It is actually a good example as there were three genders of tank, or perhaps more accurately two genders and also some tanks that had characteristics from both sexes.
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
I imagine we will be below average for the remainder of the year from July onwards as long as Covid does not come back
We don't have Doctress, so why do we need Actress?
Well, arguably given that the luvvies* job is to be a certain character, and that will have a gender, it is relevant.
In engineering, parts that fit together are often described as male or female, or even sometimes master/slave. Lets just hope the wokies don't find out.
*gender neutral term
Let's hope they don't find out about Great War British tanks either.
I don't know - the Male tanks had the bigger.....
No, lets not go there.
I think the main difference was just that the "male" tanks had a 6pdr gun whereas the "female" ones had machine guns, unless I'm missing something they are just performing different, but equally important tasks.
But what do I know about gender studies, I just have a full-time job and a normal social circle.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
That and perhaps some deaths avoided by people not working, or WFH. Flu not spreading as much also perhaps? Dunno - there's probably a whole raft of complex effects going on both directions.
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
I imagine we will be below average for the remainder of the year from July onwards as long as Covid does not come back
Road deaths and regular flu ought to be down with the lockdown, so at some point net excess deaths could dip below the mean. Unfortunately the viral reservoir is still out there.
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.
I know what you mean. IKEA has that effect on me, too.
Whenever I think of Ikea (not often thankfully) I think of matches.
meatballs
Yeah, fair enough. Their food is much better than their furniture.
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
Presumably there will be a significant number of people who would have died in the near future who have died of Covid in the last couple of months thus bringing the death rate below the 5 year average for a number of future months when we are past the Covid impact.
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 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.
Oooooh! Inneee hard?
And persistent I would say.
Persistent you may be, but on the fishing issue, you're simply wrong, unless you've just explained your argument very badly.
The quotas are agreed with the EU and the rights are allocated by the UK Government. That was the case before Brexit and it will be after now. It is what is being debated right now after all.
The rights have been largely sold, certainly in English waters as helpfully clarified to me, and there is no mechanism for their return. Its like the freehold of a house that has been sold it can only be sold on again and maybe returned to its original holder - for a price.
Furthermore the Spanish, French and Dutch fishing companies have used the rights as security with various banks which will make it even harder for the UK Government to forcibly take the rights back. Basically they don't plan to. The upshot: there will not be any additional rights to quotas made available to fishermen (fisherpeople if you prefer), as the existing quotas are not going to change even after negotiation. With the property argument it is like arguing over who owns the land a house is on but with no power to either demolish the house or change who lives in the house.
The market access for our fisherpersons is also complicated: they really are in a no-win scenario and certainly aren't helped by the UK Government having sold the rights so widely and without clear possibility of return.
You're confusing two issues - unsurprisingly as the word 'quota' covers two different things. The first is the sale of UK fishing 'patches' (within our quota) to foreign-based fishing interests. I am sure what you say about how these have been sold and the difficulty of repatriating them has some validity.
The second, more pertinently, is that the UK fishing quota in totality is allocated to the UK under the Common Fisheries Policy, wherein EU members pool all fishing resources. This total quota given to the UK does not reflect the fishing that would be controlled by the UK if the law of the sea was applied and the UK had the rights to fish (or indeed sell the rights) in its own territorial waters. Other countries get part of 'our share' in their own national quotas. This has not been 'sold' to them by the UK Government, because it has never been the UK Government's to sell.
It is the latter that will be 'taken back' when we leave, in line with any other sovereign nation. The rest of the EU will have greatly reduced fishing quotas subsequently, which is likely to cause problems. If you think about this, you will understand why the EU is so keen to insist on some sort of 'fishing deal' as part of the trade agreement. If it were simply a case of Spanish and French fishing fleets having 'bought' the rights a long time ago, they wouldn't need a deal, they would just rightly expect the legal rights of these fishing fleets to be respected.
Hope that helps.
So the patches sold will continue to exist and will remain held by the non-UK companies.
However the UK's access to fishing waters will increase (or you could say return), in size in a scenario where EU fisherfolk are not given any access? If so the UKG is negotating the EU access to UK waters while still not being able to open up the pre-sold patches to their own fisherkind?
So Brexit gives the UKG the opportunity to negotiate its fishing quotas at the same time as it negotiates access for its far larger services industry to the Single Market and to use the leverage to maintain the same quotas as a trade-off for maintaining the same level of access for its service industry?
Yes, my reading of it is the patches that have been sold will still be the property of their legal owners.
