Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse.
That's the point about inheritance - it isn't random.
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
it may be comedy, but it is also the official position of the UK. When we No Deal, Tory MPs will blame europe.
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
I think expecting a negotiation to involve give and take on both sides isn't a terribly unreasonable prediction.
If the EU has decided that punishing the UK is more important than the economic benefits envisaged from a trade deal, that's regrettable but you just have to give a gallic shrug and walk away.
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
Yes, I thought that bizarre logic.
It cannot be No Deal though, as the WDA was passed by all sides, but it can be no Trade Agreement.
We agreed to a LPF in the Political Declaration, it seems poor form not to honour it. Of course a LPF is by definition fair to both sides, it also protects rUK from unfair practices too.
Johnson has better political acumen than Joe 90 here. If the tories bin the TL then Starmer will immediately promise to reinstate it and peel off a significant tranche of voters with prostates the size of satsumas. The recent tory borrowing and spending bukkake has blunted any potential attacks on affordability.
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse.
That's the point about inheritance - it isn't random.
Why will politicians spend it in a better way?
it is random in the sense that overall a small proportion of the population get a lot of money for something they have not worked for. Whilst not a massive fan of government ,it it needs to raise taxation to pay for impactful stuff like youth opportunity then it should come from a "national inheritance " or t least by money circulating more and not tied up in pensioner wealth (that they dont need and they are hanging onto just to create inequality of opportunity through inheritance)
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I would be surprised if they did though. The population grows older by the year, and oldies vote. Nobody is willing to upset them, hence the fact that the Coalition Government introduced the Triple Lock in the first place and they were otherwise systematically shielded from the effects of austerity. Indeed, mollycoddling stickbangers would appear to be the number one priority of Government nowadays, doubtless turbocharged by the volcanic temper tantrum over the richer ones paying more to have their bums wiped when they go dotty that wrecked Theresa May's 2017 GE campaign. The one major instance in which it has since failed - the care homes tragedy - is the product of incompetence rather than design.
One is moved at this point to observe that the parents of today's grey generation were willing to put up with privations like food rationing and carpet bombing for years and years, or to storm beaches in Normandy and be horribly maimed or killed as the price of making a better future for their children. Those children - or a great many of them, anyway - throw their toys out of the pram over having their freebie TV licences withdrawn. No way on Earth are they going to consent to having the gold plating stripped from their state pensions to try to help their grandkids out of the shit.
That's where we are as a society now. Britain is a gerontocracy. It was perfectly willing to lock its children away and do them out of an education for half-a-year in an attempt to save its elderly. But when sacrifices are called for from the other end of the age range, they are unlikely to be forthcoming.
In the event it may not be easy to distinguish in the data the no-deal crash-out signal from the noise of the oncoming CV-19 related depression. But no doubt many ardent cliff-edge detectorists will be searching hard.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
Yes you’ve nailed it. The Economy Stupid has completely blinded informed opinion to the fact that self identity trumps everything. When the history is written, having separate English and Scottish football teams will be seen as the worst mistake made by British unionists. One wonders whether the success of the Olympics in 2012 was what really mattered in nudging No over the line just two years later.
Unionists would have done better to have had a state of origin type football match occasionally but all sporting endeavours should otherwise have been under the Union flag. The final throw of the dice at this point is something approaching full federalism but good luck making that work with the population domination of England. Maybe if you threw in Canada, Ireland, Oz and NZ but we’re over 100 years too late for that too.
I don't think it's all, or even mostly, about football. Though it would be nice to be on the same sporting side more often. But even when we are, and the hero is Scottish, we see complete inventions like 'When Andy wins he's called British, and when loses he's called Scottish', which at least the Nats here had the good grace to admit was utterly baseless - eventually. Doesn't stop it being common currency up here.
I also don't think it's really the constitution, though it would be nice if it were neater.
True, the Scotland vs England story is arguably 2000 years old, predating either Scotland or England thanks to Hadrian’s blunt line.
But centuries later it didn’t take too long for affiliations to Mercia, Northumberland or Wessex to be replaced by England, despite the various ravages inflicted on the regions by the other heptarchy kingdoms at various times. What went wrong with Britain? What spurred 19th century Scottish nationalism? And when did it cease being a fringe interest to a mainstream one?
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
it may be comedy, but it is also the official position of the UK. When we No Deal, Tory MPs will blame europe.
Mr. Pioneers, I don't understand why even pro-EU types would think having the EU continue to be able to impose laws on us after we leave is remotely acceptable.
I did say earlier that I have no interest in going back over how we got here. However, there are some basics that apparently need to be re-stated. We are the supplicant in this relationship. We are about to make ourselves significantly smaller in both value and political weight than the collective EU and somehow think that having both done that and torn up every trade deal we have simultaneously that the new deals will be both fast and better. They won't. We get worse deals because we are smaller. We get worse deals because we are desperate. The supplicant.
If we retained EEA membership then as a sizeable addition to the negotiating position of the EEA we can retain some influence. As a 3rd party we have no influence. We aren't going to dictate terms to the EU or to any of our larger more stable less desperate competitors. They will impose terms on us. Its just basic negotiation - the power gauge is about to massively swing to the side of our counterparty thanks to our own action. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so tragic.
Dr. Foxy, we did not agree to have the EU impose laws on us after we leave, which appears to be what the EU view of a level playing field is.
I wouldn't object to the notion of existing standards in some areas being considered a floor (likewise applying to the EU), provided the rest of a deal could be reached. The idea of a political body we voted to leave having the right to perpetually impose laws on us is completely antithetical to the referendum result and democratic legitimacy.
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
I think expecting a negotiation to involve give and take on both sides isn't a terribly unreasonable prediction.
If the EU has decided that punishing the UK is more important than the economic benefits envisaged from a trade deal, that's regrettable but you just have to give a gallic shrug and walk away.
You can only walk so far; UK has to sort out rights for truckers into the EU still. No Deal means no Cabotage and before the threats come out about Eire the Irish and French have expanded their ferry operations and will be able to bypass Brexit Island by sea. That will be slower but is doable. Other than a contra-flow system in Kent the UK Government has no provisions in place whatsoever.
