I don’t think that Cummings story can be true. I don’t think even Jonson is that crass. The Guardian has got it wrong.
In other news, I had my first shave in 17 days today. It feels very fine to be rid of that itch.
I'm letting mine grow a bit - takes me back to my student days.
I'm enjoying the time to think a little - a telescopic broom to encourage social distancing is one notion while I think Christmas 2020 will be the socially distant Santa in a plexiglass tube with the children kept at a distance and an elf with gloves putting a present on a table.
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
Wonder how many complaining to the press the govt weren't taking up their products have been doing exactly the same thing.
99.9999999%.....and all money upfront sight unseen, no returns.
It can't be 99.9 recurring per cent if until tonight the story was Labour and the press had been played by companies with no stock at all.
No they are the ones with product, the overwhelming delboys dont have any stock.
So it cannot be 99 per cent of all companies because maths. Though it does suggest that perhaps Labour and the press might have found some proper companies, and not just DelBoy wannabes, which was yesterday's spin line.
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits,
but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about
scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So we’ll go WTO then.
That seems to be the plan. We will have to wait to find out whether the WTO will still be there as a fallback option in the future.
I think the WTO is pretty defunct already, with Trump refusing to allow appointments to adjudication tribunals rendering them inquorate.
It will be everyone for themselves after Covid-19, equivalent to the 1930s trade wars after the Wall St Crash.
To return to an incident which received much coverage a couple of weeks ago. The Labour Mayor of Heaton was widely criticised for the comments she made re- Johnson when the latter was seriously ill , and it was reported that she had been expelled from her party and subsequently dismissed by her employer. This person was clearly very unwise to make such comments given the public position she holds - and certainly deserved to be reprimanded. However, the suggestion that she has been expelled surely cannot be accurate - the party leader does not have that power and such a decision can only be taken - after due process - by the NEC. Whether she would have a case for Unfair Dismissal from her Law firm I am not sure, but as a paralegal specialist in Employment Law she is doubtless well glued up on that matter. However, I do seriously wonder whether she would have faced such consequences had she made the same remarks in relation to Donald Trump - or Kim Yung of North Korea - or indeed the Chinese leader. If not , then it can be contended that - at least to some extent - she is herself the victim of political bias or prejudice. I can well imagine that something similar might have happened back in 2003 after the Iraq Invasion. Had someone wished ill on Blair or Bush, he or she might well have faced criticism or sanctions of various kinds. On the other hand, had the same comments been made re Saddam Hussein - or Bin Laden - very little would have been said.
With all his many and egregious faults - and I don’t think anyone could accuse me of being a Johnson fan - he is not in any way shape or form comparable to Xi, Kim, Hussein, or Bin Laden.
As for the others, I think it’s fair to heavily criticise all of them, but to wish a painful death on them is going much too far. If Donald Trump dies, I will not feel sorrow. But nor will I be celebrating.
In this case though, I think the sheer lack of judgement displayed in those remarks meant she wasn’t fit to be a solicitor. Would you want legal advice from somebody so hysterical?
I rather agree with your final paragraph - but my real point is that the consequences this person faces relate largely to whom she applied them - rather than the comments in themselves. To return to the Blair/Bush v Saddam Hussein/Bin Laden example, - whilst in the round the latter pair qualify as the most sinister - in the specific context of the 2003 Invasion, Blair and Bush can reasonably be held to have been the principal villains as the obvious aggressors.In those circumstances, to wish them both ill was morally defensible. To this day, both are widely - if not universally - viewed as War Criminals who have escaped Justice in any human sense. I stand by the view I have previously expressed here and elsewhere that - in relation to the Nuremberg Indictment related to Planning for War - Blair and Bush were more guilty than any of those arraigned at the 1945/46 Trial with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
Yes, but Justin, given the very large number of politicians you have wished physical harm on, I don’t think you’re a fully objective observer of such matters.
