievances. And yes the leave side also told big fat fibs.
Where does this get us? Nowhere. We have decided as a nation, democracy is honoured, we really do have to get behind Brexit and make it work, even if we hate it. (And in the meantime you are democratically allowed to try and reverse it in the future, if you want)
I’m sorry but your proposed method of ending the culture war is simply ‘do everything we say, remoaner scum’. Not sure that’s going to work.
I saw it and thought crikey that was quite a spectacle and a half (and I don't even like JLo or Shakari), all the stuff about latinos vs whites, women vs men, old vs young, those not from Miami vs locals didn't enter my head.
Because you're a white male! (Probably). You don't get to have an opinion, such is cultural Marxism.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
I wondered how long it would take for the us and them mentality to rear it's ugly head. There is no "side" to this. Of course the EU is going to negotiate from the point of view of the good of the 27. Just because 1 country decides to commit economic and social suicide doesn't mean they all have to. O/T I haven't seen Byronic for a few days, do you think he has recovered from his rant?
"Them and us mentality"? The UK is not a member of the EU any more - they are, to us, a third party state/power/federation*. It's not a mentality, it's a legal status, you nincompoop.
How long can Remainers maintain this level of raging adolescent tantrum?
Shall we have a bet?
I reckon most of them will be exhausted and give it up by the summer. A few however will Turn Japanese and Hide out in Savernake Forest planning to kill Bill Cash with a hand held pottery grenade
It doesn’t take much effort to wave the flag and sing ode to joy.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article from which this is cribbed. The FT is hugely europhile. It’s Remainer central. Yet they print this
You clearly haven’t read it. It talks about a possible plan, drafted under previous leadership, which might happen, or it might not.
Of course it's a "possible" plan. But the "possible" is only there because it's a contingency plan in the event of one scenario, namely that tariffs on trade in cars come into effect between the UK and EU. Otherwise it seems pretty definitive. The fact that everything is up in the air pending EU-UK negotiations hardly demeans the significance of the article.
Nissan's plan seems perfectly credible from their perspective. The UK imports nearly 3 times as many vehicles from the EU than it exports to the EU. That's a lot of imports to the UK which will become uncompetitive in the event of tariffs, sufficient to represent quite a lucrative new market for a UK-based producer willing to use a new competitive advantage over current EU-based suppliers. Meanwhile, under the EU-Japan trade agreement reached last year, Nissan's exports to the rump EU from Japan will be tariff free by 2027. So Nissan will be able to export to EU markets directly from Japan, and will no longer need to rely on its existing factories in France and Spain to gain competitive EU market access.
Prohibition has failed so lets make sure it is regulated like alcohol and try and stamp it out while ensuring its only sold legally like tobacco.
You can't stamp something out by making it legal.
Yes you can. You can't stamp it out by making it illegal, prohibition doesn't work...
OK. Let's make murder legal.
Big difference between totally eradicating something and and reducing it to as near zero as possible. It's not unreasonable to presume that were murder legal, there would be a lot more of it. Maybe if it were legal and heavily taxed we would get less? But murder isn't a very good comparison - it's rare, and we have always put huge resources into finding and convicting perpetrators. If we treated every drugs offence with the severity of a murder investigation, it would require a police force of about 20x our population, so that makes this approach a non starter.
Tobacco is a much better comparison. Its legal, its taxed, and usage is steadily dropping. I don't see it disappearing entirely in my lifetime, but we've gone from a society where around 50% of the population smoked in 1950 to around 10% today. Surely we should be able to go the same road with drugs. Also, even if usage remains the same, moving the supply to legal sources would reduce deaths from supply impurities, and cut the gangs and pushers out of their main money spinner, which is hardly a tragedy.
The country has a year of breathing room to get ready for tariffs and customs checks, I expect the government will announce serious funding in the budget to help businesses prepare for it.
You think the government should provide funding to help companies move their operations out of the UK?
Except that's not what's happening in the real world. It means more warehouse space and more customs officers. I know you don't agree with leaving but I don't see how you could ever agree with a self-correcting amendment to a trade deal that only the EU could correct and arbitrate. It's a stupid idea and it's sad to see the same idiots who tried to stop brexit also take the EU's side again.
Of course we’re going to take the EU’s ‘side’. What did you expect?
So - just to be clear here - the UK is engaging in negotiations with a foreign (since 11:00pm, 31/1/20) power, and you, a UK citizen, a subject of the Queen, are supporting said foreign power, rather than the UK?
Really?
