Dishwashers (down from 2.7%) Freezers (down from 2.5%) Sanitary products and tampons (down from 6.3%) Paints (down from 6.5%) and screwdrivers (down from 2.7%) Mirrors (down from 4%) Scissors and garden shears (down from 4.7%) Padlocks (down from 2.7%) Cooking products such as baking powder (down from 6.1%), yeast (down from 12%), bay leaves (down from 7%), ground thyme (down from 8.5%) and cocoa powder (down from 8%) Christmas trees (down from 2.5%)
Most of these are easily within the range of currency fluctuation, and of course apply to the delivered cost, not the retail price - so anyone who think's they're going to get fiver off their £200 dishwasher is in for a disappointment. I wish people would stop fetishising "trade deals" and focus more on educating a work force "to make the stuff the world actually wants".
This seems an odd step. As you say these tariffs are not particularly an inhibition to trade but they will certainly be an inhibition to a free trade agreement with the EU. They cannot have a situation where goods that should bear such tariffs can be imported tariff free to the UK and then have free access to the EU. It therefore seems to be a ploy to make a FTA with the EU more difficult at a time when the negotiations are already struggling. Unhelpful.
Quite the opposite - it will make a prompt deal more attractive.
"But tariffs will remain on UK-produced cars - at 10% - and on agricultural products including lamb, beef and butter at their current levels, following concerns that these industries could be decimated by Brexit.
These new tariffs will be applied to trade with any country with which the UK has not negotiated a trade deal by the time the transition period ends on 31 December."
Don't understand the reference to UK-produced cars. If that is supposed to be non UK produced cars we are presumably saying that would apply to EU cars in the absence of a trade deal?
Its badly phrased, whoever wrote that but I understand what they were trying to say.
What they're trying to say is that goods we don't produce (dishwashers etc) are going to be permitted tariff-free, but goods we produce ourselves like cars will see tariffs for that sector.
So we are discouraging the manufacture of dishwashers in this country. Why? We urgently need import substitution to reduce our trade deficit.
Ive been saying that for years
You have indeed. And you are right. We cannot restrict our production to what we produce now. Bluntly, we just don't produce nearly enough to pay for our current standard of living.
I too like the idea of more self-sufficiency. But I'm not sure replacing cheap imports with expensive homegrown goods leads to a sustainable rise in our living standards.
Everything is a matter of degree but for the last 20 years these "cheap imports" have caused us to run a serious trade deficit with the result that we have switched from a creditor nation receiving more income from abroad than repatriated profits to a debtor nation where other countries own more and more of our assets and charge us rent for their use. In the longer term this will diminish the standard of living in this country. Indeed, it already has. So the true cost of "cheap imports" is much higher than it appears.
If we were finding better things to do than make these imports and were able to sell our skills abroad it would not matter. I don't have a particular fetish about manufacturing. But the sad truth is we don't, not by a long way. So we either accept a falling standard of living or we do something about it. Import substitution is one obvious way to address the problem but we need to improve investment, reduce consumption, improve training, education, productivity and our attitude towards engineers and applied scientists. Governments of all shades have failed to address this since the 70s. It is increasingly urgent.
I do agree with much of what you say here. But classic trade theory says that if things are made where it is cheapest to do so, it leads to an optimum material result for the whole. Of course this neglects incredibly important issues such as wealth distribution and environmental concerns. But that is the theory driving globalization and I believe it is widely accepted to be true. Meaning that if the process is reversed the world will be the (materially) poorer for it. Perhaps we can get richer in a world getting poorer, as opposed to (as now) getting poorer in one getting richer - talking relative rather than absolute - but my sense is it will be a big ask.
As I have said before free trade and the laws of comparative advantage worked very well for us when we were the machine shop of the world. When China has that title it may not work as well. Sure, overall, over 1m Chinese have been lifted out of poverty but this is not necessarily good for us or indeed western liberal values.
The second legend is that tariff driven beggar my neighbour policies caused the great depression in the early 1930s. It certainly didn't help although tariffs were much higher then but there were many more important causes. Domestic monetary policy (particularly in the US) and adherence to the gold standard caused much bigger problems.
I do think that we need to rethink some of this. I accept that this involves careful consideration of who our true friends are and that Brexit was not necessarily consistent with that.
Free trade and competitive advantage should benefit all parties, not just one, according to Ricardian economics.
The issue isn't competitive advantage, its that we've gone decades now without reaching an equilibrium. Under competitive advantage we should specialise in what we're relatively good at and export that - but the problem is we're importing lots and what are we specialising in to balance those imports?
We have a stonking offering in the money laundering space.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
That's a shame. But we'll enjoy more in other areas.
Not as individual citizens or businesses.
Yes as individuals. There is no freedom more important for an individual than the freedom to elect those who set your laws. Or the freedom to replace those who do it badly and get it reversed which is just as important and forgotten about by pro-Europeans.
Dishwashers (down from 2.7%) Freezers (down from 2.5%) Sanitary products and tampons (down from 6.3%) Paints (down from 6.5%) and screwdrivers (down from 2.7%) Mirrors (down from 4%) Scissors and garden shears (down from 4.7%) Padlocks (down from 2.7%) Cooking products such as baking powder (down from 6.1%), yeast (down from 12%), bay leaves (down from 7%), ground thyme (down from 8.5%) and cocoa powder (down from 8%) Christmas trees (down from 2.5%)
Most of these are easily within the range of currency fluctuation, and of course apply to the delivered cost, not the retail price - so anyone who think's they're going to get fiver off their £200 dishwasher is in for a disappointment. I wish people would stop fetishising "trade deals" and focus more on educating a work force "to make the stuff the world actually wants".
This seems an odd step. As you say these tariffs are not particularly an inhibition to trade but they will certainly be an inhibition to a free trade agreement with the EU. They cannot have a situation where goods that should bear such tariffs can be imported tariff free to the UK and then have free access to the EU. It therefore seems to be a ploy to make a FTA with the EU more difficult at a time when the negotiations are already struggling. Unhelpful.
Quite the opposite - it will make a prompt deal more attractive.
"But tariffs will remain on UK-produced cars - at 10% - and on agricultural products including lamb, beef and butter at their current levels, following concerns that these industries could be decimated by Brexit.
These new tariffs will be applied to trade with any country with which the UK has not negotiated a trade deal by the time the transition period ends on 31 December."
Don't understand the reference to UK-produced cars. If that is supposed to be non UK produced cars we are presumably saying that would apply to EU cars in the absence of a trade deal?
Its badly phrased, whoever wrote that but I understand what they were trying to say.
What they're trying to say is that goods we don't produce (dishwashers etc) are going to be permitted tariff-free, but goods we produce ourselves like cars will see tariffs for that sector.
So we are discouraging the manufacture of dishwashers in this country. Why? We urgently need import substitution to reduce our trade deficit.
Ive been saying that for years
You have indeed. And you are right. We cannot restrict our production to what we produce now. Bluntly, we just don't produce nearly enough to pay for our current standard of living.
I too like the idea of more self-sufficiency. But I'm not sure replacing cheap imports with expensive homegrown goods leads to a sustainable rise in our living standards.
Everything is a matter of degree but for the last 20 years these "cheap imports" have caused us to run a serious trade deficit with the result that we have switched from a creditor nation receiving more income from abroad than repatriated profits to a debtor nation where other countries own more and more of our assets and charge us rent for their use. In the longer term this will diminish the standard of living in this country. Indeed, it already has. So the true cost of "cheap imports" is much higher than it appears.
If we were finding better things to do than make these imports and were able to sell our skills abroad it would not matter. I don't have a particular fetish about manufacturing. But the sad truth is we don't, not by a long way. So we either accept a falling standard of living or we do something about it. Import substitution is one obvious way to address the problem but we need to improve investment, reduce consumption, improve training, education, productivity and our attitude towards engineers and applied scientists. Governments of all shades have failed to address this since the 70s. It is increasingly urgent.
I do agree with much of what you say here. But classic trade theory says that if things are made where it is cheapest to do so, it leads to an optimum material result for the whole. Of course this neglects incredibly important issues such as wealth distribution and environmental concerns. But that is the theory driving globalization and I believe it is widely accepted to be true. Meaning that if the process is reversed the world will be the (materially) poorer for it. Perhaps we can get richer in a world getting poorer, as opposed to (as now) getting poorer in one getting richer - talking relative rather than absolute - but my sense is it will be a big ask.
As I have said before free trade and the laws of comparative advantage worked very well for us when we were the machine shop of the world. When China has that title it may not work as well. Sure, overall, over 1m Chinese have been lifted out of poverty but this is not necessarily good for us or indeed western liberal values.
The second legend is that tariff driven beggar my neighbour policies caused the great depression in the early 1930s. It certainly didn't help although tariffs were much higher then but there were many more important causes. Domestic monetary policy (particularly in the US) and adherence to the gold standard caused much bigger problems.