Doesn't it rather confirm that the Government *is* being guided by the science? Cummings is Boris' closest policy advisor. If he didn't attend SAGE but did still advise the Government that would be a bigger concern surely.
SAGE is supposed to be a panel of scientists
And Dom...
There was me, that is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, and my three droogs, that is Priti, Govey, and Dom, and we sat in the Kensington Milkbar trying to make up our Raab-oodocks what to do with the evening. The Kensington Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus chlorinated chicken or corn syrup or bleach, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old no-deal Brexit.
That's fair, although I certainly get the impression that journalists, even though they know that context, think they are a lot more trusted by the public than they are. Especially the partisan ones who think they are the only ones holding anyone to account.
We are way short of the rubbish that passes for media in the US, though. Drive around the states and the abject crap put out on American radio stations has to be heard to be believed.
What we need to encourage is the burrowing into the actual facts.
For example, Foxy has pointed out here, something that has been missed completely by the national media -
In some hospitals, there is no PPE shortage for the COVID wards, but there is a large COVID risk in the non-COVID wards. Which are sometimes short of PPE, since the COVID wards have priority.
This is a large, valid and useful story. Probably talking to x number of doctors would have revealed it. Why not?
Because of the decline of the investigative teams and weekly magazines. Transient media just interested in shouty headlines
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
Wonder how many complaining to the press the govt weren't taking up their products have been doing exactly the same thing.
99.9999999%.....and all money upfront sight unseen, no returns.
It can't be 99.9 recurring per cent if until tonight the story was Labour and the press had been played by companies with no stock at all.
No they are the ones with product, the overwhelming delboys dont have any stock.
So it cannot be 99 per cent of all companies because maths. Though it does suggest that perhaps Labour and the press might have found some proper companies, and not just DelBoy wannabes, which was yesterday's spin line.
It was "spin" at all. The claim isn't that some people don't end up getting stock, nobody denied the reality tv show property developer mentioned in the Telegraph piece did.
It is are you really going to buy from somebody like that who rings up and says give us a load of money upfront and i will get you masks in 3 weeks.
What we know is the government ask them to provide basic info like what factory and they can't because they don't know, because it is all middle man of a middle man of a middle man. Loads of countries have been caught out with fake medical gear and tests, so demanding some basic info is the least they can do.
The Labour list was particularly laughable. Nobody is going to buy ventilators of a couple of football agents.
When was the last time the Grauniad had a remarkable story.? I i mean a really remarkable story that stood up to scrutiny. This one just fell on its arse.
Is Damian Green reliable on this point? The Guardian has former Chief Scientist Sir David King and David Lidington, de facto deputy to Theresa May, saying there were no political appointees, ministers or SpAds on SAGE or its predecessors.
The talks should just end. They are entirely pointless. There will be no transition extension. There will be no FTA. We are best off preparing for the consequences of that now.
Indeed, the heady cocktail of the financial aftermath of the Coronavirus pandemic and a trade-agreement-free Brexit should make for one massive hangover.
It's pretty clear that's where we are heading to. I genuinely don't understand what benefits the government believes it will deliver over an extension, but I imagine I am in a minority on that. It will be fascinating to see how we all cope.
I guess the Government views the Coronavirus aftermath as a handy cloak for a WTO trade arrangement.
A statement that comes to mind is this: 'No Deal Brexit would have been fantastic but for Covid-19'!
Quite. If you’re tanking by double digits in 2020, WTO is a rounding figure, at worst.
The EU are going to overplay their hand yet again if they are not careful. They are playing chicken with an opponent that doesn’t care. Add in they were getting nowhere on their budget pre (!) corona, and the tables are a lot more even than a year ago.
Barnier sounded a bit non plussed today, as if he’s pressing the buttons he pressed with May and doesn’t understand why it’s not working.