Define ‘supporting’? I find the EU’s position entirely reasonable and rational and find our negotiating position entirely pathetic.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
I wondered how long it would take for the us and them mentality to rear it's ugly head. There is no "side" to this. Of course the EU is going to negotiate from the point of view of the good of the 27. Just because 1 country decides to commit economic and social suicide doesn't mean they all have to. O/T I haven't seen Byronic for a few days, do you think he has recovered from his rant?
"Them and us mentality"? The UK is not a member of the EU any more - they are, to us, a third party state/power/federation*. It's not a mentality, it's a legal status, you nincompoop.
*delete according to preference
Welcome to the Ulsterisation of Great Britain. You did this.
That's awfully nice of you to say so, but, really, it was a team effort.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
A few thousand people get good jobs. A few million people have to pay more for their cars.
Cars as we know it are dying anyway. Faster than any of us realise.
Cars, and their attached industries, are horses and stables and coach houses in about 1890
The death of cars has been much overstated.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
And the roads will still be full of diesel lorries, as there isn't really a viable alternative currently in existence.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
A few thousand people get good jobs. A few million people have to pay more for their cars.
Cars as we know it are dying anyway. Faster than any of us realise.
Cars, and their attached industries, are horses and stables and coach houses in about 1890
The death of cars has been much overstated.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
Diesel and petrol sure, no reason for us all to switch to Uber though. People like the personal comfort of having their own vehicle and there's no reason to switch that.
American cities will continue with mass personal car owenership as that won't change.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article
You clearly haven’t read it. and plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
I’m happy to discuss the article. Its certainly interesting.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
But your attitudes
No thanks. I’m here to stay and fight.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that. Eurosceptics fought their causopponent. It is no more part of us than Russia or Brazil. Or indeed America.
You could equally call ‘misleading half the nation to vote for an act of self-sabotage’ treachery.
Each to their own.
Europhiles deceived the ENTIRE COUNTRY for forty seven years. No loss of sovereignty. Yes you can have a referendum, no you can’t. Yes it a constitution oops no it isn’t. Yes we are lying to all of you and we don’t care.
Endless massive lies. The E.U. was built on one enormous lie. Told time and again.
Enough. The culture war has to end. We all have grievances. And yes the leave side also told big fat fibs.
Where does this get us? Nowhere. We have decided as a nation, democracy is honoured, we really do have to get behind Brexit and make it work, even if we hate it. (And in the meantime you are democratically allowed to try and reverse it in the future, if you want)
Agreed we have to get behind Brexit but the relationship with the EU will still be an issue.
Especially as the next general election is likely to be Starmer on a return to the single market ticket v Boris on a stick with hard Brexit, basic trade deal for goods ticket
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
A few thousand people get good jobs. A few million people have to pay more for their cars.
Cars as we know it are dying anyway. Faster than any of us realise.
Cars, and their attached industries, are horses and stables and coach houses in about 1890
The death of cars has been much overstated.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
And the roads will still be full of diesel lorries, as there isn't really a viable alternative currently in existence.
I detect a global sea change in opinions around the climate crisis, plastics, air pollution, hydrocarbons. Look at how ruthlessly the Chinese are cleaning up their smog. Just shutting down factories. End of. I was recently in Bangkok and the Thais - Thailand! - has banned single use plastic bags.
This is now a planetary revolution and it has critical mass. And it’s a good thing, even if the world will lose some lovely and romantic things on the way.
Cars and trucks are right in the firing line. And will go. Plane travel is also at risk, which saddens me as someone who likes a nice holiday.
When we look back at the moment the global mood changed, I think it will be the burnt koalas what did it. Australia on fire was a worldwide story
You're trying to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
We have clean method now of developing automobile transport and that is the future not some mythological absurdity of the end of cars.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
A few thousand people get good jobs. A few million people have to pay more for their cars.
Cars as we know it are dying anyway. Faster than any of us realise.
Cars, and their attached industries, are horses and stables and coach houses in about 1890
The death of cars has been much overstated.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
Diesel and petrol sure, no reason for us all to switch to Uber though. People like the personal comfort of having their own vehicle and there's no reason to switch that.
American cities will continue with mass personal car owenership as that won't change.
Right now there are what feels like 100 companies falling over themselves to be the first to develop electronic air taxis.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
A few thousand people get good jobs. A few million people have to pay more for their cars.
Cars as we know it are dying anyway. Faster than any of us realise.