I do think that we need to rethink some of this. I accept that this involves careful consideration of who our true friends are and that Brexit was not necessarily consistent with that.
Free trade and competitive advantage should benefit all parties, not just one, according to Ricardian economics.
The issue isn't competitive advantage, its that we've gone decades now without reaching an equilibrium. Under competitive advantage we should specialise in what we're relatively good at and export that - but the problem is we're importing lots and what are we specialising in to balance those imports?
We have a stonking offering in the money laundering space.
Then we should make sure we ensure that works for us then
Dishwashers (down from 2.7%) Freezers (down from 2.5%) Sanitary products and tampons (down from 6.3%) Paints (down from 6.5%) and screwdrivers (down from 2.7%) Mirrors (down from 4%) Scissors and garden shears (down from 4.7%) Padlocks (down from 2.7%) Cooking products such as baking powder (down from 6.1%), yeast (down from 12%), bay leaves (down from 7%), ground thyme (down from 8.5%) and cocoa powder (down from 8%) Christmas trees (down from 2.5%)
Most of these are easily within the range of currency fluctuation, and of course apply to the delivered cost, not the retail price - so anyone who think's they're going to get fiver off their £200 dishwasher is in for a disappointment. I wish people would stop fetishising "trade deals" and focus more on educating a work force "to make the stuff the world actually wants".
This seems an odd step. As you say these tariffs are not particularly an inhibition to trade but they will certainly be an inhibition to a free trade agreement with the EU. They cannot have a situation where goods that should bear such tariffs can be imported tariff free to the UK and then have free access to the EU. It therefore seems to be a ploy to make a FTA with the EU more difficult at a time when the negotiations are already struggling. Unhelpful.
Quite the opposite - it will make a prompt deal more attractive.
"But tariffs will remain on UK-produced cars - at 10% - and on agricultural products including lamb, beef and butter at their current levels, following concerns that these industries could be decimated by Brexit.
These new tariffs will be applied to trade with any country with which the UK has not negotiated a trade deal by the time the transition period ends on 31 December."
Don't understand the reference to UK-produced cars. If that is supposed to be non UK produced cars we are presumably saying that would apply to EU cars in the absence of a trade deal?
Its badly phrased, whoever wrote that but I understand what they were trying to say.
What they're trying to say is that goods we don't produce (dishwashers etc) are going to be permitted tariff-free, but goods we produce ourselves like cars will see tariffs for that sector.
So we are discouraging the manufacture of dishwashers in this country. Why? We urgently need import substitution to reduce our trade deficit.
Ive been saying that for years
You have indeed. And you are right. We cannot restrict our production to what we produce now. Bluntly, we just don't produce nearly enough to pay for our current standard of living.
I too like the idea of more self-sufficiency. But I'm not sure replacing cheap imports with expensive homegrown goods leads to a sustainable rise in our living standards.
Everything is a matter of degree but for the last 20 years these "cheap imports" have caused us to run a serious trade deficit with the result that we have switched from a creditor nation receiving more income from abroad than repatriated profits to a debtor nation where other countries own more and more of our assets and charge us rent for their use. In the longer term this will diminish the standard of living in this country. Indeed, it already has. So the true cost of "cheap imports" is much higher than it appears.
If we were finding better things to do than make these imports and were able to sell our skills abroad it would not matter. I don't have a particular fetish about manufacturing. But the sad truth is we don't, not by a long way. So we either accept a falling standard of living or we do something about it. Import substitution is one obvious way to address the problem but we need to improve investment, reduce consumption, improve training, education, productivity and our attitude towards engineers and applied scientists. Governments of all shades have failed to address this since the 70s. It is increasingly urgent.
I do agree with much of what you say here. But classic trade theory says that if things are made where it is cheapest to do so, it leads to an optimum material result for the whole. Of course this neglects incredibly important issues such as wealth distribution and environmental concerns. But that is the theory driving globalization and I believe it is widely accepted to be true. Meaning that if the process is reversed the world will be the (materially) poorer for it. Perhaps we can get richer in a world getting poorer, as opposed to (as now) getting poorer in one getting richer - talking relative rather than absolute - but my sense is it will be a big ask.
As I have said before free trade and the laws of comparative advantage worked very well for us when we were the machine shop of the world. When China has that title it may not work as well. Sure, overall, over 1m Chinese have been lifted out of poverty but this is not necessarily good for us or indeed western liberal values.
The second legend is that tariff driven beggar my neighbour policies caused the great depression in the early 1930s. It certainly didn't help although tariffs were much higher then but there were many more important causes. Domestic monetary policy (particularly in the US) and adherence to the gold standard caused much bigger problems.
I do think that we need to rethink some of this. I accept that this involves careful consideration of who our true friends are and that Brexit was not necessarily consistent with that.
Typo, I think. One billion Chinese. But, yes, at a cost to us. Or to some of us at least. Others here have benefited greatly. Have enough people here benefited? Have many of those outside privileged locations and sectors benefited? No and no. I totally get that. Part of Brexit. Misguided, IMO, but the more PC side of the argument for it.
Re last para, when "Trump's America" reverts on Nov 4th to "America" it will hopefully become a little clearer how in general we should align. Right now, when I look at China and the US, I feel like one of Orwell's creatures looking from man to pig, and from pig to man ...
You're right about the billion of course. The USA returning to the body of civilised nations would of course help although Biden does not strike me as much of a visionary.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
That's a shame. But we'll enjoy more in other areas.
Not as individual citizens or businesses.
Yes as individuals. There is no freedom more important for an individual than the freedom to elect those who set your laws. Or the freedom to replace those who do it badly and get it reversed which is just as important and forgotten about by pro-Europeans.
When will Scotland be Free.
Were all asking that, it costs us a fortune :-)
Most parts of England are bigger spongers off London's money than Scotland is. And yet we have to come begging to the UK govt to get our money back to fund TfL.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters, control your won borders, reduce VAT rates to suit yourself, CE marking, control social security, public procurement, set international tariffs, legal jurisdiction, cross border taxation, straight bananas.
Fish your own waters: the UK government (of its own volition) sold the rights to EU fisherman with no mechanism for taking the licences back. The EU fishermen now have loans from UK banks secured against the rights so there is no means of recovering them without cuasing commerical harm. But it can be done whether a member or not. Will the UK have the same sway to do so as an ex-member as it would have had as a contributing member - thats a good question?
UK VAT rates differ to the UK in absolute terms and by product and service - it sounds like they can be set to suit the UK.
CE Marking is an international standard: UK manufactuers will keep it even after Brexit to sell into that market. Member or not the UK has to play by the rules.
What does control Social Security mean? The UK uses NI, in Germany they have insurance companies for example, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
The UK today published a set of international tarrifs copy and pasted from the ones already used by the EU. Also as a member of the EU council the UK had the right to infuence the rates of the entire continent. Now it will be a rule taker from the trade deal it signs or from the WHO - which one is better?
What does legal jurisdiction mean? The UK has different laws to the rest of the EU, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
What does cross border taxation mean? The UK is missing the right to lay claim to all income earned by UK citizens as the US does?
Straight bananas - try and stay serious.
Look we had this debate in 2016.
You lost.
And I think the leave arguments in 2016 were argued with just about that same level of articulation.
Still at least you had a bus with a big promise and a poster with a nice message:
None of which gets you lot off the hook for the false arguments before and now and the economic vandalism currently underway. I for one will spend the rest of my life nailing leavers to the wall for their utter credulity and deceit. Its a right I'm pleased to have maintained.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
You, of course, are losing no freedoms.
Arguable.
But I don't worry too much about the theoretical ones. Brexit was largely an exercise in the people who ran the country in their own interest getting a vote of no confidence from the rest.
And them replacing them with another group of people who run the country in their own interest. Seems an awful lot of effort for an illusory result.
Then you should avoid politics. The same bunch of people increasingly run things, that's one of the major problems the UK is facing.
plus ca change etc.
If you believe there was ever much variation in who runs things.....
We have a new Upper 10,000 - just this lot think they are entitled by virtue of... being virtuous.
Unlike the old lot, who thought that they got entitlement from their... titles.
The English middle classes have swapped Hyancinth Bucket for Harriet Harman
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters,
That is fucking great. I'll get my stern trawler out this weekend.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
People lived and retired in France and Spain before we joined the EU. Non EU nationals stills do.
But they had no automatic right to do so. The freedom of Brits to live and retire in France and Spain was, and will once again be subject to the whim of others.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
That's a shame. But we'll enjoy more in other areas.
Not as individual citizens or businesses.
Yes as individuals. There is no freedom more important for an individual than the freedom to elect those who set your laws. Or the freedom to replace those who do it badly and get it reversed which is just as important and forgotten about by pro-Europeans.