The right to decide access for fishing to the UK's territorial waters (which are massive due to us being a very knobbly island) will revert to the UK. This will result in the surviving members of the Common Fisheries Policy having vastly reduced quotas. They will lose 'automatic' access to UK waters, though of course, they could get access at the behest of the UK Government, for example by paying for it somehow.
Where agreement will be reached in my opinion is in the timescales. People have rightly pointed out that the UK fishing fleet is vastly reduced, and is likely to take some time to recover. I would hope that EU fishing fleets could be given gradually decreasing access (under some sort of financial arrangement) to allow trawlers to be pensioned-off and industries to contract more naturally rather than in a jolt, as the UK fleet increases. However, this may be wishful thinking.
So far as I know, a full free market for services isn't on the table (does it even exist as part of membership? Other EU states seem to have been successful in permanently banning UK online gambling companies - not blaming them, but that proves it isn't a free market for services), but yes, the UK Government could use continued access to UK fishing grounds, permanent, temporary, or whatever, as a bargaining chip in the negotiations.
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
The modeling was that 50-66% of those that would die, would have died in next few months anyway. It may well be that come summer we experience below average levels of death because so many very elderly, sick and vulnerable people have simply been finished off slightly early. That doesn't take aways people's loss and how traumatic it all is, and nobody likes to think quite that way, but it is true that for a lot of people grim is only a few weeks away.
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
I imagine we will be below average for the remainder of the year from July onwards as long as Covid does not come back
Road deaths and regular flu ought to be down with the lockdown, so at some point net excess deaths could dip below the mean. Unfortunately the viral reservoir is still out there.
For the nth time, we manage about 1800 road deaths a year, which is about our two worst days of coronavirus. As for flu:
"Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu."
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
The modeling was that 50-66% of those that would die, would have died in next few months anyway. It may well be that come summer we experience below average levels of death because so many very elderly, sick and vulnerable people have simply been finished off slightly early. That doesn't take aways people's loss and how traumatic it all is, and nobody likes to think quite that way, but it is true that for a lot of people grim is only a few weeks away.
It will be interesting to see where we are in a year from now, we might well see quite a lot more COVID-19 deaths, but substantially fewer influenza deaths over the next winter if we maintain some degree of social distancing, shielding, hand washing etc. Long term if we keep up some of our new good habits we might even see net reductions in deaths.
Again Hancock veery deliberately declines the opportunity of admitting that the policy of discharging patients into care homes on a mass basis back in March was a serious error.
(Guardian) Asked by the shadow health minister Liz Kendall in the Commons about the apparent delay in implementing testing for those going back to care homes from hospitals, Hancock highlighted the importance of infection-control procedures. It comes amid fears that care homes may have unknowingly received Covid-19 patients hospitals early in the crisis.
Kendall asked: “NHS England rightly asked hospitals to free up at least 30,000 beds to cope with the virus, but can he explain why there was no requirement to test those being discharged to care homes, the very group most at risk, until 15 April?”
In response, Hancock said:
She raises the question of discharges, and I understand the questions that have been asked about discharges into care. It’s important to remember that hospital can be a dangerous place for people, as well as saving lives. It also can carry risks and does and so it is appropriate … in many cases for people to be discharged from hospital and safer for them to go to a care home.
What’s important is that infection control procedures are in place in that care home and those infection control procedures were put in place at the start of this crisis and have been strengthened … as we’ve learned more and more about the virus as we’ve gone along….
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
The modeling was that 50-66% of those that would die, would have died in next few months anyway. It may well be that come summer we experience below average levels of death because so many very elderly, sick and vulnerable people have simply been finished off slightly early. That doesn't take aways people's loss and how traumatic it all is, and nobody likes to think quite that way, but it is true that for a lot of people grim is only a few weeks away.
There's also a difference in the how. The virus seems a particularly nasty and unpleasant death for those who die from it.
Someone who may have died peacefully instead dying earlier from drowning in their own fluids as they struggle to breathe would have died either way but not the two deaths are not the same.
But we have to find something that people are happy for their relatives to die from like a car crash. Otherwise they might look at the ocean of deaths, look at the comparative lack of deaths in neighbouring countries and wonder how we've fucked up this badly...?
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
The modeling was that 50-66% of those that would die, would have died in next few months anyway. It may well be that come summer we experience below average levels of death because so many very elderly, sick and vulnerable people have simply been finished off slightly early. That doesn't take aways people's loss and how traumatic it all is, and nobody likes to think quite that way, but it is true that for a lot of people grim is only a few weeks away.
There's also a difference in the how. The virus seems a particularly nasty and unpleasant death for those who die from it.
Someone who may have died peacefully instead dying earlier from drowning in their own fluids as they struggle to breathe would have died either way but not the two deaths are not the same.