Barnier is still in the stop UK succeeding at all cost mode and the EU ever since Cameron have always given the impression that they do not have to negotiate seriously as we need them more than they need us
However, the dynamics have changed and changed in a way never imagined. The EU have failed their member states over covid as each country fights for itself, hence Macron hijacking British PPE and Italy becoming seriously anti EU over lack of support
June will come and all Boris has to do is to announce we cannot agree to pay billions more into the EU, we cannot be responsible for their debts, and we cannot be restricted by Brussels and the ECJ in taking domestic UK decisions on how we deal with this economic armageddon and especially state aid and EU taxation rules
It is not where we want to be but Barnier needs to get real, or see no deal brexit occur and all the downside that would involve to the EU
Barnier no longer holds all the aces. Now is the time for him to get real
Yeah, we hold all the cards, even more so post- Coronavirus. Dream-on!
That is a glib answer to a very real issue.
I want a deal but Barnier is not recognising the real danger that come June we may well notify them we leave on WTO in accordance with the ending of transistion with no deal
Extending transistion is not permitted under UK law so in order to even do that the government would have to make a case to the country that we will have to pay billions more to the EU, be tied into their rules inhibiting our own ability to decide our tax and state aid rules in dealing with the covid aftermath, and then pass an act to agree the extension against an 80 seat majority for getting brexit done
Brexit is done. There will be no extension or FTA. One day someone will explain why this is the best option. It’s not happened yet.
Because the voters decided that the economic benefits weren’t worth the political sacrifices
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
Well let’s see where we end up and we can judge how much it’s in our interests to act in the spirit, the letter, or between the lines.
I guess that's what the world famous British sense of fairness identifies as "acting in good faith"?
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits, but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So they lied 3 years ago when they said Canada was an option
A government spokesperson said: "Expert participants often vary for each meeting according to which expertise is required. A number of representatives from government departments and No 10 attend also."
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Stranraer closed to ferries years ago, was replaced by Cairnryan. Trains still go to Stranraer (visited August 2019), but Cairnryan is the other side of the Lough.
To return to an incident which received much coverage a couple of weeks ago. The Labour Mayor of Heaton was widely criticised for the comments she made re- Johnson when the latter was seriously ill , and it was reported that she had been expelled from her party and subsequently dismissed by her employer. This person was clearly very unwise to make such comments given the public position she holds - and certainly deserved to be reprimanded. However, the suggestion that she has been expelled surely cannot be accurate - the party leader does not have that power and such a decision can only be taken - after due process - by the NEC. Whether she would have a case for Unfair Dismissal from her Law firm I am not sure, but as a paralegal specialist in Employment Law she is doubtless well glued up on that matter. However, I do seriously wonder whether she would have faced such consequences had she made the same remarks in relation to Donald Trump - or Kim Yung of North Korea - or indeed the Chinese leader. If not , then it can be contended that - at least to some extent - she is herself the victim of political bias or prejudice. I can well imagine that something similar might have happened back in 2003 after the Iraq Invasion. Had someone wished ill on Blair or Bush, he or she might well have faced criticism or sanctions of various kinds. On the other hand, had the same comments been made re Saddam Hussein - or Bin Laden - very little would have been said.
With all his many and egregious faults - and I don’t think anyone could accuse me of being a Johnson fan - he is not in any way shape or form comparable to Xi, Kim, Hussein, or Bin Laden.
As for the others, I think it’s fair to heavily criticise all of them, but to wish a painful death on them is going much too far. If Donald Trump dies, I will not feel sorrow. But nor will I be celebrating.
In this case though, I think the sheer lack of judgement displayed in those remarks meant she wasn’t fit to be a solicitor. Would you want legal advice from somebody so hysterical?