When will Scotland be Free.
Were all asking that, it costs us a fortune :-)
Most parts of England are bigger spongers off London's money than Scotland is. And yet we have to come begging to the UK govt to get our money back to fund TfL.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
That's a shame. But we'll enjoy more in other areas.
Not as individual citizens or businesses.
Yes as individuals. There is no freedom more important for an individual than the freedom to elect those who set your laws. Or the freedom to replace those who do it badly and get it reversed which is just as important and forgotten about by pro-Europeans.
When will Scotland be Free.
Were all asking that, it costs us a fortune :-)
Not as much as Nortern Ireland...
You have to pay top whack for quality and Remainers just wont let the place go.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters,
That is fucking great. I'll get my stern trawler out this weekend.
Whatever floats your boat Pugwash
As established, the fishing rights have been sold to Spanish, French and Dutch fishermen and they are not coming back. They may lease them back to UK fishermen but the UK government sold the rights and there is no mechanism for their return.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
yes , elite and entitled sent up to support the Raj
Sent up? Her father was a Scottish advocate who lived all his life in Scotland before becoming a politician. She would presumably have been brought up here.
Just another establishment unionist sent up to sneer at the peasants David.
She is No True Scotswoman.
Just a LabaTory, got carried away last night and was just too blatantly nasty re the FM and had to put out a feeble uncontrite apology.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
But but but you now have a blue passport.
Where I'm shoving it you won't be able to see what colour it is, believe me.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters, control your won borders, reduce VAT rates to suit yourself, CE marking, control social security, public procurement, set international tariffs, legal jurisdiction, cross border taxation, straight bananas.
Fish your own waters: the UK government (of its own volition) sold the rights to EU fisherman with no mechanism for taking the licences back. The EU fishermen now have loans from UK banks secured against the rights so there is no means of recovering them without cuasing commerical harm. But it can be done whether a member or not. Will the UK have the same sway to do so as an ex-member as it would have had as a contributing member - thats a good question?
UK VAT rates differ to the UK in absolute terms and by product and service - it sounds like they can be set to suit the UK.
CE Marking is an international standard: UK manufactuers will keep it even after Brexit to sell into that market. Member or not the UK has to play by the rules.
What does control Social Security mean? The UK uses NI, in Germany they have insurance companies for example, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
The UK today published a set of international tarrifs copy and pasted from the ones already used by the EU. Also as a member of the EU council the UK had the right to infuence the rates of the entire continent. Now it will be a rule taker from the trade deal it signs or from the WHO - which one is better?
What does legal jurisdiction mean? The UK has different laws to the rest of the EU, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
What does cross border taxation mean? The UK is missing the right to lay claim to all income earned by UK citizens as the US does?
Straight bananas - try and stay serious.
Look we had this debate in 2016.
You lost.
And I think the leave arguments in 2016 were argued with just about that same level of articulation.
Still at least you had a bus with a big promise and a poster with a nice message:
None of which gets you lot off the hook for the false arguments before and now and the economic vandalism currently underway. I for one will spend the rest of my life nailing leavers to the wall for their utter credulity and deceit. Its a right I'm pleased to have maintained.
I hope that works for you. You don't mind if the rest of us carry on with something more productive do you?
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters, control your won borders, reduce VAT rates to suit yourself, CE marking, control social security, public procurement, set international tariffs, legal jurisdiction, cross border taxation, straight bananas.
Fish your own waters: the UK government (of its own volition) sold the rights to EU fisherman with no mechanism for taking the licences back. The EU fishermen now have loans from UK banks secured against the rights so there is no means of recovering them without cuasing commerical harm. But it can be done whether a member or not. Will the UK have the same sway to do so as an ex-member as it would have had as a contributing member - thats a good question?
UK VAT rates differ to the UK in absolute terms and by product and service - it sounds like they can be set to suit the UK.
CE Marking is an international standard: UK manufactuers will keep it even after Brexit to sell into that market. Member or not the UK has to play by the rules.
What does control Social Security mean? The UK uses NI, in Germany they have insurance companies for example, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
The UK today published a set of international tarrifs copy and pasted from the ones already used by the EU. Also as a member of the EU council the UK had the right to infuence the rates of the entire continent. Now it will be a rule taker from the trade deal it signs or from the WHO - which one is better?
What does legal jurisdiction mean? The UK has different laws to the rest of the EU, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
What does cross border taxation mean? The UK is missing the right to lay claim to all income earned by UK citizens as the US does?
Straight bananas - try and stay serious.
Look we had this debate in 2016.
You lost.
True, but maybe it was because of people talking bollocks like 'straight bananas'.
I refer you to Andrew Tyrie when Boris was in front of the Treasury Select Committee and coming out with this nonsense: "All very interesting, Boris. Except none of it is really true, is it?"
If you keep making stuff up, enough people will believe it. I give you Trump as an example.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters, control your won borders, reduce VAT rates to suit yourself, CE marking, control social security, public procurement, set international tariffs, legal jurisdiction, cross border taxation, straight bananas.
Fish your own waters: the UK government (of its own volition) sold the rights to EU fisherman with no mechanism for taking the licences back. The EU fishermen now have loans from UK banks secured against the rights so there is no means of recovering them without cuasing commerical harm. But it can be done whether a member or not. Will the UK have the same sway to do so as an ex-member as it would have had as a contributing member - thats a good question?
UK VAT rates differ to the UK in absolute terms and by product and service - it sounds like they can be set to suit the UK.
CE Marking is an international standard: UK manufactuers will keep it even after Brexit to sell into that market. Member or not the UK has to play by the rules.
What does control Social Security mean? The UK uses NI, in Germany they have insurance companies for example, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
The UK today published a set of international tarrifs copy and pasted from the ones already used by the EU. Also as a member of the EU council the UK had the right to infuence the rates of the entire continent. Now it will be a rule taker from the trade deal it signs or from the WHO - which one is better?
What does legal jurisdiction mean? The UK has different laws to the rest of the EU, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
What does cross border taxation mean? The UK is missing the right to lay claim to all income earned by UK citizens as the US does?
Straight bananas - try and stay serious.
Look we had this debate in 2016.
You lost.
I like to think we won the argument, just lost the vote (like Labour)
But they had no automatic right to do so. The freedom of Brits to live and retire in France and Spain was, and will once again be subject to the whim of others.
You mean of course the whim of French and Spanish people. Why shouldn't they have that right?
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
People lived and retired in France and Spain before we joined the EU. Non EU nationals stills do.
But they had no automatic right to do so. The freedom of Brits to live and retire in France and Spain was, and will once again be subject to the whim of others.
if you think the local Mairie isn't run on a whim let me disabuse you.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
You, of course, are losing no freedoms.
Arguable.
But I don't worry too much about the theoretical ones. Brexit was largely an exercise in the people who ran the country in their own interest getting a vote of no confidence from the rest.
And them replacing them with another group of people who run the country in their own interest. Seems an awful lot of effort for an illusory result.
Then you should avoid politics. The same bunch of people increasingly run things, that's one of the major problems the UK is facing.
plus ca change etc.
If you believe there was ever much variation in who runs things.....
We have a new Upper 10,000 - just this lot think they are entitled by virtue of... being virtuous.
Unlike the old lot, who thought that they got entitlement from their... titles.
The English middle classes have swapped Hyancinth Bucket for Harriet Harman
I thought Hyancinth Bucket *was* Harriet Harman?
Remarkably tin eared I think. Harman is quite posh, a point often made on here by types trying to make obscure and ineffectual points about lefty hypocrisy, Hyyacinth only wanted to be posh, with 'hilarious' results.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters, control your won borders, reduce VAT rates to suit yourself, CE marking, control social security, public procurement, set international tariffs, legal jurisdiction, cross border taxation, straight bananas.
Fish your own waters: the UK government (of its own volition) sold the rights to EU fisherman with no mechanism for taking the licences back. The EU fishermen now have loans from UK banks secured against the rights so there is no means of recovering them without cuasing commerical harm. But it can be done whether a member or not. Will the UK have the same sway to do so as an ex-member as it would have had as a contributing member - thats a good question?
UK VAT rates differ to the UK in absolute terms and by product and service - it sounds like they can be set to suit the UK.
CE Marking is an international standard: UK manufactuers will keep it even after Brexit to sell into that market. Member or not the UK has to play by the rules.
What does control Social Security mean? The UK uses NI, in Germany they have insurance companies for example, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
The UK today published a set of international tarrifs copy and pasted from the ones already used by the EU. Also as a member of the EU council the UK had the right to infuence the rates of the entire continent. Now it will be a rule taker from the trade deal it signs or from the WHO - which one is better?
What does legal jurisdiction mean? The UK has different laws to the rest of the EU, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
What does cross border taxation mean? The UK is missing the right to lay claim to all income earned by UK citizens as the US does?