Again Hancock veery deliberately declines the opportunity of admitting that the policy of discharging patients into care homes on a mass basis back in March was a serious error.
(Guardian) Asked by the shadow health minister Liz Kendall in the Commons about the apparent delay in implementing testing for those going back to care homes from hospitals, Hancock highlighted the importance of infection-control procedures. It comes amid fears that care homes may have unknowingly received Covid-19 patients hospitals early in the crisis.
Kendall asked: “NHS England rightly asked hospitals to free up at least 30,000 beds to cope with the virus, but can he explain why there was no requirement to test those being discharged to care homes, the very group most at risk, until 15 April?”
In response, Hancock said:
She raises the question of discharges, and I understand the questions that have been asked about discharges into care. It’s important to remember that hospital can be a dangerous place for people, as well as saving lives. It also can carry risks and does and so it is appropriate … in many cases for people to be discharged from hospital and safer for them to go to a care home.
What’s important is that infection control procedures are in place in that care home and those infection control procedures were put in place at the start of this crisis and have been strengthened … as we’ve learned more and more about the virus as we’ve gone along….
My understanding is that the care home is the residents own home, they live there. That's where they'd almost always be discharged back to. And care homes are used to discharges from hospitals and have procedures in place for barrier nursing when it happens.
The media makes it sound like out of nowhere suddenly the hospital's were empties into care homes. I don't believe that's what happened, in fact I believe the number of discharges went down not up.
A learning for a future potential pandemic may be that we may need some kind of halfway house to take people between the hospital and them returning back home. How that could be set up quickly I don't know though.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
I imagine we will be below average for the remainder of the year from July onwards as long as Covid does not come back
Road deaths and regular flu ought to be down with the lockdown, so at some point net excess deaths could dip below the mean. Unfortunately the viral reservoir is still out there.
Air pollution is linked to ~3,000 deaths per month in the UK and there have been massive improvements in air quality due to the large reduction in road traffic.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
No country without alignment with EU laws exports to the EU?
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
There's a difference between standards and other laws. It's very simple really, just not simple enough for you Remainers to understand.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
A request for help from the, highly knowledgeable and helpful people on here.
I noticed that the Wikipedia page on Covid in Sweden was no linger being updated daily with the new numbers. And decided to help out by creating an Wikipedia account.
I've updated the last 2 weeks or so, but some of the table is things like 5 day roiling avareage, and deaths per 100,000. in Excel this would be a very simple thing to have calculated automatically. but I can't make it work, can anybody offer advice?
It may be that I have to do all the calculations separately and then type in the numbers, but that just seems unnecessarily work.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
No country without alignment with EU laws exports to the EU?
It's remarkable how much CE marked stuff makes its way into this country from China and Singapore and South Korea etc without them aligning with EU laws isn't it?
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
Absolutely. The challenge for policy makers is going to be the number of people dying or at least suffering as a result of elective surgery waiting times becoming excessively long. Some have suggested that Covid-19 will be the death of private healthcare. I think that private healthcare is about to have a boom time as a result of long waiting lists. The question that those that do not have it will need to be asking is why NHS trained surgeons and clinicians are using up their valuable time on private patients
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 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.
Oooooh! Inneee hard?
And persistent I would say.
Persistent you may be, but on the fishing issue, you're simply wrong, unless you've just explained your argument very badly.
The quotas are agreed with the EU and the rights are allocated by the UK Government. That was the case before Brexit and it will be after now. It is what is being debated right now after all.
The rights have been largely sold, certainly in English waters as helpfully clarified to me, and there is no mechanism for their return. Its like the freehold of a house that has been sold it can only be sold on again and maybe returned to its original holder - for a price.
Furthermore the Spanish, French and Dutch fishing companies have used the rights as security with various banks which will make it even harder for the UK Government to forcibly take the rights back. Basically they don't plan to. The upshot: there will not be any additional rights to quotas made available to fishermen (fisherpeople if you prefer), as the existing quotas are not going to change even after negotiation. With the property argument it is like arguing over who owns the land a house is on but with no power to either demolish the house or change who lives in the house.
The market access for our fisherpersons is also complicated: they really are in a no-win scenario and certainly aren't helped by the UK Government having sold the rights so widely and without clear possibility of return.
You're confusing two issues - unsurprisingly as the word 'quota' covers two different things. The first is the sale of UK fishing 'patches' (within our quota) to foreign-based fishing interests. I am sure what you say about how these have been sold and the difficulty of repatriating them has some validity.