There’s an enormous amount to be optimistic and joyful about but we rarely hear about it from the traditional media.
Is this the point at which somebody rocks up with a set of statistics and reminds us that there has never been a better time in human history to be alive?
Those people seem to have gone awfully quiet just lately...
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
Yes, I thought that bizarre logic.
It cannot be No Deal though, as the WDA was passed by all sides, but it can be no Trade Agreement.
We agreed to a LPF in the Political Declaration, it seems poor form not to honour it. Of course a LPF is by definition fair to both sides, it also protects rUK from unfair practices too.
Within the PD there is still a lot of scope for differences over what is fair and what is not. Is it 'unfair' to reduce business taxes significantly to attract more investment? The Government would be sacrificing tax revenue in the short term. The EU would certainly see such a move as extremely unfair - the UK might not, citing Ireland as an example.
It depends on whether the Brexiteer government wants a deal enough to compromise on its rhetoric. So far, the answer is, No.
Baseline Brexit is extremely crap and a Deal only makes it slightly less so, Nevertheless, there are reasons why it might the government might compromise to make a deal with the EU:
Most people want a deal including a proportion of Leave voters
Johnson promised a deal and would look ineffectual if he doesn't get one
A deal is the difference between a business and no business; a job and no job for particular sectors of the economy. Farmers especially and also some manufacturing
No Deal is purgatory; it's not an end-state
Deal is better for the preservation of the British Union than No Deal, which is a consideration for thoughtful unionists who are also Conservatives (there are still some)
Mr. Pioneers, the EU economy is obviously much larger than the UK one, but terms like supplicant is the mindset of managed decline. If you go into a negotiation on your knees you'll be treated like the slave you think you are.
It's not acceptable for a foreign body to impose laws on us. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me. Do you think the US should be able to dictate our domestic laws? Or China? Or India?
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
it may be comedy, but it is also the official position of the UK. When we No Deal, Tory MPs will blame europe.
They will blame Europe for the increase in covid infections, or maybe they already have.
Jesus Christ, they have a big majority, don't have to have an electon for nearly 4 years, and it's an unprecedented situation, and they're still so petrified of upsetting the grey vote they won't even do this?
The Tories have forgotten what it is like to get genuinely unpopular in office (and that you can still turn it around and win if you fall behind), and are so stung by 2017 they are terrified of old people getting angry, whether it is something justified or just a freebie.
LOL @ Boris camping in a farmer's field without asking permission!
From a government that wants to criminalise trespass.
One area where Scotland has it right in that i thought you can wild camp in Scotland without owners permission. Something we should of course have in England
I dont think a field surrounded by fences (which Boris apparently used a couple of chairs from the house to get over) counts as "unenclosed land"?
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
Yes, I thought that bizarre logic.
It cannot be No Deal though, as the WDA was passed by all sides, but it can be no Trade Agreement.
We agreed to a LPF in the Political Declaration, it seems poor form not to honour it. Of course a LPF is by definition fair to both sides, it also protects rUK from unfair practices too.
Of course it can be no deal. Shagger said no border down the Irish Sea, signs a deal sticking a border down the Irish Sea then proudly states that he has done no such thing and will not do so. A notorious cheat and liar his word has no value and he keeps proving this through his actions.
England (not Britain or the UK, Engerland) is supreme. We will overcome. The inferior foreigner WILL yield. And when they don't, we exit transition with no trading deal, with no political alignment as we blame them, with no preparation for the immediate massive change in how we live.
Stock up. On things you need. Because you won't be able to get them easily or at a price you can afford. Which is the official view of the government who have already told the drug companies the same.
I doubt fish will play a big role in the Holyrood elections next year. Interestingly Level Playing Field might do so, specifically the replacement of the EU LPF by the UK version. Scotland and other nations are better protected by the EU LPF, even though it has no say in it, than by a playing field where the English government (Cummings really) does what it wants and decides everything.
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse. An ideal excuse to get rid of a ruinous triple pension lock that given most pensioners voted for the economy reducing brexit
Utter garbage from start to finish - full of petty envy. Hilarious given your name!
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
it may be comedy, but it is also the official position of the UK. When we No Deal, Tory MPs will blame europe.
It is the official position of every side when a deal does not happen, that it was the fault of the other lot. It's not comedy, it's utterly predictable and universal. Some will in fact be more at fault than others in terms of reasonableness, but why anyone is surprised when the whole process is each side saying the other is to blame I do not know.
I think it is a game where we pretend we don't know how things work, or like how we don't quote the lines of a play outloud in the theatre even if we have the script in front of us.
Mr. Pioneers, the EU economy is obviously much larger than the UK one, but terms like supplicant is the mindset of managed decline. If you go into a negotiation on your knees you'll be treated like the slave you think you are.
It's not acceptable for a foreign body to impose laws on us. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me. Do you think the US should be able to dictate our domestic laws? Or China? Or India?
But we *are* going into these negotiations on our knees. Our backstop position is to walk away. Not from the EU but from our own ability to trade effectively. Wazzocks in the Tory Party even now think the WTO will save us via GATT24. That the outgoing head of the WTO has laughed in our faces doesn't bother them.
When we simultaneously tear up every trading deal with every nation on the planet on 01/01/21 we are fucked. That our government don't know/care that we're fucked is why we are the supplicant in these negotiations. Which is why none of the major counterparty nations are willing to engage with us this side of that date - why bother? They will be able to set their own terms and impose their own standards (and laws - we WILL buy whatever shite the Americans want regardless of what our legal standards are). Because we will be desperate.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
Yes you’ve nailed it. The Economy Stupid has completely blinded informed opinion to the fact that self identity trumps everything. When the history is written, having separate English and Scottish football teams will be seen as the worst mistake made by British unionists. One wonders whether the success of the Olympics in 2012 was what really mattered in nudging No over the line just two years later.