Straight bananas - try and stay serious.
Look we had this debate in 2016.
You lost.
And I think the leave arguments in 2016 were argued with just about that same level of articulation.
Still at least you had a bus with a big promise and a poster with a nice message:
None of which gets you lot off the hook for the false arguments before and now and the economic vandalism currently underway. I for one will spend the rest of my life nailing leavers to the wall for their utter credulity and deceit. Its a right I'm pleased to have maintained.
I hope that works for you. You don't mind if the rest of us carry on with something more productive do you?
Like doing a Sudoku while wating at the job centre?
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters, control your won borders, reduce VAT rates to suit yourself, CE marking, control social security, public procurement, set international tariffs, legal jurisdiction, cross border taxation, straight bananas.
Fish your own waters: the UK government (of its own volition) sold the rights to EU fisherman with no mechanism for taking the licences back. The EU fishermen now have loans from UK banks secured against the rights so there is no means of recovering them without cuasing commerical harm. But it can be done whether a member or not. Will the UK have the same sway to do so as an ex-member as it would have had as a contributing member - thats a good question?
UK VAT rates differ to the UK in absolute terms and by product and service - it sounds like they can be set to suit the UK.
CE Marking is an international standard: UK manufactuers will keep it even after Brexit to sell into that market. Member or not the UK has to play by the rules.
What does control Social Security mean? The UK uses NI, in Germany they have insurance companies for example, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
The UK today published a set of international tarrifs copy and pasted from the ones already used by the EU. Also as a member of the EU council the UK had the right to infuence the rates of the entire continent. Now it will be a rule taker from the trade deal it signs or from the WHO - which one is better?
What does legal jurisdiction mean? The UK has different laws to the rest of the EU, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
What does cross border taxation mean? The UK is missing the right to lay claim to all income earned by UK citizens as the US does?
Straight bananas - try and stay serious.
Look we had this debate in 2016.
You lost.
I like to think we won the argument, just lost the vote (like Labour)
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
yes , elite and entitled sent up to support the Raj
Sent up? Her father was a Scottish advocate who lived all his life in Scotland before becoming a politician. She would presumably have been brought up here.
Born in Edinburgh, went to Glasgow University, joined BBC Scotland, posts in Ulster, London, Washington - returned to Edinburgh in 2014.
Just another establishment unionist up to remind the natives they are just plebs for Westminster. Lady Haw Haw in Scotland working for the State Propaganda Unit and part of the Raj that overlords Scotland.
Just curious: how many generations does one's family have to have lived there for, before you accept them as Scottish?
Or is it an ethnicity thing?
You thick dunderheided idiot, where did I say she was not Scottish. She was London based , part of the political elite establishmentand was sent up as a token uncle Tom to sneer at the peasants by the state broadcaster, spread lies, insult the FM , etc etc.
But they had no automatic right to do so. The freedom of Brits to live and retire in France and Spain was, and will once again be subject to the whim of others.
You mean of course the whim of French and Spanish people. Why shouldn't they have that right?
Indeed.
If the Spanish want our retired folk to bring continue to bring their money and pensions with them to spend in Spain helping the Spanish economy then the Spanish can vote for that to continue.
If the Spanish determine they don't want that anymore what imperial right should we have to tell them otherwise?
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters, control your won borders, reduce VAT rates to suit yourself, CE marking, control social security, public procurement, set international tariffs, legal jurisdiction, cross border taxation, straight bananas.
Fish your own waters: the UK government (of its own volition) sold the rights to EU fisherman with no mechanism for taking the licences back. The EU fishermen now have loans from UK banks secured against the rights so there is no means of recovering them without cuasing commerical harm. But it can be done whether a member or not. Will the UK have the same sway to do so as an ex-member as it would have had as a contributing member - thats a good question?
UK VAT rates differ to the UK in absolute terms and by product and service - it sounds like they can be set to suit the UK.
CE Marking is an international standard: UK manufactuers will keep it even after Brexit to sell into that market. Member or not the UK has to play by the rules.
What does control Social Security mean? The UK uses NI, in Germany they have insurance companies for example, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
The UK today published a set of international tarrifs copy and pasted from the ones already used by the EU. Also as a member of the EU council the UK had the right to infuence the rates of the entire continent. Now it will be a rule taker from the trade deal it signs or from the WHO - which one is better?
What does legal jurisdiction mean? The UK has different laws to the rest of the EU, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
What does cross border taxation mean? The UK is missing the right to lay claim to all income earned by UK citizens as the US does?
Straight bananas - try and stay serious.
Look we had this debate in 2016.
You lost.
And I think the leave arguments in 2016 were argued with just about that same level of articulation.
Still at least you had a bus with a big promise and a poster with a nice message:
None of which gets you lot off the hook for the false arguments before and now and the economic vandalism currently underway. I for one will spend the rest of my life nailing leavers to the wall for their utter credulity and deceit. Its a right I'm pleased to have maintained.
I hope that works for you. You don't mind if the rest of us carry on with something more productive do you?
Like doing a Sudoku while wating at the job centre?
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
You, of course, are losing no freedoms.
Arguable.
But I don't worry too much about the theoretical ones. Brexit was largely an exercise in the people who ran the country in their own interest getting a vote of no confidence from the rest.
And them replacing them with another group of people who run the country in their own interest. Seems an awful lot of effort for an illusory result.
Then you should avoid politics. The same bunch of people increasingly run things, that's one of the major problems the UK is facing.
plus ca change etc.
If you believe there was ever much variation in who runs things.....
We have a new Upper 10,000 - just this lot think they are entitled by virtue of... being virtuous.
Unlike the old lot, who thought that they got entitlement from their... titles.
The English middle classes have swapped Hyancinth Bucket for Harriet Harman
I thought Hyancinth Bucket *was* Harriet Harman?
Remarkably tin eared I think. Harman is quite posh, a point often made on here by types trying to make obscure and ineffectual points about lefty hypocrisy, Hyyacinth only wanted to be posh, with 'hilarious' results.
I meant the pedantic self righteousness - laying down the law to the unwashed.
On freedom of movement, or not - let's get real here. The Gov't has shown it's completely either unable or unwilling to track anyone entering or exiting the country even when there might have been a really good reason to do so. Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Frankly, and I can only speak for myself immigration numbers don't concern me - the recording of such statistics and tracking who, and for what reason people are entering and exiting the country does. And that's not just with the onset of COVID-19, it's good housekeeping that we should have implemented long ago perhaps just for the possibility of another resurgence of swine flu, Hong Kong flu or as it turned out COVID-19 as well as monitoring for potential terrorist threats and whatnot. But the Gov't is either unable or unwilling. A shambles even before the whole pandemic mess started. Take back control ? Laughable.
Back when we were talking about Brexit on PB, rather than RNA viruses, I queried the lack of proposed immigration controls on the Irish border ensuing if we Brexited. Ignoring for the moment that the Good Friday Agreemnet was the original reason for this, it seemed daft.
I pointed out the illogicality given that increased controls over immigrants were a central plank of their policy and motivation for their voters. So what was the point of controls at Dover or Heathrow if you don't have them near Dundalk and Derry? Or Stranraer? Anyone can get a plane to Dublin and the bus to Belfast ...
I was howled down for asking a stupid question, but nobody said why they though it was stupid.l persisted in demanding an explanation, and to his/her credit one of them gave it.
It turned out (I paraphrase slightly) that the Tories/Brexiters on PB had long accepted that their UK Government was pish at border controls and wasn't even even trying - the solution was simply to keep shovelling the immigrants out of the country with the hostile environment policy.
Of course this is completely useless when you are dealing with Covid-19 and whatnot, as you say.
I think we are seeing exactly the same mentality when it comes to airport controls and quarantines ...
If you want my answer here it is: You don't control migration at the border.
No better place to actually COUNT & RECORD it though ?!
Exactly. And you would catch at least some of those trying to break the rules, whatsoever these rules might be.
At the Northern Ireland land border?
No thanks! Not with a ten foot barge poll.
We can work with Varadkar on that particular one:
Even Ireland itself is treating Northern Ireland differently to the rest of the EU on this one.
Irish Health authorities require anyone entering Ireland from abroad, except Northern Ireland, to either self-quarantine or self-isolate on arrival for 14 days.
Now if Dublin is open to the rest of the world then that might undermine a quarantine strategy we put in place but it's not, because the Irish have more sense than our Gov't.
I thought we were talking about migration in general in the context of Brexit?
Yes we should cooperate with the Irish.
You're the one that raised the NI border issue. Right now, as of today we could have a sealed UK-Irish system requiring quarantine from anywhere else in the whole world. The Irish have it, we don't.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
But but but you now have a blue passport.
A top quality blue passport, made by Poland's top passport makers working to a French design.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
yes , elite and entitled sent up to support the Raj
Sent up? Her father was a Scottish advocate who lived all his life in Scotland before becoming a politician. She would presumably have been brought up here.