I rather agree with your final paragraph - but my real point is that the consequences this person faces relate largely to whom she applied them - rather than the comments in themselves. To return to the Blair/Bush v Saddam Hussein/Bin Laden example, - whilst in the round the latter pair qualify as the most sinister - in the specific context of the 2003 Invasion, Blair and Bush can reasonably be held to have been the principal villains as the obvious aggressors.In those circumstances, to wish them both ill was morally defensible. To this day, both are widely - if not universally - viewed as War Criminals who have escaped Justice in any human sense. I stand by the view I have previously expressed here and elsewhere that - in relation to the Nuremberg Indictment related to Planning for War - Blair and Bush were more guilty than any of those arraigned at the 1945/46 Trial with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
Yes, but Justin, given the very large number of politicians you have wished physical harm on, I don’t think you’re a fully objective observer of such matters.
I have not - in any serious sense - wished physical harm on politicians.It is one thing to state what might be the longterm observable consequences of a medical condition which someone already has - or the potential electoral benefit of an unpopular party leader experiencing a cardiac arrest - without actually wishing such things to come to pass. I can well understand,however, that my remarks may have read otherwise - and I regret having made them.
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits, but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So they lied 3 years ago when they said Canada was an option
No. A CETA style deal was on the table then, as it is now. HMG's government just failed to acknowledge what level of obligations was required to gain that level of market access.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
Well let’s see where we end up and we can judge how much it’s in our
interests to act in the spirit, the letter, or between the lines.
I guess that's what the world famous British sense of fairness identifies as "acting in good faith"?
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
That is, basically, what HMG has already signed up to with the WA.
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits, but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So they lied 3 years ago when they said Canada was an option
No. A CETA style deal was on the table then, as it is now. HMG's government just failed to acknowledge what level of obligations was required to gain that level of market access.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
That is, basically, what HMG has already signed up to with the WA.
In reality it hadn't, it was an agreement to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, the UK can and will ensure few checks between GB and NI
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
That is, basically, what HMG has already signed up to with the WA.
Not really.
Your stormtroopers won't be allowed anywhere near the UK, so bugger off.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits, but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So they lied 3 years ago when they said Canada was an option
No. A CETA style deal was on the table then, as it is now. HMG's government just failed to acknowledge what level of obligations was required to gain that level of market access.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
Well let’s see where we end up and we can judge how much it’s in our interests to act in the spirit, the letter, or between the lines.
I guess that's what the world famous British sense of fairness identifies as "acting in good faith"?
The EU is in no position whatsoever to lecture the British on fairness or good faith.
It wants to use a might makes right approach to make an example of the British in a way it wouldn't do for anyone else in the world. All because it had the temerity to leave its shitshow of a project.
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits, but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So they lied 3 years ago when they said Canada was an option
No. A CETA style deal was on the table then, as it is now. HMG's government just failed to acknowledge what level of obligations was required to gain that level of market access.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
That is, basically, what HMG has already signed up to with the WA.
In reality it hadn't, it was an agreement to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, the UK can and will ensure few checks between GB and NI
The UK had agreed to take care that VAT exempt GB/NI exports would stay in NI and not sold on to RoI to undercut Irish importers without that exemption. And it had agreed to allow the EU some measure of surveillance to ensure that system works correctly.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
That is, basically, what HMG has already signed up to with the WA.
Hmm. So the damp portakabin allocated to EU customs officials, that so lhappens to be near Larne port in deepest Protestant unionist Ulster is going to be a lovely posting for whatever poor sod of an EU personnel gets posted there, isn’t it?
The status quo will remain until something changes it. The Republic needs to make an offer the North can't refuse.
That offer has to be political and economic - it might even involve amendments to the Irish Constitution. At present, no Irish politician could make that kind of offer because they'd be turfed out but that might change.
It also requires leadership in the north willing to compromise in areas where they have been unwilling to do so.
Ultimately it will depend on the south being a far attractive proposition to the north politically and economically than it is currently and certainly has been.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
That is, basically, what HMG has already signed up to with the WA.
In reality it hadn't, it was an agreement to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, the UK can and will ensure few checks between GB and NI
The UK had agreed to take care that VAT exempt GB/NI exports would stay in NI and not sold on to RoI to undercut Irish importers without that exemption. And it had agreed to allow the EU some measure of surveillance to ensure that system works correctly.