Unionists would have done better to have had a state of origin type football match occasionally but all sporting endeavours should otherwise have been under the Union flag. The final throw of the dice at this point is something approaching full federalism but good luck making that work with the population domination of England. Maybe if you threw in Canada, Ireland, Oz and NZ but we’re over 100 years too late for that too.
I don't think it's all, or even mostly, about football. Though it would be nice to be on the same sporting side more often. But even when we are, and the hero is Scottish, we see complete inventions like 'When Andy wins he's called British, and when loses he's called Scottish', which at least the Nats here had the good grace to admit was utterly baseless - eventually. Doesn't stop it being common currency up here.
I also don't think it's really the constitution, though it would be nice if it were neater.
True, the Scotland vs England story is arguably 2000 years old, predating either Scotland or England thanks to Hadrian’s blunt line.
But centuries later it didn’t take too long for affiliations to Mercia, Northumberland or Wessex to be replaced by England, despite the various ravages inflicted on the regions by the other heptarchy kingdoms at various times. What went wrong with Britain? What spurred 19th century Scottish nationalism? And when did it cease being a fringe interest to a mainstream one?
I think it was the broad decline of Britain. When the body gets weaker, diseases that have always been there get stronger. There are many such diseases within our body politic, Scottish nationalism is just one. This could not have been avoided by staying in the EU either - the direction of travel within that organisation was clear. Regionalism superceding British sovereignty under the EU was a feature of membership.
I doubt fish will play a big role in the Holyrood elections next year. Interestingly Level Playing Field might do so, specifically the replacement of the EU LPF by the UK version. Scotland and other nations are better protected by the EU LPF, even though it has no say in it, than by a playing field where the English government (Cummings really) does what it wants and decides everything.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Remain lost, get over it.
That’s all Brexiteers have. We won. That’s it.
No articulation of any benefits of Brexit, no adaptation to the current circumstances. No attempt to win anyone over or find a positive case.
Just we won, we will do it, to hell with the consequences and damn the rest of you.
I see the r rate for Remainerdepression is back on the rise.
He has a point. What's it all for? Other than fish obviously.
Who are we going to sell the fish to? We are closing off our main market for goods.
we can always eat more of it ourselves.
It will vary our diet from eating grass.
Brits do not like fish all that much. It is why we sell our fish.
Now, if we could develop a wild McDonalds burger that could be harvested (ideally living in a clamshell style bap) then no doubt we would eat every single one...
Actually Brits love fish but they only like a resticted range. A bit of education would do wonders to widening what we like.
Yes, and as a gourmet Remainer one of the benefits of Brexit is that scallops will be cheaper, and with a bit of luck scallop rakes used much less often, thereby improving the marine environment.
I'm looking forward to cut price langoustine and chips myself.
Jesus Christ, they have a big majority, don't have to have an electon for nearly 4 years, and it's an unprecedented situation, and they're still so petrified of upsetting the grey vote they won't even do this?
The Tories have forgotten what it is like to get genuinely unpopular in office (and that you can still turn it around and win if you fall behind), and are so stung by 2017 they are terrified of old people getting angry, whether it is something justified or just a freebie.
The Tories are not "... petrified of upsetting the grey vote...". They ARE the grey vote
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
Mr. Pioneers, the EU economy is obviously much larger than the UK one, but terms like supplicant is the mindset of managed decline. If you go into a negotiation on your knees you'll be treated like the slave you think you are.
It's not acceptable for a foreign body to impose laws on us. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me. Do you think the US should be able to dictate our domestic laws? Or China? Or India?
But we *are* going into these negotiations on our knees. Our backstop position is to walk away. Not from the EU but from our own ability to trade effectively. Wazzocks in the Tory Party even now think the WTO will save us via GATT24. That the outgoing head of the WTO has laughed in our faces doesn't bother them.
When we simultaneously tear up every trading deal with every nation on the planet on 01/01/21 we are fucked. That our government don't know/care that we're fucked is why we are the supplicant in these negotiations. Which is why none of the major counterparty nations are willing to engage with us this side of that date - why bother? They will be able to set their own terms and impose their own standards (and laws - we WILL buy whatever shite the Americans want regardless of what our legal standards are). Because we will be desperate.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
Yes you’ve nailed it. The Economy Stupid has completely blinded informed opinion to the fact that self identity trumps everything. When the history is written, having separate English and Scottish football teams will be seen as the worst mistake made by British unionists. One wonders whether the success of the Olympics in 2012 was what really mattered in nudging No over the line just two years later.
Unionists would have done better to have had a state of origin type football match occasionally but all sporting endeavours should otherwise have been under the Union flag. The final throw of the dice at this point is something approaching full federalism but good luck making that work with the population domination of England. Maybe if you threw in Canada, Ireland, Oz and NZ but we’re over 100 years too late for that too.
I don't think it's all, or even mostly, about football. Though it would be nice to be on the same sporting side more often. But even when we are, and the hero is Scottish, we see complete inventions like 'When Andy wins he's called British, and when loses he's called Scottish', which at least the Nats here had the good grace to admit was utterly baseless - eventually. Doesn't stop it being common currency up here.
I also don't think it's really the constitution, though it would be nice if it were neater.
True, the Scotland vs England story is arguably 2000 years old, predating either Scotland or England thanks to Hadrian’s blunt line.
But centuries later it didn’t take too long for affiliations to Mercia, Northumberland or Wessex to be replaced by England, despite the various ravages inflicted on the regions by the other heptarchy kingdoms at various times. What went wrong with Britain? What spurred 19th century Scottish nationalism? And when did it cease being a fringe interest to a mainstream one?
I think it was the broad decline of Britain. When the body gets weaker, diseases that have always been there get stronger. There are many such diseases within our body politic, Scottish nationalism is just one. This could not have been avoided by staying in the EU either - the direction of travel within that organisation was clear. Regionalism superceding British sovereignty under the EU was a feature of membership.
LOL @ Boris camping in a farmer's field without asking permission!
From a government that wants to criminalise trespass.