Born in Edinburgh, went to Glasgow University, joined BBC Scotland, posts in Ulster, London, Washington - returned to Edinburgh in 2014.
Just another establishment unionist up to remind the natives they are just plebs for Westminster. Lady Haw Haw in Scotland working for the State Propaganda Unit and part of the Raj that overlords Scotland.
Just curious: how many generations does one's family have to have lived there for, before you accept them as Scottish?
Or is it an ethnicity thing?
You thick dunderheided idiot, where did I say she was not Scottish. She was London based , part of the political elite establishmentand was sent up as a token uncle Tom to sneer at the peasants by the state broadcaster, spread lies, insult the FM , etc etc.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
That's a shame. But we'll enjoy more in other areas.
Not as individual citizens or businesses.
Yes as individuals. There is no freedom more important for an individual than the freedom to elect those who set your laws. Or the freedom to replace those who do it badly and get it reversed which is just as important and forgotten about by pro-Europeans.
When will Scotland be Free.
Were all asking that, it costs us a fortune :-)
Not as much as Nortern Ireland...
Nothing to be exact, we more than pay our way and actually help fund England's borrowing habit.
Prof David Robertson, head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow, told the House's Science and Technology Committee that Covid-19 was a highly successful virus. He said: "It is so transmissible, it's so successful, we're so susceptible, that actually it's a little bit of a red herring to worry about it getting worse, because it couldn't be much worse at the moment in terms of the numbers of cases." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52717664
Academics can be so touchingly naive (when they're not too busy stabbing one another in the back).
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
Sometimes it can be common sense but some of that is preposterous.
How is calling someone's maiden name their family name appropriate? If someone asked me my mother's family name I would respond with my own family name, not her maiden name.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
People lived and retired in France and Spain before we joined the EU. Non EU nationals stills do.
Yawn. I have no interest in fighting the Brexit battles again, you morons have won. You should be out there enjoying your freedoms instead of still trying to convince us that you've not done something stupid. But what you're turning this country into, it's not really my country anymore.
The victors seem to be the most exercised I'm done with it. I wish it had never happened, I will never forgive Dave for allowing it to happen, but we are where we are.
Attack being the best form of defence, victorious Leave freedom fighters getting their excuses in early?
I believe in their heart of hearts they understand it will be a false dawn.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
yes , elite and entitled sent up to support the Raj
Sent up? Her father was a Scottish advocate who lived all his life in Scotland before becoming a politician. She would presumably have been brought up here.
Just another establishment unionist sent up to sneer at the peasants David.
She is No True Scotswoman.
Just a LabaTory, got carried away last night and was just too blatantly nasty re the FM and had to put out a feeble uncontrite apology.
She's actually put out four 'apology' tweets, must be some kind of record.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
People lived and retired in France and Spain before we joined the EU. Non EU nationals stills do.
Yawn. I have no interest in fighting the Brexit battles again, you morons have won. You should be out there enjoying your freedoms instead of still trying to convince us that you've not done something stupid. But what you're turning this country into, it's not really my country anymore.
The victors seem to be the most exercised I'm done with it. I wish it had never happened, I will never forgive Dave for allowing it to happen, but we are where we are.
Attack being the best form of defence, victorious Leave freedom fighters getting their excuses in early?
I believe in their heart of hearts they understand it will be a false dawn.
On freedom of movement, or not - let's get real here. The Gov't has shown it's completely either unable or unwilling to track anyone entering or exiting the country even when there might have been a really good reason to do so. Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Frankly, and I can only speak for myself immigration numbers don't concern me - the recording of such statistics and tracking who, and for what reason people are entering and exiting the country does. And that's not just with the onset of COVID-19, it's good housekeeping that we should have implemented long ago perhaps just for the possibility of another resurgence of swine flu, Hong Kong flu or as it turned out COVID-19 as well as monitoring for potential terrorist threats and whatnot. But the Gov't is either unable or unwilling. A shambles even before the whole pandemic mess started. Take back control ? Laughable.
Back when we were talking about Brexit on PB, rather than RNA viruses, I queried the lack of proposed immigration controls on the Irish border ensuing if we Brexited. Ignoring for the moment that the Good Friday Agreemnet was the original reason for this, it seemed daft.
I pointed out the illogicality given that increased controls over immigrants were a central plank of their policy and motivation for their voters. So what was the point of controls at Dover or Heathrow if you don't have them near Dundalk and Derry? Or Stranraer? Anyone can get a plane to Dublin and the bus to Belfast ...
I was howled down for asking a stupid question, but nobody said why they though it was stupid.l persisted in demanding an explanation, and to his/her credit one of them gave it.
It turned out (I paraphrase slightly) that the Tories/Brexiters on PB had long accepted that their UK Government was pish at border controls and wasn't even even trying - the solution was simply to keep shovelling the immigrants out of the country with the hostile environment policy.
Of course this is completely useless when you are dealing with Covid-19 and whatnot, as you say.
I think we are seeing exactly the same mentality when it comes to airport controls and quarantines ...
If you want my answer here it is: You don't control migration at the border.
No better place to actually COUNT & RECORD it though ?!
Exactly. And you would catch at least some of those trying to break the rules, whatsoever these rules might be.
At the Northern Ireland land border?
No thanks! Not with a ten foot barge poll.
We can work with Varadkar on that particular one:
Even Ireland itself is treating Northern Ireland differently to the rest of the EU on this one.
Irish Health authorities require anyone entering Ireland from abroad, except Northern Ireland, to either self-quarantine or self-isolate on arrival for 14 days.
Now if Dublin is open to the rest of the world then that might undermine a quarantine strategy we put in place but it's not, because the Irish have more sense than our Gov't.
I thought we were talking about migration in general in the context of Brexit?
Yes we should cooperate with the Irish.
You're the one that raised the NI border issue. Right now, as of today we could have a sealed UK-Irish system requiring quarantine from anywhere else in the whole world. The Irish have it, we don't.
No I'm not, @Carnyx was. He said "I queried the lack of proposed immigration controls on the Irish border", I responded with "If you want my answer here it is: You don't control migration at the border" and then you responded with "No better place to actually COUNT & RECORD it though ?!"
Counting and recording at airports is a good idea, but the conversation was sparked by @Carnyx asking about the Irish border. That'd be an awful place to either count or record it.
And either way migration isn't controlled at the border.
I enter the Brexit rehash debate reluctantly, but feel inclined to respond with incredulity to the main poster on here. "Take back control" won the referendum for many reasons, including sovereignty, but would not have won without the support of a large number of people (mostly not racists) wishing to reduce immigration/control our borders. For some, in places like Boston, the issue was Eastern European immigration. But for others, particularly those keen on Farage/UKIP and subsequently the Brexit Party, it was a more abstract feeling of too many foreigners and, dare I say it, in particular too many non-white people; and in particular certain groups including refugees, asylum seekers, and even, yes, Muslims, I fear. If those Brexit voters had been told at the time "we will end free movement, but immigration numbers may not go down; however, many Eastern Europeans will be replaced by highly-skilled people from the Indian sub-continent, south-east Asia, and all around the world", I don't think that would have been a vote winner. On the other side, of course, was the abject failure of the remain side to use legitimate powers to control 'free movement' from the EU.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
People lived and retired in France and Spain before we joined the EU. Non EU nationals stills do.
Yawn. I have no interest in fighting the Brexit battles again, you morons have won. You should be out there enjoying your freedoms instead of still trying to convince us that you've not done something stupid. But what you're turning this country into, it's not really my country anymore.
The victors seem to be the most exercised I'm done with it. I wish it had never happened, I will never forgive Dave for allowing it to happen, but we are where we are.
Attack being the best form of defence, victorious Leave freedom fighters getting their excuses in early?
I believe in their heart of hearts they understand it will be a false dawn.
Does Big Daddy himself (BJ) believe Brexit is in the national interest? I sense not.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
But but but you now have a blue passport.
Where I'm shoving it you won't be able to see what colour it is, believe me.
I approve totally, but you will soon have a proper Scottish one hopefully.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters,
That is fucking great. I'll get my stern trawler out this weekend.
Whatever floats your boat Pugwash
As established, the fishing rights have been sold to Spanish, French and Dutch fishermen and they are not coming back. They may lease them back to UK fishermen but the UK government sold the rights and there is no mechanism for their return.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
yes , elite and entitled sent up to support the Raj
Sent up? Her father was a Scottish advocate who lived all his life in Scotland before becoming a politician. She would presumably have been brought up here.
Born in Edinburgh, went to Glasgow University, joined BBC Scotland, posts in Ulster, London, Washington - returned to Edinburgh in 2014.