Cars, and their attached industries, are horses and stables and coach houses in about 1890
The death of cars has been much overstated.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
I should have been more specific. Cars will continue for ages.
What will die soon is: diesel cars, then petrol cars, then personally owned cars, in that order. We will fleets of electric Ubers which will eventually be self driven. It’s inevitable. And good in multiple ways. But fuck knows what will happen to American cities designed around mass personal car ownership
Diesel and petrol sure, no reason for us all to switch to Uber though. People like the personal comfort of having their own vehicle and there's no reason to switch that.
American cities will continue with mass personal car owenership as that won't change.
Right now there are what feels like 100 companies falling over themselves to be the first to develop electronic air taxis.
They will be with us in five years time.
Which will be useful for those that need it. It won't mean the death of car ownership though.
To be fair, what happens if you put in any other EU country? We might be out of the Parliament etc, but we're still in the trade area.
This is nonsense. I just tried it - when you type, an autocomplete comes up which includes the two character country code (eg France (FR) ). It works fine and was actually hard work to type in without triggering the autocomplete.
Edit: and the original poster has now admitted it's an issue with her browser, not the government website.
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article
You clearly haven’t read it. and plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
I’m happy to discuss the article. Its certainly interesting.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
But your attitudes
No thanks. I’m here to stay and fight.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that. Eurosceptics fought their causopponent. It is no more part of us than Russia or Brazil. Or indeed America.
You could equally call ‘misleading half the nation to vote for an act of self-sabotage’ treachery.
Each to their own.
Europhiles deceived the ENTIRE COUNTRY for forty seven years. No loss of sovereignty. Yes you can have a referendum, no you can’t. Yes it a constitution oops no it isn’t. Yes we are lying to all of you and we don’t care.
Endless massive lies. The E.U. was built on one enormous lie. Told time and again.
Enough. The culture war has to end. We all have grievances. And yes the leave side also told big fat fibs.
Where does this get us? Nowhere. We have decided as a nation, democracy is honoured, we really do have to get behind Brexit and make it work, even if we hate it. (And in the meantime you are democratically allowed to try and reverse it in the future, if you want)
Agreed we have to get behind Brexit but the relationship with the EU will still be an issue.
Especially as the next general election is likely to be Starmer on a return to the single market ticket v Boris on a stick with hard Brexit, basic trade deal for goods ticket
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article
You clearly haven’t read it. and plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
I’m happy to discuss the article. Its certainly interesting.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
But your attitudes
No thanks. I’m here to stay and fight.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that. Eurosceptics fought their causopponent. It is no more part of us than Russia or Brazil. Or indeed America.
You could equally call ‘misleading half the nation to vote for an act of self-sabotage’ treachery.
Each to their own.
Europhiles deceived the ENTIRE COUNTRY for forty seven years. No loss of sovereignty. Yes you can have a referendum, no you can’t. Yes it a constitution oops no it isn’t. Yes we are lying to all of you and we don’t care.
Endless massive lies. The E.U. was built on one enormous lie. Told time and again.
Enough. The culture war has to end. We all have grievances. And yes the leave side also told big fat fibs.
Where does this get us? Nowhere. We have decided as a nation, democracy is honoured, we really do have to get behind Brexit and make it work, even if we hate it. (And in the meantime you are democratically allowed to try and reverse it in the future, if you want)
Agreed we have to get behind Brexit but the relationship with the EU will still be an issue.
Especially as the next general election is likely to be Starmer on a return to the single market ticket v Boris on a stick with hard Brexit, basic trade deal for goods ticket
Are you questioning St. Boris's judgement here?
No, I will still support him but having delivered Brexit Boris will now offer a further choice of hard Brexit continuing with him or soft Brexit with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Comments
Premier League clubs can and do set the basis on which teams participate in the league and outvoted clubs, as in your example, can lump it or leave it.
Or equivalently, when does Qatar pouring money into Man City become unfair? At some point more than zero but less than £100 billion.
You have to question how many of those areas there really are.
Consumer and environmental protections are unlikely ever to be hugely controversial in the UK (some yes, lots no).
And of course we never subscribed to the social chapter.
]
The other thing to consider is if we would ever be *forced* to lower standards, e.g. scrapping the GDPR in order to get a comprehensive trade deal with the US.
The obvious way of helping UK business export to the EU is to help them understand the necessary checks.
This is already something the UK provides in respect of exports to the US and China for example.