One area where Scotland has it right in that i thought you can wild camp in Scotland without owners permission. Something we should of course have in England
I dont think a field surrounded by fences (which Boris apparently used a couple of chairs from the house to get over) counts as "unenclosed land"?
The fence means nothing aiui. If you could dodge access by putting a fence in, they'd all be doing it.
Dr. Foxy, we did not agree to have the EU impose laws on us after we leave, which appears to be what the EU view of a level playing field is.
I wouldn't object to the notion of existing standards in some areas being considered a floor (likewise applying to the EU), provided the rest of a deal could be reached. The idea of a political body we voted to leave having the right to perpetually impose laws on us is completely antithetical to the referendum result and democratic legitimacy.
Yet often a feature of Trade agreements.
The problem is that the relationship of countries with the EU starts from a position that members get all benefits, and non members get none. Some 3rd countries (EFTA, Switzerland, Turkey, etc) have negotiated up from that position.
Our government has not recognised this, and seems to think that it is negotiating from a position of access to all benefits/costs. The reality is that it is negotiating from having neither.
Brexit means Brexit, and the default position of 3rd countries is WTO*. Anything over that has to be bought and paid for either in cash or kind.
*and the WTO is a pretty ineffective and unenforceable body at present.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
and they need to share them given they have voted for brexit more than any section of the population
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
and they need to share them given they have voted for brexit more than any section of the population
Brxit has already taken away youth opportunity ,i dont see why pensioner assets cannot be
It's not acceptable for a foreign body to impose laws on us. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me. Do you think the US should be able to dictate our domestic laws? Or China? Or India?
It was not a foreign body, it was a membership club with rules that we had a hand in writing.
As for the US dictating to us, that is exactly what they will do. They are already telling us that labelling on food must go and that the NHS must be available to US Pharma. India has already told us that immigration from India must be allowed to increase and I am sure China will have something in mind thanks to the Huwaie (sp?) situation.
The silver linings for Trump in the US polling are Nevada and Minnesota. If Biden retains both the tipping point state looks to be Pennsylvania rather than Florida. That's much tougher for Trump.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Why would you wish that given the harm it would cause a great many people, including many Remain supporters. It’s pathetic.
Bit like those folk who say that they're rubbing their hands & ordering in the popcorn at the prospect of what they say will be the complete disaster of an indy Scotland.
It will take the richard head a long time for that to sink in.
LOL @ Boris camping in a farmer's field without asking permission!
From a government that wants to criminalise trespass.
One area where Scotland has it right in that i thought you can wild camp in Scotland without owners permission. Something we should of course have in England
I dont think a field surrounded by fences (which Boris apparently used a couple of chairs from the house to get over) counts as "unenclosed land"?
The fence means nothing aiui. If you could dodge access by putting a fence in, they'd all be doing it.
Mr. Pioneers, I don't understand why even pro-EU types would think having the EU continue to be able to impose laws on us after we leave is remotely acceptable.
As a guest at a golf club, you can avoid the membership fee but you still have to pay the pay as you play green fees and adhere to the club's etiquette codes.
... the power gauge is about to massively swing to the side of our counterparty thanks to our own action. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so tragic.
I will find it entertaining, even if it is tragic.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
I was working in Edinburgh at the time of the vote (by the way I didn't vote). The feeling I got (and this is purely anecdotal) amongst those who I believe were non-aligned but probably voted 'no', was not one of happiness or even relief. It was a sort of sharpness and almost guilt, like really they wished they'd had more bottle. It never felt like the end of the argument, because it was not people really feeling at home in the union.
In the event it may not be easy to distinguish in the data the no-deal crash-out signal from the noise of the oncoming CV-19 related depression. But no doubt many ardent cliff-edge detectorists will be searching hard.
Under which circumstances, those convinced that Brexit was a bad idea will blame Brexit for everything, those convinced that Brexit was a good idea will blame Covid for everything, the people in the middle will be too busy managing the pain to listen to the futile argument, and precisely zero minds will be changed.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Remain lost, get over it.
That’s all Brexiteers have. We won. That’s it.
No articulation of any benefits of Brexit, no adaptation to the current circumstances. No attempt to win anyone over or find a positive case.
Just we won, we will do it, to hell with the consequences and damn the rest of you.
I see the r rate for Remainerdepression is back on the rise.
He has a point. What's it all for? Other than fish obviously.
Who are we going to sell the fish to? We are closing off our main market for goods.
we can always eat more of it ourselves.
It will vary our diet from eating grass.
Brits do not like fish all that much. It is why we sell our fish.
Now, if we could develop a wild McDonalds burger that could be harvested (ideally living in a clamshell style bap) then no doubt we would eat every single one...
Actually Brits love fish but they only like a resticted range. A bit of education would do wonders to widening what we like.
Yes, and as a gourmet Remainer one of the benefits of Brexit is that scallops will be cheaper, and with a bit of luck scallop rakes used much less often, thereby improving the marine environment.
I'm looking forward to cut price langoustine and chips myself.
In Kaikoura NZ, they have the most fantastic Crayfish, as big as lobsters without claws. Served deep fried in batter.
But scampi (langoustine) and chips is a pub staple already, so I wouldn't expect much cheaper.
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse. An ideal excuse to get rid of a ruinous triple pension lock that given most pensioners voted for the economy reducing brexit
typical greedy layabout thinking. I am a lazy no good git and so people who have toiled all their lives should have their savings taken off them and given to me so I can layabout some more. get out and earn your own money you greedy blood sucking leech.
I doubt fish will play a big role in the Holyrood elections next year. Interestingly Level Playing Field might do so, specifically the replacement of the EU LPF by the UK version. Scotland and other nations are better protected by the EU LPF, even though it has no say in it, than by a playing field where the English government (Cummings really) does what it wants and decides everything.
Why
Why is Scotland better protected by an EU LPF than a UK one, even though it has little effective input into either? Because the EU LPF is compromise between 27/28 countries with no country dominating and because an independent ECJ enforces it. The UK LPF will be decided and enforced arbitrarily by whoever runs the UK government for the English interest.