Just another establishment unionist up to remind the natives they are just plebs for Westminster. Lady Haw Haw in Scotland working for the State Propaganda Unit and part of the Raj that overlords Scotland.
Just curious: how many generations does one's family have to have lived there for, before you accept them as Scottish?
Or is it an ethnicity thing?
You thick dunderheided idiot, where did I say she was not Scottish. She was London based , part of the political elite establishmentand was sent up as a token uncle Tom to sneer at the peasants by the state broadcaster, spread lies, insult the FM , etc etc.
"Part of the Raj" implies not (properly) Scottish, no?
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
Who doesn't know the gender of their boyfriend or girlfriend?
It says if you don't know a person's gender. It doesn't say at all times, it doesn't say in all situations. It says if you don't know.
And if you don't know someone's gender why would you ask for their family name when you really mean maiden name?
If you don't know someone's gender but want to call them a businessman, why would you call them a "representative" which doesn't just drop the gender pronoun it drops the description of business too.
This is the problem with newspeak is it can be doubleplusungood if it changes the meaning of words.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
If you are no longer able to live in France then that is a matter to take up with the French government.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters,
That is fucking great. I'll get my stern trawler out this weekend.
Whatever floats your boat Pugwash
As established, the fishing rights have been sold to Spanish, French and Dutch fishermen and they are not coming back. They may lease them back to UK fishermen but the UK government sold the rights and there is no mechanism for their return.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
If you are no longer able to live in France then that is a matter to take up with the French government.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Will you concede that Boris misled us on this one, @Philip_Thompson ?
What does it say after Borders?
How many points for coming in with Covid-19 from an Italian Ski holiday in February ? After the Gov't performance on Covid, how can anyone have any confidence in any "points based system" ?!
Dishwashers (down from 2.7%) Freezers (down from 2.5%) Sanitary products and tampons (down from 6.3%) Paints (down from 6.5%) and screwdrivers (down from 2.7%) Mirrors (down from 4%) Scissors and garden shears (down from 4.7%) Padlocks (down from 2.7%) Cooking products such as baking powder (down from 6.1%), yeast (down from 12%), bay leaves (down from 7%), ground thyme (down from 8.5%) and cocoa powder (down from 8%) Christmas trees (down from 2.5%)
Most of these are easily within the range of currency fluctuation, and of course apply to the delivered cost, not the retail price - so anyone who think's they're going to get fiver off their £200 dishwasher is in for a disappointment. I wish people would stop fetishising "trade deals" and focus more on educating a work force "to make the stuff the world actually wants".
This seems an odd step. As you say these tariffs are not particularly an inhibition to trade but they will certainly be an inhibition to a free trade agreement with the EU. They cannot have a situation where goods that should bear such tariffs can be imported tariff free to the UK and then have free access to the EU. It therefore seems to be a ploy to make a FTA with the EU more difficult at a time when the negotiations are already struggling. Unhelpful.
Quite the opposite - it will make a prompt deal more attractive.
"But tariffs will remain on UK-produced cars - at 10% - and on agricultural products including lamb, beef and butter at their current levels, following concerns that these industries could be decimated by Brexit.
These new tariffs will be applied to trade with any country with which the UK has not negotiated a trade deal by the time the transition period ends on 31 December."
Don't understand the reference to UK-produced cars. If that is supposed to be non UK produced cars we are presumably saying that would apply to EU cars in the absence of a trade deal?
Its badly phrased, whoever wrote that but I understand what they were trying to say.
What they're trying to say is that goods we don't produce (dishwashers etc) are going to be permitted tariff-free, but goods we produce ourselves like cars will see tariffs for that sector.
So we are discouraging the manufacture of dishwashers in this country. Why? We urgently need import substitution to reduce our trade deficit.
Ive been saying that for years
You have indeed. And you are right. We cannot restrict our production to what we produce now. Bluntly, we just don't produce nearly enough to pay for our current standard of living.
I too like the idea of more self-sufficiency. But I'm not sure replacing cheap imports with expensive homegrown goods leads to a sustainable rise in our living standards.
Everything is a matter of degree but for the last 20 years these "cheap imports" have caused us to run a serious trade deficit with the result that we have switched from a creditor nation receiving more income from abroad than repatriated profits to a debtor nation where other countries own more and more of our assets and charge us rent for their use. In the longer term this will diminish the standard of living in this country. Indeed, it already has. So the true cost of "cheap imports" is much higher than it appears.
If we were finding better things to do than make these imports and were able to sell our skills abroad it would not matter. I don't have a particular fetish about manufacturing. But the sad truth is we don't, not by a long way. So we either accept a falling standard of living or we do something about it. Import substitution is one obvious way to address the problem but we need to improve investment, reduce consumption, improve training, education, productivity and our attitude towards engineers and applied scientists. Governments of all shades have failed to address this since the 70s. It is increasingly urgent.
I do agree with much of what you say here. But classic trade theory says that if things are made where it is cheapest to do so, it leads to an optimum material result for the whole. Of course this neglects incredibly important issues such as wealth distribution and environmental concerns. But that is the theory driving globalization and I believe it is widely accepted to be true. Meaning that if the process is reversed the world will be the (materially) poorer for it. Perhaps we can get richer in a world getting poorer, as opposed to (as now) getting poorer in one getting richer - talking relative rather than absolute - but my sense is it will be a big ask.
Where's the benefit in making Jeff Bezos richer and Hartlepool poorer ? Free trade works for the benefit of the local hegemon. We lost that position 100 years ago. Now it's questionable if it is in our interest.
Globalization has reduced the gap between "us and them" in global terms (good IMO) but increased the gap between rich and poor in the west (bad IMO). Conundrum.
In general I'd like to see more focus on how wealth is distributed and less on how it's made. I think the distribution issue is the more interesting and challenging.
Yes, similar point to one I like made by Amol Rajan, along the lines of 'mass immigration is good for people from poor countries, and the rich in rich countries, but bad for the poor in rich countries.'
If mass immigration made the poor in rich countries better off at the expense of the rich in rich countries, whilst benefitting the poor countries, id be all for it.
But if that were the case there wouldn't be mass immigration
As for losing freedoms, a Case @SouthamObserver often tries to make, it is true as long as you don't consider the other side. When I buy a pair of trainers for £50 I could just say 'I'm £50 worse off' if I didn't mention I'd got the trainers
Liverpool lost a lot of attacking flair when they sold Coutinho, that a true statement... we could leave it at that, but I'd mention they used the money to buy van Dijk
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
Who doesn't know the gender of their boyfriend or girlfriend?
It says if you don't know a person's gender. It doesn't say at all times, it doesn't say in all situations. It says if you don't know.
That's the end goal though.
Having only just escaped from the inexorable rise of the EUSSR superstate and its weedy vacuum cleaners, we're about to be tyrannised by the United Nations of Wokeness and their oppressive advisory tweets. Is there no respite?!
Will you concede that Boris misled us on this one, @Philip_Thompson ?
What does it say after Borders?
How many points for coming in with Covid-19 from an Italian Ski holiday in February ?
You know people can come through the border who can't simply migrate don't you?
If it weren't for virus and the shutdown on flights I could book a flight for this weekend to the USA, Australia or Canada and would be allowed into those countries without getting a migration visa, green card etc - but I wouldn't be permitted to migrate there.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
People lived and retired in France and Spain before we joined the EU. Non EU nationals stills do.
Yawn. I have no interest in fighting the Brexit battles again, you morons have won. You should be out there enjoying your freedoms instead of still trying to convince us that you've not done something stupid. But what you're turning this country into, it's not really my country anymore.
The victors seem to be the most exercised I'm done with it. I wish it had never happened, I will never forgive Dave for allowing it to happen, but we are where we are.
Attack being the best form of defence, victorious Leave freedom fighters getting their excuses in early?
I believe in their heart of hearts they understand it will be a false dawn.
Does Big Daddy himself (BJ) believe Brexit is in the national interest? I sense not.
England’s greatest unforced error since the Middle Ages.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
PC gamers not able to get laid going mad may also be involved.
Will you concede that Boris misled us on this one, @Philip_Thompson ?
What does it say after Borders?
How many points for coming in with Covid-19 from an Italian Ski holiday in February ?
You know people can come through the border who can't simply migrate don't you?
If it weren't for virus and the shutdown on flights I could book a flight for this weekend to the USA, Australia or Canada and would be allowed into those countries without getting a migration visa, green card etc - but I wouldn't be permitted to migrate there.
A friend of mine has just posted a picture from... Arizona, he's definitely on holiday there
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
Who doesn't know the gender of their boyfriend or girlfriend?
It says if you don't know a person's gender. It doesn't say at all times, it doesn't say in all situations. It says if you don't know.
That's the end goal though.
Having only just escaped from the inexorable rise of the EUSSR superstate and its weedy vacuum cleaners, we're about to be tyrannised by the United Nations of Wokeness and their oppressive advisory tweets. Is there no respite?!