The second, more pertinently, is that the UK fishing quota in totality is allocated to the UK under the Common Fisheries Policy, wherein EU members pool all fishing resources. This total quota given to the UK does not reflect the fishing that would be controlled by the UK if the law of the sea was applied and the UK had the rights to fish (or indeed sell the rights) in its own territorial waters. Other countries get part of 'our share' in their own national quotas. This has not been 'sold' to them by the UK Government, because it has never been the UK Government's to sell.
It is the latter that will be 'taken back' when we leave, in line with any other sovereign nation. The rest of the EU will have greatly reduced fishing quotas subsequently, which is likely to cause problems. If you think about this, you will understand why the EU is so keen to insist on some sort of 'fishing deal' as part of the trade agreement. If it were simply a case of Spanish and French fishing fleets having 'bought' the rights a long time ago, they wouldn't need a deal, they would just rightly expect the legal rights of these fishing fleets to be respected.
Hope that helps.
So the patches sold will continue to exist and will remain held by the non-UK companies.
However the UK's access to fishing waters will increase (or you could say return), in size in a scenario where EU fisherfolk are not given any access? If so the UKG is negotating the EU access to UK waters while still not being able to open up the pre-sold patches to their own fisherkind?
So Brexit gives the UKG the opportunity to negotiate its fishing quotas at the same time as it negotiates access for its far larger services industry to the Single Market and to use the leverage to maintain the same quotas as a trade-off for maintaining the same level of access for its service industry?
Yes, my reading of it is the patches that have been sold will still be the property of their legal owners.
The right to decide access for fishing to the UK's territorial waters (which are massive due to us being a very knobbly island) will revert to the UK. This will result in the surviving members of the Common Fisheries Policy having vastly reduced quotas. They will lose 'automatic' access to UK waters, though of course, they could get access at the behest of the UK Government, for example by paying for it somehow.
Where agreement will be reached in my opinion is in the timescales. People have rightly pointed out that the UK fishing fleet is vastly reduced, and is likely to take some time to recover. I would hope that EU fishing fleets could be given gradually decreasing access (under some sort of financial arrangement) to allow trawlers to be pensioned-off and industries to contract more naturally rather than in a jolt, as the UK fleet increases. However, this may be wishful thinking.
So far as I know, a full free market for services isn't on the table (does it even exist as part of membership? Other EU states seem to have been successful in permanently banning UK online gambling companies - not blaming them, but that proves it isn't a free market for services), but yes, the UK Government could use continued access to UK fishing grounds, permanent, temporary, or whatever, as a bargaining chip in the negotiations.
Understood and thanks.
From my own understanding (14 years in UK financial services including seven years at a retail asset manager with sales into the EU as well as the wider world), the Services market is currently very open in the EU barring specific industries (gaming in your example) and you can sell funds and insurance products across the board using your home authorisation (FCA in the UK).
Once access to the Single Market is lost it can be maintained by using EU entities, Lux and Ire, but the regulation (UCITS, MiFID, GDPR), will all have to be maintained and matched and eventually my view is that non-UK sales will exit the UK as the experts and staff will all start to accrue in those regions and maintaining dual regulatory regimes will become a major operational burden.
But that is all for a different time and probably as part of a prologue in a story to my future children about why I became a North Sea fisherman operating from the freeport of Scarborough.
Farage is a racist, but he was also excluded from the official Leave campaign. So no @RochdalePioneers didn't hitch his wagon to them, since they were excluded.
Excluded? Its not like they were banned from participating is it? They were MASSIVELY influential and you know it. Stop being naughty and suggesting they weren't
Cummings stopped Farage from participating in the official campaign because he (I think rightly) feared that Farage would on balance put off those who mattered from voting Leave, since he's a Marmite figure whose appeal was limited to UKIP types and zealots. If you're arguing that nonetheless Farage was massively influential, then you're arguing either that Cummings was wrong or that Leave won in spite of rather than because of Farage.
I think you can argue both that Cummings was right - to have had Farage front and centre in the official campaign would have been a net negative since it would have cost 'moderate' votes rather than attracted them - but that Farage was nevertheless still an influential net positive for the Leave vote as a whole. Indeed a crucial one since without his substantial cohort of supporters a majority would not have been achievable.
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.
I know what you mean. IKEA has that effect on me, too.
Whenever I think of Ikea (not often thankfully) I think of matches.
meatballs
Yeah, fair enough. Their food is much better than their furniture.
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
Personally, I concur. However, that the First World War error was “unforced” is not universally accepted. I think it was, but many fine historians think that the UK had no choice. Or, if it did have a choice, it was only possible to delay, not stop the horrific armed conflict.
The Brexit fiasco was entirely unforced and self-inflicted.
Arguably the Flashman Option was the best plan for WWI.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
No country without alignment with EU laws exports to the EU?