In the event it may not be easy to distinguish in the data the no-deal crash-out signal from the noise of the oncoming CV-19 related depression. But no doubt many ardent cliff-edge detectorists will be searching hard.
Under which circumstances, those convinced that Brexit was a bad idea will blame Brexit for everything, those convinced that Brexit was a good idea will blame Covid for everything, the people in the middle will be too busy managing the pain to listen to the futile argument, and precisely zero minds will be changed.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
Yes you’ve nailed it. The Economy Stupid has completely blinded informed opinion to the fact that self identity trumps everything. When the history is written, having separate English and Scottish football teams will be seen as the worst mistake made by British unionists. One wonders whether the success of the Olympics in 2012 was what really mattered in nudging No over the line just two years later.
Unionists would have done better to have had a state of origin type football match occasionally but all sporting endeavours should otherwise have been under the Union flag. The final throw of the dice at this point is something approaching full federalism but good luck making that work with the population domination of England. Maybe if you threw in Canada, Ireland, Oz and NZ but we’re over 100 years too late for that too.
I don't think it's all, or even mostly, about football. Though it would be nice to be on the same sporting side more often. But even when we are, and the hero is Scottish, we see complete inventions like 'When Andy wins he's called British, and when loses he's called Scottish', which at least the Nats here had the good grace to admit was utterly baseless - eventually. Doesn't stop it being common currency up here.
I also don't think it's really the constitution, though it would be nice if it were neater.
True, the Scotland vs England story is arguably 2000 years old, predating either Scotland or England thanks to Hadrian’s blunt line.
But centuries later it didn’t take too long for affiliations to Mercia, Northumberland or Wessex to be replaced by England, despite the various ravages inflicted on the regions by the other heptarchy kingdoms at various times. What went wrong with Britain? What spurred 19th century Scottish nationalism? And when did it cease being a fringe interest to a mainstream one?
I think it was the broad decline of Britain. When the body gets weaker, diseases that have always been there get stronger. There are many such diseases within our body politic, Scottish nationalism is just one. This could not have been avoided by staying in the EU either - the direction of travel within that organisation was clear. Regionalism superceding British sovereignty under the EU was a feature of membership.
The very concept that Scotland gayly and joyously joined up with England in 1707 and then some worm of Scottish Nationalism turned up later is pretty funny.
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
Felix we are talking here about greedy selfish arses , who think they are owed something for nothing. Do not expect the likes of this to have any milk of human kindness or care about anyone other than their greedy grasping selves. They want your hard earned money without having to get up off their lazy sadsack arses.
Mrs C, an argument that holds water if we were members. We're not.
Mr. Pete, you're aware the EU also wants to do business with us? The economic scales are not equal but it's not the case that one side only will benefit from an agreement, or suffer from the lack thereof.
In most areas, we'd stand to suffer more. But we also have the financial capital of the world, and it's plain stupid for the EU to demand suzerainty and prefer no deal and all the bad blood that comes with that (good for neither side) instead of a Canada style deal, which they offered for years until the UK indicated it'd go for that.
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse. An ideal excuse to get rid of a ruinous triple pension lock that given most pensioners voted for the economy reducing brexit
typical greedy layabout thinking. I am a lazy no good git and so people who have toiled all their lives should have their savings taken off them and given to me so I can layabout some more. get out and earn your own money you greedy blood sucking leech.
Mr. Pioneers, I don't understand why even pro-EU types would think having the EU continue to be able to impose laws on us after we leave is remotely acceptable.
As a guest at a golf club, you can avoid the membership fee but you still have to pay the pay as you play green fees and adhere to the club's etiquette codes.
A nostalgic late rollout for the golf club analogy?
Mr. Pioneers, the EU economy is obviously much larger than the UK one, but terms like supplicant is the mindset of managed decline. If you go into a negotiation on your knees you'll be treated like the slave you think you are.
It's not acceptable for a foreign body to impose laws on us. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me. Do you think the US should be able to dictate our domestic laws? Or China? Or India?
But we *are* going into these negotiations on our knees. Our backstop position is to walk away. Not from the EU but from our own ability to trade effectively. Wazzocks in the Tory Party even now think the WTO will save us via GATT24. That the outgoing head of the WTO has laughed in our faces doesn't bother them.
When we simultaneously tear up every trading deal with every nation on the planet on 01/01/21 we are fucked. That our government don't know/care that we're fucked is why we are the supplicant in these negotiations. Which is why none of the major counterparty nations are willing to engage with us this side of that date - why bother? They will be able to set their own terms and impose their own standards (and laws - we WILL buy whatever shite the Americans want regardless of what our legal standards are). Because we will be desperate.
Can I assume you do not like brexit
I have no problem with Brexit - leaving the European Union. I have a major problem with all the things that legally and sensibly are not the EU which this government have decided to quit.
Mrs C, an argument that holds water if we were members. We're not.
Mr. Pete, you're aware the EU also wants to do business with us? The economic scales are not equal but it's not the case that one side only will benefit from an agreement, or suffer from the lack thereof.
In most areas, we'd stand to suffer more. But we also have the financial capital of the world, and it's plain stupid for the EU to demand suzerainty and prefer no deal and all the bad blood that comes with that (good for neither side) instead of a Canada style deal, which they offered for years until the UK indicated it'd go for that.
We wouldn't stand to suffer more. We've seen the raw truth in tourism. British people spend far more abroad every year than overseas visitors do here. If it is restricted, there's a huge amount of money that doesn't leave the economy. The same is true of imports and exports with the EU.
LOL @ Boris camping in a farmer's field without asking permission!
From a government that wants to criminalise trespass.
One area where Scotland has it right in that i thought you can wild camp in Scotland without owners permission. Something we should of course have in England
You also have right to walk anywhere as long as you cause no damage.
Don't worry. The cliff edge is months away. Before that we can all entertain ourselves watching the return to school fiasco and the universities fiasco and the mass unemployment fiasco and the not prepared for the second spike fiasco.
In the event it may not be easy to distinguish in the data the no-deal crash-out signal from the noise of the oncoming CV-19 related depression. But no doubt many ardent cliff-edge detectorists will be searching hard.