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
It's no good trying to ridicule legitimate concerns like that.
It's not just a question of "language, dress, food, culture etc".
Remember that these dirty foreigners spread diseases.
Dishwashers (down from 2.7%) Freezers (down from 2.5%) Sanitary products and tampons (down from 6.3%) Paints (down from 6.5%) and screwdrivers (down from 2.7%) Mirrors (down from 4%) Scissors and garden shears (down from 4.7%) Padlocks (down from 2.7%) Cooking products such as baking powder (down from 6.1%), yeast (down from 12%), bay leaves (down from 7%), ground thyme (down from 8.5%) and cocoa powder (down from 8%) Christmas trees (down from 2.5%)
Most of these are easily within the range of currency fluctuation, and of course apply to the delivered cost, not the retail price - so anyone who think's they're going to get fiver off their £200 dishwasher is in for a disappointment. I wish people would stop fetishising "trade deals" and focus more on educating a work force "to make the stuff the world actually wants".
This seems an odd step. As you say these tariffs are not particularly an inhibition to trade but they will certainly be an inhibition to a free trade agreement with the EU. They cannot have a situation where goods that should bear such tariffs can be imported tariff free to the UK and then have free access to the EU. It therefore seems to be a ploy to make a FTA with the EU more difficult at a time when the negotiations are already struggling. Unhelpful.
Quite the opposite - it will make a prompt deal more attractive.
"But tariffs will remain on UK-produced cars - at 10% - and on agricultural products including lamb, beef and butter at their current levels, following concerns that these industries could be decimated by Brexit.
These new tariffs will be applied to trade with any country with which the UK has not negotiated a trade deal by the time the transition period ends on 31 December."
Don't understand the reference to UK-produced cars. If that is supposed to be non UK produced cars we are presumably saying that would apply to EU cars in the absence of a trade deal?
Its badly phrased, whoever wrote that but I understand what they were trying to say.
What they're trying to say is that goods we don't produce (dishwashers etc) are going to be permitted tariff-free, but goods we produce ourselves like cars will see tariffs for that sector.
So we are discouraging the manufacture of dishwashers in this country. Why? We urgently need import substitution to reduce our trade deficit.
Ive been saying that for years
You have indeed. And you are right. We cannot restrict our production to what we produce now. Bluntly, we just don't produce nearly enough to pay for our current standard of living.
I too like the idea of more self-sufficiency. But I'm not sure replacing cheap imports with expensive homegrown goods leads to a sustainable rise in our living standards.
Everything is a matter of degree but for the last 20 years these "cheap imports" have caused us to run a serious trade deficit with the result that we have switched from a creditor nation receiving more income from abroad than repatriated profits to a debtor nation where other countries own more and more of our assets and charge us rent for their use. In the longer term this will diminish the standard of living in this country. Indeed, it already has. So the true cost of "cheap imports" is much higher than it appears.
If we were finding better things to do than make these imports and were able to sell our skills abroad it would not matter. I don't have a particular fetish about manufacturing. But the sad truth is we don't, not by a long way. So we either accept a falling standard of living or we do something about it. Import substitution is one obvious way to address the problem but we need to improve investment, reduce consumption, improve training, education, productivity and our attitude towards engineers and applied scientists. Governments of all shades have failed to address this since the 70s. It is increasingly urgent.
I do agree with much of what you say here. But classic trade theory says that if things are made where it is cheapest to do so, it leads to an optimum material result for the whole. Of course this neglects incredibly important issues such as wealth distribution and environmental concerns. But that is the theory driving globalization and I believe it is widely accepted to be true. Meaning that if the process is reversed the world will be the (materially) poorer for it. Perhaps we can get richer in a world getting poorer, as opposed to (as now) getting poorer in one getting richer - talking relative rather than absolute - but my sense is it will be a big ask.
Where's the benefit in making Jeff Bezos richer and Hartlepool poorer ? Free trade works for the benefit of the local hegemon. We lost that position 100 years ago. Now it's questionable if it is in our interest.
Globalization has reduced the gap between "us and them" in global terms (good IMO) but increased the gap between rich and poor in the west (bad IMO). Conundrum.
In general I'd like to see more focus on how wealth is distributed and less on how it's made. I think the distribution issue is the more interesting and challenging.
Yes, similar point to one I like made by Amol Rajan, along the lines of 'mass immigration is good for people from poor countries, and the rich in rich countries, but bad for the poor in rich countries.'
If mass immigration made the poor in rich countries better off at the expense of the rich in rich countries, whilst benefitting the poor countries, id be all for it.
But if that were the case there wouldn't be mass immigration
As for losing freedoms, a Case @SouthamObserver often tries to make, it is true as long as you don't consider the other side. When I buy a pair of trainers for £50 I could just say 'I'm £50 worse off' if I didn't mention I'd got the trainers
Liverpool lost a lot of attacking flair when they sold Coutinho, that a true statement... we could leave it at that, but I'd mention they used the money to buy van Dijk
Another way of putting it is to say that globalisation has increased inequality in western countries. That's why populism has made a comeback.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
People lived and retired in France and Spain before we joined the EU. Non EU nationals stills do.
Yawn. I have no interest in fighting the Brexit battles again, you morons have won. You should be out there enjoying your freedoms instead of still trying to convince us that you've not done something stupid. But what you're turning this country into, it's not really my country anymore.
The victors seem to be the most exercised I'm done with it. I wish it had never happened, I will never forgive Dave for allowing it to happen, but we are where we are.
Attack being the best form of defence, victorious Leave freedom fighters getting their excuses in early?
I believe in their heart of hearts they understand it will be a false dawn.
Does Big Daddy himself (BJ) believe Brexit is in the national interest? I sense not.
England’s greatest unforced error since the Middle Ages.
Id have said getting involved in World War 1 myself
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
It's no good trying to ridicule legitimate concerns like that.
It's not just a question of "language, dress, food, culture etc".
Remember that these dirty foreigners spread diseases.
And you wonder why your causes keep losing referenda and General Elections...
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
It's no good trying to ridicule legitimate concerns like that.
It's not just a question of "language, dress, food, culture etc".
Remember that these dirty foreigners spread diseases.
And you wonder why your causes keep losing referenda and General Elections...
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
yes , elite and entitled sent up to support the Raj
Sent up? Her father was a Scottish advocate who lived all his life in Scotland before becoming a politician. She would presumably have been brought up here.
Born in Edinburgh, went to Glasgow University, joined BBC Scotland, posts in Ulster, London, Washington - returned to Edinburgh in 2014.
Just another establishment unionist up to remind the natives they are just plebs for Westminster. Lady Haw Haw in Scotland working for the State Propaganda Unit and part of the Raj that overlords Scotland.
Just curious: how many generations does one's family have to have lived there for, before you accept them as Scottish?
Or is it an ethnicity thing?
You thick dunderheided idiot, where did I say she was not Scottish. She was London based , part of the political elite establishmentand was sent up as a token uncle Tom to sneer at the peasants by the state broadcaster, spread lies, insult the FM , etc etc.
Don't you mean token Aunt Thomasina?
I am not an effete woke PC person being a mature codger.
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Is this why that dodgy media report about the Oxford vaccine was released?
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
How do you go about buying their shares with this offer ?
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
Who doesn't know the gender of their boyfriend or girlfriend?
It says if you don't know a person's gender. It doesn't say at all times, it doesn't say in all situations. It says if you don't know.
That's the end goal though.
Having only just escaped from the inexorable rise of the EUSSR superstate and its weedy vacuum cleaners, we're about to be tyrannised by the United Nations of Wokeness and their oppressive advisory tweets. Is there no respite?!
Don't panic, you will be allowed to go to a garden centre in a week or two. What more can a man want?
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Is this why that dodgy media report about the Oxford vaccine was released?
Or was that GSK?
There's a lot of money riding on this race...
It's the preprint about the Oxford vaccine trial that's just been released. The dodgy media report was several weeks ago.
Dishwashers (down from 2.7%) Freezers (down from 2.5%) Sanitary products and tampons (down from 6.3%) Paints (down from 6.5%) and screwdrivers (down from 2.7%) Mirrors (down from 4%) Scissors and garden shears (down from 4.7%) Padlocks (down from 2.7%) Cooking products such as baking powder (down from 6.1%), yeast (down from 12%), bay leaves (down from 7%), ground thyme (down from 8.5%) and cocoa powder (down from 8%) Christmas trees (down from 2.5%)
Most of these are easily within the range of currency fluctuation, and of course apply to the delivered cost, not the retail price - so anyone who think's they're going to get fiver off their £200 dishwasher is in for a disappointment. I wish people would stop fetishising "trade deals" and focus more on educating a work force "to make the stuff the world actually wants".