It's remarkable how much CE marked stuff makes its way into this country from China and Singapore and South Korea etc without them aligning with EU laws isn't it?
The EU is currently suing HM Customs and Excise for failure to guard its element of Single Market frontier on that very score.
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
Presumably there will be a significant number of people who would have died in the near future who have died of Covid in the last couple of months thus bringing the death rate below the 5 year average for a number of future months when we are past the Covid impact.
On the other hand, there might be a larger number of people who recovered from Covid, but with serious damage to their health, and therefore shorter lives. Not sure if/when this would show up in figures.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
No but it's impossible to export from China to the EU unless the goods meet EU regulations.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
I've said this before but it's as though this virus has an instant rebuttal system. As soon as people start thinking one thing about its nature, it reveals something about itself that throws what you thought you knew into confusion. Two steps forwards, one step back. I've been checking out people working in the COVID field on twitter, so many studies that compete against each other and the danger of acting on new data just makes the whole decision making even riskier.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
No but it's impossible to export from China to the EU unless the goods meet EU regulations.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
The regulations are simply a part of the spec of what you manufacture that's not that big of a deal. If EU laws were only basic standards the EU would be much looser an organisation than it actually is.
I've said this before but it's as though this virus has an instant rebuttal system. As soon as people start thinking one thing about its nature, it reveals something about itself that throws what you thought you knew into confusion. Two steps forwards, one step back. I've been checking out people working in the COVID field on twitter, so many studies that compete against each other and the danger of acting on new data just makes the whole decision making even riskier.
This may be a silly question, as I am no scientist.
Is it possible it is just as unstable as hell and keeps mutating, so we get all this weird confusion of effects?
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
Personally, I concur. However, that the First World War error was “unforced” is not universally accepted. I think it was, but many fine historians think that the UK had no choice. Or, if it did have a choice, it was only possible to delay, not stop the horrific armed conflict.
The Brexit fiasco was entirely unforced and self-inflicted.
Arguably the Flashman Option was the best plan for WWI.
Sean McMeekin's argument is that the Triple Entente would have been undermined seriously a few months after August 1914 because of growing British-Russian conflict in Persia. However, there is an argument also for saying joining in the European crisis allowed the Government a get out of jail card on Ireland
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
I think you are wasting your breath. Most Brexiteers bought the "our laws" propaganda from Farage and swallowed it entirely. Most have no understanding of the fact that the vast majority were about trade and will still be applicable to almost all goods, not only exported but also even those only sold domestically as our government's standards agencies will not move out of alignment, as to do so would be economically stupid (well even more stupid than Brexit). Ask the average Brexiteer if he knows the difference between the ECJ and the ECHR and they will only be able to answer after they have had time enough to look it up on Wiki, and even then they still wont understand.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
No country without alignment with EU laws exports to the EU?
I don't think any European country of any size has frictionless access into the Single Market without accepting EU 'level playing field' rules or alignment with them. We are seeking this unique status and rightly so. They will knock us back and understandably so. What then happens depends on the balance of power and the politics of it.
I've said this before but it's as though this virus has an instant rebuttal system. As soon as people start thinking one thing about its nature, it reveals something about itself that throws what you thought you knew into confusion. Two steps forwards, one step back. I've been checking out people working in the COVID field on twitter, so many studies that compete against each other and the danger of acting on new data just makes the whole decision making even riskier.
This may be a silly question, as I am no scientist.
Is it possible it is just as unstable as hell and keeps mutating, so we get all this weird confusion of effects?
I believe the genetic makeup of the virus is remarkably stable, which at least means immunity should last longer after recovering and a vaccine could work better.
What varies more I believe is the genetic makeup of people. So the virus may do one thing to some people but something else to others.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
No but it's impossible to export from China to the EU unless the goods meet EU regulations.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
The regulations are simply a part of the spec of what you manufacture that's not that big of a deal. If EU laws were only basic standards the EU would be much looser an organisation than it actually is.
Oh dear, you really are out of your depth on this one.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
Any news on how 'our own laws' are going to apply to US food imports?
'MPs reject Ag Bill vote to protect UK farmers' high standards'
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
No but it's impossible to export from China to the EU unless the goods meet EU regulations.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
The regulations are simply a part of the spec of what you manufacture that's not that big of a deal. If EU laws were only basic standards the EU would be much looser an organisation than it actually is.
Oh dear, you really are out of your depth on this one.
No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.
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
Personally, I concur. However, that the First World War error was “unforced” is not universally accepted. I think it was, but many fine historians think that the UK had no choice. Or, if it did have a choice, it was only possible to delay, not stop the horrific armed conflict.
The Brexit fiasco was entirely unforced and self-inflicted.