Under which circumstances, those convinced that Brexit was a bad idea will blame Brexit for everything, those convinced that Brexit was a good idea will blame Covid for everything, the people in the middle will be too busy managing the pain to listen to the futile argument, and precisely zero minds will be changed.
I think that's about right, although if in 2021 we find Kent clogged up with stationary lorries and, once Covid passes, find it a bit harder to travel to Europe (especially with the dog) I suspect Brexit will be in the frame again.
Mrs C, an argument that holds water if we were members. We're not.
Mr. Pete, you're aware the EU also wants to do business with us? The economic scales are not equal but it's not the case that one side only will benefit from an agreement, or suffer from the lack thereof.
In most areas, we'd stand to suffer more. But we also have the financial capital of the world, and it's plain stupid for the EU to demand suzerainty and prefer no deal and all the bad blood that comes with that (good for neither side) instead of a Canada style deal, which they offered for years until the UK indicated it'd go for that.
But we want to use their golf course, and they are happy for us to use it providing we don't try to change their rules. The EU want us to replace the divots and not get embarrassingly drunk at the 19th hole..
It is the same if we decide we want to play at LaManga or Augusta. We play to the respective club rules
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
Yes you’ve nailed it. The Economy Stupid has completely blinded informed opinion to the fact that self identity trumps everything. When the history is written, having separate English and Scottish football teams will be seen as the worst mistake made by British unionists. One wonders whether the success of the Olympics in 2012 was what really mattered in nudging No over the line just two years later.
Unionists would have done better to have had a state of origin type football match occasionally but all sporting endeavours should otherwise have been under the Union flag. The final throw of the dice at this point is something approaching full federalism but good luck making that work with the population domination of England. Maybe if you threw in Canada, Ireland, Oz and NZ but we’re over 100 years too late for that too.
BARKING, ban them having sports teams that will make them tame unionists.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
I was working in Edinburgh at the time of the vote (by the way I didn't vote). The feeling I got (and this is purely anecdotal) amongst those who I believe were non-aligned but probably voted 'no', was not one of happiness or even relief. It was a sort of sharpness and almost guilt, like really they wished they'd had more bottle. It never felt like the end of the argument, because it was not people really feeling at home in the union.
Yeah, I was a unionist in 2014 but ended up feeling kind of guilty about the result, like we'd bottled it. Brexit was the final nudge into the indy camp. Although I had no vote then or now.
LOL @ Boris camping in a farmer's field without asking permission!
From a government that wants to criminalise trespass.
One area where Scotland has it right in that i thought you can wild camp in Scotland without owners permission. Something we should of course have in England
You also have right to walk anywhere as long as you cause no damage.
Leaving the remains of a fire lying about may or may not constitute damage.
Dragging two dining chairs all the way from the house in order to climb over a barbed wire fence, rather than walk round and use the gate to the field, reveals a certain lack of common sense.
Don't worry. The cliff edge is months away. Before that we can all entertain ourselves watching the return to school fiasco and the universities fiasco and the mass unemployment fiasco and the not prepared for the second spike fiasco.
The trouble is Rochdale, by the time we reach the Brexit fiasco, we will all be so conditioned to fiascos that in our minds they might all merge into one humongous fiasco and it might just pass up all by.
Mrs C, an argument that holds water if we were members. We're not.
Mr. Pete, you're aware the EU also wants to do business with us? The economic scales are not equal but it's not the case that one side only will benefit from an agreement, or suffer from the lack thereof.
In most areas, we'd stand to suffer more. But we also have the financial capital of the world, and it's plain stupid for the EU to demand suzerainty and prefer no deal and all the bad blood that comes with that (good for neither side) instead of a Canada style deal, which they offered for years until the UK indicated it'd go for that.
Two flaws with that. The first is that, if the UK really wanted Canada, it should have blooming well have been preparing for Canada style checks and paperwork from the off. Certainly from summer 2019. It hasn't really, about from some starting schedules and immigration points scales that look like they're drawn in orange Crayola crayons. The systems in the UK are woefully unprepared for what happens if Johnson gets the deal he claims he wants, and that's on nobody's head but this government's.
Second, the EU have decided they value the purity of their single market really highly. That's up to them, and howling about their unfairness or foolishness makes the UK look like a jilted teenager. Sometimes Sovereignty trumps economy rationalism. Ignoring that was one of the mistakes the Remain campaign made, wasn't it?
Since the trench warfare over Europe is firmly underway, I shall go and amuse myself elsewhere and let you all enjoy the nostalgia of rehashing the same old arguments....
The very concept that Scotland gayly and joyously joined up with England in 1707 and then some worm of Scottish Nationalism turned up later is pretty funny.
That's not what I am saying at all. I think joining was fraught, and then there were still atrocities like Culloden and many hardships ahead. The growth in Britain's power and wealth was subsequent to that, and it was something that Scots and Scotland contributed massively to. What Britain then became proceded to hold sway for two centuries.
Since the trench warfare over Europe is firmly underway, I shall go and amuse myself elsewhere and let you all enjoy the nostalgia of rehashing the same old arguments....
Excellent idea which I will promptly follow. Have a nice weekend everyone.
So was Cathcart (my theme for this morning, it seems). With Cummings as the nasty Colonel Korn, who will be Yossarian?
@Dura_Ace is the PB pet fly-boy, but perhaps not so reluctant as Yossarian.
One thing that Joseph Heller anticipated well was the corporatisation and privatisation of state functions, such as when Milo contracted with the Germans a deal including bombing his own airbase.
One point I don't hear being made is that the government's position on Ireland seriously undermines the Union between England and Scotland. Why? The most obvious argument against Scottish independence is the creation of a border post at Berwick - but since the UK government believes it can leave the EU without re-creating a border in Ireland - why should an independent Scotland that then chose to be in the EU, or customs and single market - need a border either?
BiB - Is that really the most obvious argument? I doubt we'd build a (new) wall!