A better Premier League analogy is the Premier League itself and its relationship with the FA. The UK is the Premier League and the EU is the FA, the Premier League decided it didn't want to be a part of the FA anymore and left to set its own rules. It agreed a relationship and there is some migration each year between the two but the Premier League is not subservient to the FA and doesn't have to automatically adopt the FA's rules any more than the UK will be subservient to the EU or have to automatically adopt the EU's rules.
1. You need prose a bit like this:
"Afan Valley Adventure Resort will offer activities for the whole family. From seasoned adrenaline junkies to those looking to try paint balling, go-karting and water zorbing, there’s plenty to do for everyone. The area has all the thrills of a popular and traditional ski resort complete with lifts, time gates, slalom courses, tubing, moguls, ski-school, toboggan runs and finishing the day with a backdrop of music, fireworks, professional ski displays and the bustling alpine bars are just some of the amazing selling points to this multi-million-pound project.”
You don't have to worry about credibility. Welsh Labour can't tell the difference between "a popular ski resort" with "bustling alpine bars" in the snow-decked Alps and the rain-drenched, depressed coal & steel towns north of Port Talbot.
2. And don't forget the winning line:
"One thousand full-time jobs will be created if the Afan Valley Adventure Resort goes ahead."
3. That is already worth half a million to you & you will get free media appearances from Labour AMs like Ken Skates and Huw Irranca-Davies, pushing the project.
4. You have nothing to fear from the Welsh Press or Media.
Gavin's criminality was exposed by the pesky people at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/1L0w7K9JSzkTZRgPDRsrLvGagJVq5oLU6/page/ZRd9
The UK claimed it was all about "flexibility" and allowing people to work the hours they chose (though that seemed less of an issue in Europe for some reason).
In the end, a deal was done via various opt-outs so our membership came to look increasingly semi-detached and half-hearted. That was part of the reason I voted LEAVE - the two coherent positions were fully in or fully out.
You be halfway in or halfway out when doing the hokey-cokey but it's not a coherent model for membership of a multi-nation political and economic organisation.
My club, Norwich, yet to receive big oil money (for some reason)
EU
Parental Leave
The Directive also changes the requirements for parental leave. Currently, parents have a right to at least four months of unpaid parental leave per parent with one nontransferable month. The Directive does not change the overall amount of parental leave but makes two months nontransferrable between parents and mandates that they be paid. (Id. art. 5.) In addition, Member States must ensure that parental leave may be taken in flexible forms, such as on a part-time basis. (Id. art. 5, para. 6.) The level of compensation is to be determined by the Member State. (Id. art. 8, para. 3.)
UK
Employees can choose to take either 1 week or 2 consecutive weeks’ leave. The amount of time is the same even if they have more than one child (for example twins).
Statutory Paternity Pay
Statutory Paternity Pay for eligible employees is either £148.68 a week or 90% of their average weekly earnings (whichever is lower). Tax and National Insurance need to be deducted.
We are talking about continued UK access to EU markets.
Therefore we are thinking about a situation where UK and EU producers are competing in the same competition or league.
In order to compete in the same league, perhaps individual teams can have some level of external advantage without it being unfair.
If you think that we voted to 'Leave' the common market, then sure - Boris doesn't think so. He wants a deal that allows us to compete in Europe.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-annex-negotiating-directives.pdf
https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1224287404640690176?s=20
The UK will compete with and trade with the EU, that does not make us within the Common Market. And yes Boris did say we are leaving the Single Market - explicitly, repeatedly and during the referendum campaign.
I thought we had got Brexit done?
As usual, we get the notion that public sector workers have all the benefits, they have it easy with job security, generous pay and pensions for which they don't have to do a lot.
On the other hand, the poor old private sector, the true engine of the economy is apparently weighed down by regulation, Government interference, heavily over-taxed where workers work long hours for next to nothing.
This mantra of "private good, public bad" pervades so much of our national political debate. It is of course much more complicated than that but that would involve people having to think outside the mantra.
Trade deals are what indendent trading countries do. We couldn't sign any until after Brexit was done remember?
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/feb/02/j-lo-shakira-super-bowl-half-time-show-review
I saw it and thought crikey that was quite a spectacle and a half (and I don't even like JLo or Shakari), all the stuff about latinos vs whites, women vs men, old vs young, those not from Miami vs locals didn't enter my head.
Don't know if it still works that way.
I also recall having to keep someone's job open for them, to the annoyance of their line manager. The annoyance was primarily due to the fact that the woman who was going on maternity leave had, only a month earlier, returned from her first such leave.