Arguably the Flashman Option was the best plan for WWI.
Sean McMeekin's argument is that the Triple Entente would have been undermined seriously a few months after August 1914 because of growing British-Russian conflict in Persia. However, there is an argument also for saying joining in the European crisis allowed the Government a get out of jail card on Ireland
A very transient get out of jail card it would appear.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
No but it's impossible to export from China to the EU unless the goods meet EU regulations.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
The regulations are simply a part of the spec of what you manufacture that's not that big of a deal. If EU laws were only basic standards the EU would be much looser an organisation than it actually is.
Oh dear, you really are out of your depth on this one.
He's no more out of his depth than he usually is but that has never stopped him before. Its a trait I find is common across most Tory voters on this site.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
Who gets to set pretty globalised standards? The worlds largest single market perhaps?
I've said this before but it's as though this virus has an instant rebuttal system. As soon as people start thinking one thing about its nature, it reveals something about itself that throws what you thought you knew into confusion. Two steps forwards, one step back. I've been checking out people working in the COVID field on twitter, so many studies that compete against each other and the danger of acting on new data just makes the whole decision making even riskier.
This may be a silly question, as I am no scientist.
Is it possible it is just as unstable as hell and keeps mutating, so we get all this weird confusion of effects?
The symptoms are different in different people who have contracted the same strain. It is a function of how the individual responds. In the case of some with underlying health conditions, particularly obesity (Boris Johnson being an example) the person's body finds it harder to respond and in the worst cases it is fatal. I think there have been some mild mutations observed, but essentially it is the same virus as far as I am aware.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
"But we gotta leave the EEA or we have to obey all EU laws" claim the wazzock wing of the Brexiteers. We don't. We will always remain under the jurisdiction of the EU over trade and product standards no matter how many times they say we won't be. Whats more they absolutely know this to be the case, but also know your average Brexit voter hasn't a clue.
I've said this before but it's as though this virus has an instant rebuttal system. As soon as people start thinking one thing about its nature, it reveals something about itself that throws what you thought you knew into confusion. Two steps forwards, one step back. I've been checking out people working in the COVID field on twitter, so many studies that compete against each other and the danger of acting on new data just makes the whole decision making even riskier.
This may be a silly question, as I am no scientist.
Is it possible it is just as unstable as hell and keeps mutating, so we get all this weird confusion of effects?
Viral mutation is normally a good thing, as they tend to less problematic forms.
No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.
Yes, and the products made for sale in the EU have to adhere to the legal trading standards set by the EU. Brexiteers insist that won't apply to Britain after we leave. Its bollocks and they know it.
Not that we plan on downgrading EU standards of course. So they insist. So adhering to said EU standards which we choose to have as UK standards would be a good plan. Which would mean easy access to the EEA, no border down the Irish Sea etc etc. But can't have that because wazzocks.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
Who gets to set pretty globalised standards? The worlds largest single market perhaps?
Sometimes but not always. Nor does it matter. Manufacturers know how to manufacturer to a specification whether it's for importing or domestic trade that's literally what they do every single day. That's not relevant. It's no big deal. EU laws apply to all of us when we were within the EU whether we are exporting or not.
I couldn't care less if UK manufacturers need to meet their customers standards for exports - so what!? It's simply not relevant.
It is actually a good example as there were three genders of tank, or perhaps more accurately two genders and also some tanks that had characteristics from both sexes.
Oh yes! How could I forget!? The British called them hermaphrodites quite accurately in the classical sense - male on one side, female on another. But the Americans were too prudish and called them "Composites".
I've said this before but it's as though this virus has an instant rebuttal system. As soon as people start thinking one thing about its nature, it reveals something about itself that throws what you thought you knew into confusion. Two steps forwards, one step back. I've been checking out people working in the COVID field on twitter, so many studies that compete against each other and the danger of acting on new data just makes the whole decision making even riskier.
This may be a silly question, as I am no scientist.
Is it possible it is just as unstable as hell and keeps mutating, so we get all this weird confusion of effects?
It's more that as we learn more about the viral disease, its complexities become apparent.
There is a certain amount of mutation that goes on, but far less so than in (for example) influenza viruses. It's even been suggested that some of the detected small mutations have functional effects on virus activity, but that's not been conclusively demonstrated (and in any event are relatively minor effects in the context of the disease).
The virus can infect a load of different cell types in the body, and its interactions with the immune system are exceptionally complicated, and poorly understood. (The immune system itself is exceptionally complicated, and inadequately, if rather better understood.)
So no, we get selective reporting of new phenomena as they are observed.
We don't have Doctress, so why do we need Actress?