Surely the question of the currency is the biggest obstacle to Scottish independence - it's on another level to Brexit.
Keep hoping , why should currency be an issue , 200+ other countries manage it , why should Scotland be the only country in the world unable to have a currency? Please explain.
Mrs C, an argument that holds water if we were members. We're not.
Mr. Pete, you're aware the EU also wants to do business with us? The economic scales are not equal but it's not the case that one side only will benefit from an agreement, or suffer from the lack thereof.
In most areas, we'd stand to suffer more. But we also have the financial capital of the world, and it's plain stupid for the EU to demand suzerainty and prefer no deal and all the bad blood that comes with that (good for neither side) instead of a Canada style deal, which they offered for years until the UK indicated it'd go for that.
Who exactly in the EU offered the UK the Canada deal?
This has the feel of another David Davies lie. See also: Enda Kenny was writing a frictionless border system in Java until he got turfed out.
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
I think expecting a negotiation to involve give and take on both sides isn't a terribly unreasonable prediction.
If the EU has decided that punishing the UK is more important than the economic benefits envisaged from a trade deal, that's regrettable but you just have to give a gallic shrug and walk away.
Where do you get the punishment bit, UK were desperate to get out but now expect EU to give them all the good bits for free. UK is punishing itself.
I doubt fish will play a big role in the Holyrood elections next year. Interestingly Level Playing Field might do so, specifically the replacement of the EU LPF by the UK version. Scotland and other nations are better protected by the EU LPF, even though it has no say in it, than by a playing field where the English government (Cummings really) does what it wants and decides everything.
Why
Why is Scotland better protected by an EU LPF than a UK one, even though it has little effective input into either? Because the EU LPF is compromise between 27/28 countries with no country dominating and because an independent ECJ enforces it. The UK LPF will be decided and enforced arbitrarily by whoever runs the UK government for the English interest.
No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
That statement, when you stop to think about it for a moment, encapsulates the fundamental structural problem with multi-national confederacies, and it applies equally to the UK and to the EU itself.
In the EU, the largest and most economically and politically dominant power is Germany. Germany is the centre of gravity, the centre of influence, and it writes the cheques.
The smooth functioning of the EU is therefore predicated upon constant self-denial by the Germans. Whenever a conflict arises between their desires and interests and those of their smaller neighbours, the tail must wag the dog. The single currency is a shambles because the German taxpayer likes the upsides for Germany - having entered into it at a competitive exchange rate and then cleaned up through, for example, property speculation in Spain and laying waste to chunks of Italian manufacturing - but won't open its collective wallet and fork out for transfer payments to its poorer allies and the mutualisation of debt. Whenever Germany acts in its own interest, the outraged howling and the finger pointing begin and things stop working properly.
And thus, in the same fashion, we are told that the Brexit backing majority in England couldn't possibly give two hoots about the Union, because otherwise it would've listened to the mood music coming from Scotland and voted against its own inclinations just to keep its smaller partner happy. The existence of asymmetric devolution, the Barnett formula, mutual defence and any other possible benefits of the Union ultimately count for nothing because Scotland wants to entirely control its own destiny, and can therefore only be appeased by sovereign independence or by England bending to its wishes 100% of the time. On every occasion that the latter fails to be offered, the attraction of the former grows stronger: the long-term survival of the structure is, therefore, ultimately dependent upon the eternal self-denial of the strongest member.
England voted to leave the EU because it felt consistently marginalised, ignored and dominated and wanted to do its own thing. Scotland will leave the UK for precisely the same reasons. It is what happens to political arrangements like the EU and the UK, and it's the same fate as befell Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union before them - unless the constituent parts merge seamlessly into a single people with a single culture, then there will come a point in time when some disagreement between them becomes so serious that their bond is unable to withstand the tension, and it collapses.
The UK and the EU are both doomed to ultimate failure. It's just a matter of time.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse.
That's the point about inheritance - it isn't random.
Why will politicians spend it in a better way?
it is random in the sense that overall a small proportion of the population get a lot of money for something they have not worked for. Whilst not a massive fan of government ,it it needs to raise taxation to pay for impactful stuff like youth opportunity then it should come from a "national inheritance " or t least by money circulating more and not tied up in pensioner wealth (that they dont need and they are hanging onto just to create inequality of opportunity through inheritance)
You sound like a real greedy arsehole. Why don't you ( assuming you don't already) go out and burgle pensioners and steal what they have worked hard for. You just want something for nothing , a lazy greedy lowlife barsteward.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
Yes you’ve nailed it. The Economy Stupid has completely blinded informed opinion to the fact that self identity trumps everything. When the history is written, having separate English and Scottish football teams will be seen as the worst mistake made by British unionists. One wonders whether the success of the Olympics in 2012 was what really mattered in nudging No over the line just two years later.
Unionists would have done better to have had a state of origin type football match occasionally but all sporting endeavours should otherwise have been under the Union flag. The final throw of the dice at this point is something approaching full federalism but good luck making that work with the population domination of England. Maybe if you threw in Canada, Ireland, Oz and NZ but we’re over 100 years too late for that too.
I don't think it's all, or even mostly, about football. Though it would be nice to be on the same sporting side more often. But even when we are, and the hero is Scottish, we see complete inventions like 'When Andy wins he's called British, and when loses he's called Scottish', which at least the Nats here had the good grace to admit was utterly baseless - eventually. Doesn't stop it being common currency up here.
I also don't think it's really the constitution, though it would be nice if it were neater.
True, the Scotland vs England story is arguably 2000 years old, predating either Scotland or England thanks to Hadrian’s blunt line.
But centuries later it didn’t take too long for affiliations to Mercia, Northumberland or Wessex to be replaced by England, despite the various ravages inflicted on the regions by the other heptarchy kingdoms at various times. What went wrong with Britain? What spurred 19th century Scottish nationalism? And when did it cease being a fringe interest to a mainstream one?
People can only be robbed and treated like crap for so long before they finally say enough.
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
I think expecting a negotiation to involve give and take on both sides isn't a terribly unreasonable prediction.