This seems an odd step. As you say these tariffs are not particularly an inhibition to trade but they will certainly be an inhibition to a free trade agreement with the EU. They cannot have a situation where goods that should bear such tariffs can be imported tariff free to the UK and then have free access to the EU. It therefore seems to be a ploy to make a FTA with the EU more difficult at a time when the negotiations are already struggling. Unhelpful.
Quite the opposite - it will make a prompt deal more attractive.
"But tariffs will remain on UK-produced cars - at 10% - and on agricultural products including lamb, beef and butter at their current levels, following concerns that these industries could be decimated by Brexit.
These new tariffs will be applied to trade with any country with which the UK has not negotiated a trade deal by the time the transition period ends on 31 December."
Don't understand the reference to UK-produced cars. If that is supposed to be non UK produced cars we are presumably saying that would apply to EU cars in the absence of a trade deal?
Its badly phrased, whoever wrote that but I understand what they were trying to say.
What they're trying to say is that goods we don't produce (dishwashers etc) are going to be permitted tariff-free, but goods we produce ourselves like cars will see tariffs for that sector.
So we are discouraging the manufacture of dishwashers in this country. Why? We urgently need import substitution to reduce our trade deficit.
Ive been saying that for years
You have indeed. And you are right. We cannot restrict our production to what we produce now. Bluntly, we just don't produce nearly enough to pay for our current standard of living.
I too like the idea of more self-sufficiency. But I'm not sure replacing cheap imports with expensive homegrown goods leads to a sustainable rise in our living standards.
Everything is a matter of degree but for the last 20 years these "cheap imports" have caused us to run a serious trade deficit with the result that we have switched from a creditor nation receiving more income from abroad than repatriated profits to a debtor nation where other countries own more and more of our assets and charge us rent for their use. In the longer term this will diminish the standard of living in this country. Indeed, it already has. So the true cost of "cheap imports" is much higher than it appears.
If we were finding better things to do than make these imports and were able to sell our skills abroad it would not matter. I don't have a particular fetish about manufacturing. But the sad truth is we don't, not by a long way. So we either accept a falling standard of living or we do something about it. Import substitution is one obvious way to address the problem but we need to improve investment, reduce consumption, improve training, education, productivity and our attitude towards engineers and applied scientists. Governments of all shades have failed to address this since the 70s. It is increasingly urgent.
I do agree with much of what you say here. But classic trade theory says that if things are made where it is cheapest to do so, it leads to an optimum material result for the whole. Of course this neglects incredibly important issues such as wealth distribution and environmental concerns. But that is the theory driving globalization and I believe it is widely accepted to be true. Meaning that if the process is reversed the world will be the (materially) poorer for it. Perhaps we can get richer in a world getting poorer, as opposed to (as now) getting poorer in one getting richer - talking relative rather than absolute - but my sense is it will be a big ask.
Where's the benefit in making Jeff Bezos richer and Hartlepool poorer ? Free trade works for the benefit of the local hegemon. We lost that position 100 years ago. Now it's questionable if it is in our interest.
Globalization has reduced the gap between "us and them" in global terms (good IMO) but increased the gap between rich and poor in the west (bad IMO). Conundrum.
In general I'd like to see more focus on how wealth is distributed and less on how it's made. I think the distribution issue is the more interesting and challenging.
Yes, similar point to one I like made by Amol Rajan, along the lines of 'mass immigration is good for people from poor countries, and the rich in rich countries, but bad for the poor in rich countries.'
If mass immigration made the poor in rich countries better off at the expense of the rich in rich countries, whilst benefitting the poor countries, id be all for it.
But if that were the case there wouldn't be mass immigration
As for losing freedoms, a Case @SouthamObserver often tries to make, it is true as long as you don't consider the other side. When I buy a pair of trainers for £50 I could just say 'I'm £50 worse off' if I didn't mention I'd got the trainers
Liverpool lost a lot of attacking flair when they sold Coutinho, that a true statement... we could leave it at that, but I'd mention they used the money to buy van Dijk
1st para - I personally was more thinking about the outsourcing of blue collar jobs overseas. Not flesh & blood immigration as such.
But perhaps that is why you said a "similar" point rather than the same one.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
But but but you now have a blue passport.
Where I'm shoving it you won't be able to see what colour it is, believe me.
I approve totally, but you will soon have a proper Scottish one hopefully.
Fingers crossed, Malc. "European Union - Republic of Scotland" on the front and a nice maroon cover like passports are meant to have.
Comments
https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1262644555956064256
Still at least you had a bus with a big promise and a poster with a nice message:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants
None of which gets you lot off the hook for the false arguments before and now and the economic vandalism currently underway. I for one will spend the rest of my life nailing leavers to the wall for their utter credulity and deceit. Its a right I'm pleased to have maintained.
If you said "representative" to me I wouldn't think "businessman".
And if you ask my wife her family name it is the same family name as our children have. It is not her maiden name.
Superior schools, bigger gardens, better dog-walking opportunities... it's surprising it took us so long to think about fleeing the capital"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/middle-classes-planning-escape-london-will-go/
https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1047177009040908288?s=20
Apropos of nothing, Arlene looks quite nice in that pic which is not always the case. Posted also for that positive reason.
I refer you to Andrew Tyrie when Boris was in front of the Treasury Select Committee and coming out with this nonsense: "All very interesting, Boris. Except none of it is really true, is it?"
If you keep making stuff up, enough people will believe it. I give you Trump as an example.
Harman is quite posh, a point often made on here by types trying to make obscure and ineffectual points about lefty hypocrisy, Hyyacinth only wanted to be posh, with 'hilarious' results.
If the Spanish want our retired folk to bring continue to bring their money and pensions with them to spend in Spain helping the Spanish economy then the Spanish can vote for that to continue.
If the Spanish determine they don't want that anymore what imperial right should we have to tell them otherwise?
The Irish have it, we don't.
He said: "It is so transmissible, it's so successful, we're so susceptible, that actually it's a little bit of a red herring to worry about it getting worse, because it couldn't be much worse at the moment in terms of the numbers of cases."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52717664
Academics can be so touchingly naive (when they're not too busy stabbing one another in the back).
How is calling someone's maiden name their family name appropriate? If someone asked me my mother's family name I would respond with my own family name, not her maiden name.
Attack being the best form of defence, victorious Leave freedom fighters getting their excuses in early?
I believe in their heart of hearts they understand it will be a false dawn.
We were given wrong advice, says cabinet minister"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/therese-coffey-blames-scientists-for-government-mistakes-nt722fn8f
It's talking about people who don't know the gender, not about people referring to their own significant other.
Counting and recording at airports is a good idea, but the conversation was sparked by @Carnyx asking about the Irish border. That'd be an awful place to either count or record it.
And either way migration isn't controlled at the border.
For some, in places like Boston, the issue was Eastern European immigration. But for others, particularly those keen on Farage/UKIP and subsequently the Brexit Party, it was a more abstract feeling of too many foreigners and, dare I say it, in particular too many non-white people; and in particular certain groups including refugees, asylum seekers, and even, yes, Muslims, I fear. If those Brexit voters had been told at the time "we will end free movement, but immigration numbers may not go down; however, many Eastern Europeans will be replaced by highly-skilled people from the Indian sub-continent, south-east Asia, and all around the world", I don't think that would have been a vote winner.
On the other side, of course, was the abject failure of the remain side to use legitimate powers to control 'free movement' from the EU.
Perhaps she'd like to give her opinion on the Chinese government's success in turning the entire world upside down?
Point 3, definitely says Borders.
Will you concede that Boris misled us on this one, @Philip_Thompson ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52420116
If you don't know someone's gender but want to call them a businessman, why would you call them a "representative" which doesn't just drop the gender pronoun it drops the description of business too.
This is the problem with newspeak is it can be doubleplusungood if it changes the meaning of words.
After the Gov't performance on Covid, how can anyone have any confidence in any "points based system" ?!
If mass immigration made the poor in rich countries better off at the expense of the rich in rich countries, whilst benefitting the poor countries, id be all for it.
But if that were the case there wouldn't be mass immigration
As for losing freedoms, a Case @SouthamObserver often tries to make, it is true as long as you don't consider the other side. When I buy a pair of trainers for £50 I could just say 'I'm £50 worse off' if I didn't mention I'd got the trainers
Liverpool lost a lot of attacking flair when they sold Coutinho, that a true statement... we could leave it at that, but I'd mention they used the money to buy van Dijk
If it weren't for virus and the shutdown on flights I could book a flight for this weekend to the USA, Australia or Canada and would be allowed into those countries without getting a migration visa, green card etc - but I wouldn't be permitted to migrate there.
It's not just a question of "language, dress, food, culture etc".
Remember that these dirty foreigners spread diseases.
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Or was that GSK?
There's a lot of money riding on this race...
$80 right now.
But perhaps that is why you said a "similar" point rather than the same one.