Well, arguably given that the luvvies* job is to be a certain character, and that will have a gender, it is relevant.
In engineering, parts that fit together are often described as male or female, or even sometimes master/slave. Lets just hope the wokies don't find out.
*gender neutral term
Let's hope they don't find out about Great War British tanks either.
I don't know - the Male tanks had the bigger.....
No, lets not go there.
And they had two of them so we're in very odd territory.
Not if you are a reptile such as an alligator or, indeed, dinosaur. Though few of them had saurian names.
A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.
People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
Presumably there will be a significant number of people who would have died in the near future who have died of Covid in the last couple of months thus bringing the death rate below the 5 year average for a number of future months when we are past the Covid impact.
If someone is driving dangerously mounts the pavement and runs over one elderly person who "would have died in the near future" anyway, this is considered an outrageous tragedy.
When 10,000 such people suffer a nasty death due to a pandemic, many people say 'it's sad but they would have died soon anyway'.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
No but it's impossible to export from China to the EU unless the goods meet EU regulations.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
The regulations are simply a part of the spec of what you manufacture that's not that big of a deal. If EU laws were only basic standards the EU would be much looser an organisation than it actually is.
Oh dear, you really are out of your depth on this one.
He's no more out of his depth than he usually is but that has never stopped him before. Its a trait I find is common across most Tory voters on this site.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
No but it's impossible to export from China to the EU unless the goods meet EU regulations.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
The regulations are simply a part of the spec of what you manufacture that's not that big of a deal. If EU laws were only basic standards the EU would be much looser an organisation than it actually is.
Oh dear, you really are out of your depth on this one.
No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.
ou are most definately out of your depth. Of course they can manufacture as you say,, but it is massively inconvenient. Alignment to agreed regulation across multiple countries enables massive economies of scale. If you look at medical products, most companies would like to see as much regulatory alignment as possible. Sorry to be blunt, but if you would like a regulatory wild west, with minimal requirement to agreed standard then you really are a fool. By the way, one of the most successful "notified bodies" in the world is BSI, a company that has now had to relocate a large part of its operation to the Netherlands thanks to the Brexit loons.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
No but it's impossible to export from China to the EU unless the goods meet EU regulations.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
The regulations are simply a part of the spec of what you manufacture that's not that big of a deal. If EU laws were only basic standards the EU would be much looser an organisation than it actually is.
Oh dear, you really are out of your depth on this one.
He's no more out of his depth than he usually is but that has never stopped him before. Its a trait I find is common across most Tory voters on this site.
Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
Who gets to set pretty globalised standards? The worlds largest single market perhaps?
Sometimes but not always. Nor does it matter. Manufacturers know how to manufacturer to a specification whether it's for importing or domestic trade that's literally what they do every single day. That's not relevant. It's no big deal. EU laws apply to all of us when we were within the EU whether we are exporting or not.
I couldn't care less if UK manufacturers need to meet their customers standards for exports - so what!? It's simply not relevant.
If it doesnt matter who sets the standards, then why does it matter if we are subject to the rules on those standards?
We can choose to be subject to product specs de jure but its fairly inevitable we will (mostly) be subject to product specs de facto.
No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.
Yes, and the products made for sale in the EU have to adhere to the legal trading standards set by the EU. Brexiteers insist that won't apply to Britain after we leave. Its bollocks and they know it.
Not that we plan on downgrading EU standards of course. So they insist. So adhering to said EU standards which we choose to have as UK standards would be a good plan. Which would mean easy access to the EEA, no border down the Irish Sea etc etc. But can't have that because wazzocks.
If we want to vary our standards we will be able to do so. Companies already make a plethora of models of products, if they want to manufacture a GB model of a product to be sold in GB then there is no reason they can't do that while still also manufacturing EU models to be sold in the EU.
Comments
But what do I know about gender studies, I just have a full-time job and a normal social circle.
The right to decide access for fishing to the UK's territorial waters (which are massive due to us being a very knobbly island) will revert to the UK. This will result in the surviving members of the Common Fisheries Policy having vastly reduced quotas. They will lose 'automatic' access to UK waters, though of course, they could get access at the behest of the UK Government, for example by paying for it somehow.
Where agreement will be reached in my opinion is in the timescales. People have rightly pointed out that the UK fishing fleet is vastly reduced, and is likely to take some time to recover. I would hope that EU fishing fleets could be given gradually decreasing access (under some sort of financial arrangement) to allow trawlers to be pensioned-off and industries to contract more naturally rather than in a jolt, as the UK fleet increases. However, this may be wishful thinking.