What you going to threaten us with then? WTO? Oh hang on.....
Can’t you see how this is unravelling for Barnier et al?
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
Well let’s see where we end up and we can judge how much it’s in our interests to act in the spirit, the letter, or between the lines.
I guess that's what the world famous British sense of fairness identifies as "acting in good faith"?
The EU is in no position whatsoever to lecture the British on fairness or good faith.
It wants to use a might makes right approach to make an example of the British in a way it wouldn't do for anyone else in the world. All because it had the temerity to leave its shitshow of a project.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm going to quote George W Bush here: “Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
The reality is that while the EU has been bad, we've been fucking atrocious too. We signed up, just a few months ago, which Johnson was already PM, to a political declaration. And we've publicly decried large chunks of that declaration. If I was an EU negotiatior, I'd be feeling like the UK was Perfidious Albion.
I'm not saying the EU is blameless (they're clearly not), but the GWB quote is apposite, we're seeing the bad things they're doing while excusing ourselves. And I'm sure in Brussels they're doing it the other way around.
The status quo will remain until something changes it. The Republic needs to make an offer the North can't refuse.
That offer has to be political and economic - it might even involve amendments to the Irish Constitution. At present, no Irish politician could make that kind of offer because they'd be turfed out but that might change.
It also requires leadership in the north willing to compromise in areas where they have been unwilling to do so.
Ultimately it will depend on the south being a far attractive proposition to the north politically and economically than it is currently and certainly has been.
Most Northern Irish voters are now neither Unionist nor Nationalist, they want open borders with both Ireland and GB.
That is the whole reason the Good Friday Agreement worked, coupled with powersharing between the DUP and Sinn Fein at Stormont, enforcing direct rule from the Dail would be as damaging as direct rule from Westminster was
Care homes' soaring death rate blamed on 'reckless' order to take back Covid-19 patients
The number of Covid-19 deaths in care homes was estimated by Care England to have reached 7,500 a week ago...
...A Whitehall official told the Telegraph that the policy to offload hospital patients was designed as a “stiff broom” to free up capacity in hospitals.
But care providers on Friday accused the Government of “reckless” behaviour which had “significantly” increased the number of coronavirus deaths in care homes.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
That is, basically, what HMG has already signed up to with the WA.
In reality it hadn't, it was an agreement to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, the UK can and will ensure few checks between GB and NI
The UK had agreed to take care that VAT exempt GB/NI exports would stay in NI and not sold on to RoI to undercut Irish importers without that exemption. And it had agreed to allow the EU some measure of surveillance to ensure that system works correctly.
What you going to threaten us with then? WTO? Oh hang on.....
Can’t you see how this is unravelling for Barnier et al?
The EU is not threatening anything. What may unravel is a significant part of the RoI economy. They will have to bear the brunt of the damage initially (and we will have to support them).
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
Well let’s see where we end up and we can judge how much it’s in our interests to act in the spirit, the letter, or between the lines.
I guess that's what the world famous British sense of fairness identifies as "acting in good faith"?
The EU is in no position whatsoever to lecture the British on fairness or good faith.
It wants to use a might makes right approach to make an example of the British in a way it wouldn't do for anyone else in the world. All because it had the temerity to leave its shitshow of a project.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm going to quote George W Bush here: “Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
The reality is that while the EU has been bad, we've been fucking atrocious too. We signed up, just a few months ago, which Johnson was already PM, to a political declaration. And we've publicly decried large chunks of that declaration. If I was an EU negotiatior, I'd be feeling like the UK was Perfidious Albion.
I'm not saying the EU is blameless (they're clearly not), but the GWB quote is apposite, we're seeing the bad things they're doing while excusing ourselves. And I'm sure in Brussels they're doing it the other way around.
It's not a very encouraging start.