This doesn’t make public sector employment bad, in-fact it makes it highly desirable if you are of child bearing age. But it does make it very expensive for those paying for it.
Back in the days before Brown wreaked our final salary pension schemes the major difference was much less marked but now we have increasing poverty amongst those that retire from the private sector. It is an increasing social divide. I am not sure what we do about it.
Really?
As for whether we should accept EU regulations and dynamic alignment, it's a daft question. There's no 'should' about it: we either do or we don't. If we don't, there will be enormous damage to some sectors (car manufacturing, aerospace etc), and non-negligible damage to other sectors, notably some sectors of the City and pharma, and possibly information processing of all kinds. That's fine, if people really want that, and don't kid themselves. But let's not pretend there's no trade-off, or that the EU will be any more impressed by Boris bluster this time than they were on the WIthdrawal Agreement.
Of course my life (and the rest of us) would be better with a ‘good deal for Britain’ but we’ve already thrown away the best deal available so it’s kind of irrelevant.
I don’t see them as a ‘foreign power’ anyway which just screams pathetic war analogies. My grandparents are French and Polish. I’m as much European as I am British.
However you lead with: ‘Nissan WILL expand the Sunderland plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
A rather inconsistent view given Leeds was 50.2% Remain yet counts as a Remain city whereas the UK voted 52% to Leave yet Eaton was trying to portray that as somehow false or invalid. Similarly, many in Scotland voted to Leave. He cherrypicked some English cities as though city voters are more worthwhile than town and village voters, and ignored the existence of Wales.
However you ruin it with your frothing rage about treachery and the like.
https://twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1224276566085111808?s=20
Good question...now if only we had a Labour government...
Ms Abbott suggested she is against such tougher sentencing as she tweeted a quote from, and a link to, a column published by the Guardian entitled 'locking up extremists isn't working in our cash-strapped prisons'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7746677/Diane-Abbott-signals-opposition-tougher-sentences-terror-offences.html
If I was Russian and disagreed with Putin on, say, Crimea, I would be taking the risk of being called an agent of foreign powers, perhaps even a traitor (cf Eadric's post). Is that the political culturee that Animal and eadric would like to have here? If so, I'm afraid they are profoundly un-British.
It's the Patriot's Paradox, innit?
My tiny business has been sent something from the government about trading with the EU and I am now looking at setting up an Irish company to do so. I will also start saving a bit harder so that I have money to pay for the increased price rises arising from the imposition of tariffs. Have I missed anything?
Each to their own.
Also this is the problem. The government is making no consideration for 48% of the country and expects us to fall in line or be described as traitors. Don’t think so.
*delete according to preference
Well, stuff that. The Boris fan club does not get to define patriotism or what it means to be British.
The internal combustion engine is dying but people will still have vehicles.
Cars aren't being replaced, they are being outlawed.
Nissan's plan seems perfectly credible from their perspective. The UK imports nearly 3 times as many vehicles from the EU than it exports to the EU. That's a lot of imports to the UK which will become uncompetitive in the event of tariffs, sufficient to represent quite a lucrative new market for a UK-based producer willing to use a new competitive advantage over current EU-based suppliers. Meanwhile, under the EU-Japan trade agreement reached last year, Nissan's exports to the rump EU from Japan will be tariff free by 2027. So Nissan will be able to export to EU markets directly from Japan, and will no longer need to rely on its existing factories in France and Spain to gain competitive EU market access.
Tobacco is a much better comparison. Its legal, its taxed, and usage is steadily dropping. I don't see it disappearing entirely in my lifetime, but we've gone from a society where around 50% of the population smoked in 1950 to around 10% today. Surely we should be able to go the same road with drugs.
Also, even if usage remains the same, moving the supply to legal sources would reduce deaths from supply impurities, and cut the gangs and pushers out of their main money spinner, which is hardly a tragedy.
Not least because of its role in that famous and universally popular multicultural phenomenon that is Die Hard.
American cities will continue with mass personal car owenership as that won't change.
https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1224257954460979200
https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/1224281790237548544?s=21
Not well-informed on Mexico but the last few things I saw were that the drug cartels were making it bloody horrendous.
[Going AFK for a bit].
Especially as the next general election is likely to be Starmer on a return to the single market ticket v Boris on a stick with hard Brexit, basic trade deal for goods ticket
We have clean method now of developing automobile transport and that is the future not some mythological absurdity of the end of cars.
They will be with us in five years time.
Edit: and the original poster has now admitted it's an issue with her browser, not the government website.