So far as I know, a full free market for services isn't on the table (does it even exist as part of membership? Other EU states seem to have been successful in permanently banning UK online gambling companies - not blaming them, but that proves it isn't a free market for services), but yes, the UK Government could use continued access to UK fishing grounds, permanent, temporary, or whatever, as a bargaining chip in the negotiations.
"Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu."
https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-compare-influenza/
Flu is distinctly seasonal, with lockdown having happened outside that season.
(Guardian)
Asked by the shadow health minister Liz Kendall in the Commons about the apparent delay in implementing testing for those going back to care homes from hospitals, Hancock highlighted the importance of infection-control procedures. It comes amid fears that care homes may have unknowingly received Covid-19 patients hospitals early in the crisis.
Kendall asked: “NHS England rightly asked hospitals to free up at least 30,000 beds to cope with the virus, but can he explain why there was no requirement to test those being discharged to care homes, the very group most at risk, until 15 April?”
In response, Hancock said:
She raises the question of discharges, and I understand the questions that have been asked about discharges into care. It’s important to remember that hospital can be a dangerous place for people, as well as saving lives. It also can carry risks and does and so it is appropriate … in many cases for people to be discharged from hospital and safer for them to go to a care home.
What’s important is that infection control procedures are in place in that care home and those infection control procedures were put in place at the start of this crisis and have been strengthened … as we’ve learned more and more about the virus as we’ve gone along….
Someone who may have died peacefully instead dying earlier from drowning in their own fluids as they struggle to breathe would have died either way but not the two deaths are not the same.
The media makes it sound like out of nowhere suddenly the hospital's were empties into care homes. I don't believe that's what happened, in fact I believe the number of discharges went down not up.
A learning for a future potential pandemic may be that we may need some kind of halfway house to take people between the hospital and them returning back home. How that could be set up quickly I don't know though.
To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're
EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.I noticed that the Wikipedia page on Covid in Sweden was no linger being updated daily with the new numbers. And decided to help out by creating an Wikipedia account.
I've updated the last 2 weeks or so, but some of the table is things like 5 day roiling avareage, and deaths per 100,000. in Excel this would be a very simple thing to have calculated automatically. but I can't make it work, can anybody offer advice?
It may be that I have to do all the calculations separately and then type in the numbers, but that just seems unnecessarily work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden
About 4/5 down the page
From my own understanding (14 years in UK financial services including seven years at a retail asset manager with sales into the EU as well as the wider world), the Services market is currently very open in the EU barring specific industries (gaming in your example) and you can sell funds and insurance products across the board using your home authorisation (FCA in the UK).
Once access to the Single Market is lost it can be maintained by using EU entities, Lux and Ire, but the regulation (UCITS, MiFID, GDPR), will all have to be maintained and matched and eventually my view is that non-UK sales will exit the UK as the experts and staff will all start to accrue in those regions and maintaining dual regulatory regimes will become a major operational burden.
But that is all for a different time and probably as part of a prologue in a story to my future children about why I became a North Sea fisherman operating from the freeport of Scarborough.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8336035/Lance-Armstrong-admits-doping-caused-testicular-cancer.html
No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
This is the thing most people who want free trade and no regulations fail to understand, you may as well follow the regulations as if you want to export the goods they will need to meet the regulations anyway.
By not agreeing to be part of the regulations the only thing we lose is our say when they are being written.
Is it possible it is just as unstable as hell and keeps mutating, so we get all this weird confusion of effects?
What varies more I believe is the genetic makeup of people. So the virus may do one thing to some people but something else to others.
'MPs reject Ag Bill vote to protect UK farmers' high standards'
https://tinyurl.com/y89z6t7j
Not that we plan on downgrading EU standards of course. So they insist. So adhering to said EU standards which we choose to have as UK standards would be a good plan. Which would mean easy access to the EEA, no border down the Irish Sea etc etc. But can't have that because wazzocks.
I couldn't care less if UK manufacturers need to meet their customers standards for exports - so what!? It's simply not relevant.
There is a certain amount of mutation that goes on, but far less so than in (for example) influenza viruses. It's even been suggested that some of the detected small mutations have functional effects on virus activity, but that's not been conclusively demonstrated (and in any event are relatively minor effects in the context of the disease).
The virus can infect a load of different cell types in the body, and its interactions with the immune system are exceptionally complicated, and poorly understood. (The immune system itself is exceptionally complicated, and inadequately, if rather better understood.)
So no, we get selective reporting of new phenomena as they are observed.
When 10,000 such people suffer a nasty death due to a pandemic, many people say 'it's sad but they would have died soon anyway'.
I find this totally baffling.
We can choose to be subject to product specs de jure but its fairly inevitable we will (mostly) be subject to product specs de facto.