It’s a complete shitshow all round. There’s no trust on either side and both sides have some grounds for their belief (the EU rather more than the UK).
There is no situation so bad that Brexit can’t make worse.
The media are going to whip themselves into a massive frenzy over the boogeyman.
PM's top advisor sits on committee that advises the PM - and this is somehow news?
The only news here, is that certain sections of the media, and certain sections of the senior civil service, really don't like the guy irrespective of his actions.
What a c**t Piers Morgan is. 20,000 people dead, and he is not even trying to hide his glee that there might be a Gotcha! moment in who attends a committee on how Govt. addresses the issue of stopping 20,000 more.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
In a REAL election in 2019, more Nationalist MPs were elected than Unionist MPs. In another REAL election in 2019, Unionists won only ONE out of three EU Parliament seats (though of course the latter are no longer sitting!).
That is the whole reason the Good Friday Agreement worked, coupled with powersharing between the DUP and Sinn Fein at Stormont, enforcing direct rule from the Dail would be as damaging as direct rule from Westminster was
Agreed so the offer would be less than full incorporation into the Republic and more than the status quo. If the Republic could offer lower taxes, better welfare, open borders and a considerable level of autonomy (and this would be after the death of the current Queen) I just wonder...
Another possibility is Ulster as a kind of co-dominion between Dublin and London, part of both and ruled by neither with its status guaranteed by both under a binding treaty with an independent arbitration process for disputes.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
That is, basically, what HMG has already signed up to with the WA.
In reality it hadn't, it was an agreement to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, the UK can and will ensure few checks between GB and NI
The UK had agreed to take care that VAT exempt GB/NI exports would stay in NI and not sold on to RoI to undercut Irish importers without that exemption. And it had agreed to allow the EU some measure of surveillance to ensure that system works correctly.
What you going to threaten us with then? WTO? Oh hang on.....
Can’t you see how this is unravelling for Barnier et al?
The EU is not threatening anything. What may unravel is a significant part of the RoI economy. They will have to bear the brunt of the damage initially (and we will have to support them).
Bollocks! It’s spends its life threatening. Politely of course, but nevertheless threatening. Ireland will be your problem, and theirs then if it goes wrong.
Of course the EU could adopt a more accommodating stance towards us, singularly lacking since 2015.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
What are the EU going to do? Send bureaucrats to Liverpool and Belfast to ensure they are enforced?
In a REAL election in 2019, more Nationalist MPs were elected than Unionist MPs. In another REAL election in 2019, Unionists won only ONE out of three EU Parliament seats (though of course the latter are no longer sitting!).
So bloody what.
The DUP are still the largest party in Northern Ireland with most MPs and MLAs and Unionist parties combined won more votes than Nationalist parties
That is the whole reason the Good Friday Agreement worked, coupled with powersharing between the DUP and Sinn Fein at Stormont, enforcing direct rule from the Dail would be as damaging as direct rule from Westminster was
Agreed so the offer would be less than full incorporation into the Republic and more than the status quo. If the Republic could offer lower taxes, better welfare, open borders and a considerable level of autonomy (and this would be after the death of the current Queen) I just wonder...
Another possibility is Ulster as a kind of co-dominion between Dublin and London, part of both and ruled by neither with its status guaranteed by both under a binding treaty with an independent arbitration process for disputes.
The latter is a possibility and would certainly be less likely to provoke revolt in Antrim than the former
Two stories which at least have knocked the testing site meltdown off the front pages, so there's that.
Thanks very much for pointing out the C4 Scientists' programme the other evening by the way - undoubtedly the best television output so far discussing the pandemic.
When was the last time the Grauniad had a remarkable story.? I i mean a really remarkable story that stood up to scrutiny. This one just fell on its arse.
Is Damian Green reliable on this point? The Guardian has former Chief Scientist Sir David King and David Lidington, de facto deputy to Theresa May, saying there were no political appointees, ministers or SpAds on SAGE or its predecessors.
They are both right...
It’s the difference between observing, attending, and being a member of
The devolved CMOs were observers The PM/his representatives are attendees
Comments
I'm enjoying the time to think a little - a telescopic broom to encourage social distancing is one notion while I think Christmas 2020 will be the socially distant Santa in a plexiglass tube with the children kept at a distance and an elf with gloves putting a present on a table.
I can see it all now....
It is are you really going to buy from somebody like that who rings up and says give us a load of money upfront and i will get you masks in 3 weeks.
What we know is the government ask them to provide basic info like what factory and they can't because they don't know, because it is all middle man of a middle man of a middle man. Loads of countries have been caught out with fake medical gear and tests, so demanding some basic info is the least they can do.
The Labour list was particularly laughable. Nobody is going to buy ventilators of a couple of football agents.
How can that be unclear?!
You may think there will be Irish reunification, Northern Irish voters certainly do not
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGJH_-S_MGs
A government spokesperson said: "Expert participants often vary for each meeting according to which expertise is required. A number of representatives from government departments and No 10 attend also."
You have the perfect word for it - Realpolitik
This crisis makes it, funnily enough, even more economically essential for the UK and EU to agree one but also politically easy to play hardball.
Your stormtroopers won't be allowed anywhere near the UK, so bugger off.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results/northern_ireland
It wants to use a might makes right approach to make an example of the British in a way it wouldn't do for anyone else in the world. All because it had the temerity to leave its shitshow of a project.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
b) Unionists won only 8 out of 18 seats. Nationalists won 9 (Alliance won the 18th).
That offer has to be political and economic - it might even involve amendments to the Irish Constitution. At present, no Irish politician could make that kind of offer because they'd be turfed out but that might change.
It also requires leadership in the north willing to compromise in areas where they have been unwilling to do so.
Ultimately it will depend on the south being a far attractive proposition to the north politically and economically than it is currently and certainly has been.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Can’t you see how this is unravelling for Barnier et al?
The reality is that while the EU has been bad, we've been fucking atrocious too. We signed up, just a few months ago, which Johnson was already PM, to a political declaration. And we've publicly decried large chunks of that declaration. If I was an EU negotiatior, I'd be feeling like the UK was Perfidious Albion.
I'm not saying the EU is blameless (they're clearly not), but the GWB quote is apposite, we're seeing the bad things they're doing while excusing ourselves. And I'm sure in Brussels they're doing it the other way around.
It's not a very encouraging start.
That is the whole reason the Good Friday Agreement worked, coupled with powersharing between the DUP and Sinn Fein at Stormont, enforcing direct rule from the Dail would be as damaging as direct rule from Westminster was
The number of Covid-19 deaths in care homes was estimated by Care England to have reached 7,500 a week ago...
...A Whitehall official told the Telegraph that the policy to offload hospital patients was designed as a “stiff broom” to free up capacity in hospitals.
But care providers on Friday accused the Government of “reckless” behaviour which had “significantly” increased the number of coronavirus deaths in care homes.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1253793072737062914
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI
There is no situation so bad that Brexit can’t make worse.
The only news here, is that certain sections of the media, and certain sections of the senior civil service, really don't like the guy irrespective of his actions.
In another REAL election in 2019, Unionists won only ONE out of three EU Parliament seats (though of course the latter are no longer sitting!).
Another possibility is Ulster as a kind of co-dominion between Dublin and London, part of both and ruled by neither with its status guaranteed by both under a binding treaty with an independent arbitration process for disputes.
NEW THREAD
Of course the EU could adopt a more accommodating stance towards us, singularly lacking since 2015.
If not the dice will be cast.
The DUP are still the largest party in Northern Ireland with most MPs and MLAs and Unionist parties combined won more votes than Nationalist parties
It’s the difference between observing, attending, and being a member of
The devolved CMOs were observers
The PM/his representatives are attendees
Neither are members (or “on”) SAGE