If the EU has decided that punishing the UK is more important than the economic benefits envisaged from a trade deal, that's regrettable but you just have to give a gallic shrug and walk away.
Where do you get the punishment bit, UK were desperate to get out but now expect EU to give them all the good bits for free. UK is punishing itself.
Not at all, pretty sure the UK just want the same deal as Canada got. That plus bribing them with letting them fish for longer than we should seems very fair to me. Don't forget they do more business here than we do there.
The EU must show that members can't leave without it being bad. They seem prepared for member states to suffer in pursuing this goal. That's not a great argument for staying in when you think about it, but they don't seem to have realised that point.
Surely the comedy line is from the Express today - if there is No Deal its the EU's fault for refusing to yield to our expectations that if Britain is Strong they will fold their long stated and unyielding position.
I think expecting a negotiation to involve give and take on both sides isn't a terribly unreasonable prediction.
If the EU has decided that punishing the UK is more important than the economic benefits envisaged from a trade deal, that's regrettable but you just have to give a gallic shrug and walk away.
Where do you get the punishment bit, UK were desperate to get out but now expect EU to give them all the good bits for free. UK is punishing itself.
Not at all, pretty sure the UK just want the same deal as Canada got. That plus bribing them with letting them fish for longer than we should seems very fair to me. Don't forget they do more business here than we do there.
The EU must show that members can't leave without it being bad. They seem prepared for member states to suffer in pursuing this goal. That's not a great argument for staying in when you think about it, but they don't seem to have realised that point.
That was the position they were hinting at at the start - like some self-obsessed abusive nanny.
Like John Rentoul Yesterday Mr Herdson has decided to omit the driving factor behind these negotiations. The possible return of the Brexit Party.
The latest poll from yougov showed labour is uniting the left but isn't really taking tory votes. The Brexit party is, despite not even campaigning for them or even saying they will be a force next time around.
A bad Brexit spells doom for the tories. Combine that with raising taxes on middle england and ending the triple lock on pensions, and overnight the tories will shed up to 20% in the polls.
Boris could not brook that. He simply cannot abide unpopularity.
What's more, those votes would not be coming back. They are on loan to the tories on the basis of their manifesto promises.
IF the tories make the wrong moves in the autumn, they are out of power for a generation, 80 seat majority or no 80 seat majority.
I doubt fish will play a big role in the Holyrood elections next year. Interestingly Level Playing Field might do so, specifically the replacement of the EU LPF by the UK version. Scotland and other nations are better protected by the EU LPF, even though it has no say in it, than by a playing field where the English government (Cummings really) does what it wants and decides everything.
Their great power grab of UK market will be the undoing of the union. It will be the straw that breaks the camels back.
No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
That statement, when you stop to think about it for a moment, encapsulates the fundamental structural problem with multi-national confederacies, and it applies equally to the UK and to the EU itself.
In the EU, the largest and most economically and politically dominant power is Germany. Germany is the centre of gravity, the centre of influence, and it writes the cheques.
The smooth functioning of the EU is therefore predicated upon constant self-denial by the Germans. Whenever a conflict arises between their desires and interests and those of their smaller neighbours, the tail must wag the dog. The single currency is a shambles because the German taxpayer likes the upsides for Germany - having entered into it at a competitive exchange rate and then cleaned up through, for example, property speculation in Spain and laying waste to chunks of Italian manufacturing - but won't open its collective wallet and fork out for transfer payments to its poorer allies and the mutualisation of debt. Whenever Germany acts in its own interest, the outraged howling and the finger pointing begin and things stop working properly.
And thus, in the same fashion, we are told that the Brexit backing majority in England couldn't possibly give two hoots about the Union, because otherwise it would've listened to the mood music coming from Scotland and voted against its own inclinations just to keep its smaller partner happy. The existence of asymmetric devolution, the Barnett formula, mutual defence and any other possible benefits of the Union ultimately count for nothing because Scotland wants to entirely control its own destiny, and can therefore only be appeased by sovereign independence or by England bending to its wishes 100% of the time. On every occasion that the latter fails to be offered, the attraction of the former grows stronger: the long-term survival of the structure is, therefore, ultimately dependent upon the eternal self-denial of the strongest member.
England voted to leave the EU because it felt consistently marginalised, ignored and dominated and wanted to do its own thing. Scotland will leave the UK for precisely the same reasons. It is what happens to political arrangements like the EU and the UK, and it's the same fate as befell Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union before them - unless the constituent parts merge seamlessly into a single people with a single culture, then there will come a point in time when some disagreement between them becomes so serious that their bond is unable to withstand the tension, and it collapses.
The UK and the EU are both doomed to ultimate failure. It's just a matter of time.
I don't agree with your (I think) premise that unions are meaningless and doomed. I do believe a whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. I do however suspect the UK is doomed thanks to Brexit and Johnson.
Also, I don't suggest that Leavers should value the Union; I am saying, in fact, they don't value it, despite professions of love from many, including from Johnson himself.
On topic, maybe I'm in a minority, but I can't for the life of me understand what the big deal is about State Aid. I can about fish.
On social and environmental protection, and workers rights, the UK is always going to have similar or better standards than the rest of the EU. We aren't going to allow industries to dump raw sewage into rivers to allow them to produce things more cheaply, and nor are we going to cut annual leave entitlements to zero, so I think it's a non-issue.
On competition and state aid (or subsidies for business) this only seems to happen in emergency situations - in normal times, it's a complete waste of money. I can understand Corbyn being unhappy about it, but not the Tories.
I'd have thought the bigger issue in a level-playing field would be taxation, where the rates we set are a matter for domestic debate and the Treasury, but strangely that doesn't seem to have come up.
Comments
Why will politicians spend it in a better way?
If the EU has decided that punishing the UK is more important than the economic benefits envisaged from a trade deal, that's regrettable but you just have to give a gallic shrug and walk away.
It cannot be No Deal though, as the WDA was passed by all sides, but it can be no Trade Agreement.
We agreed to a LPF in the Political Declaration, it seems poor form not to honour it. Of course a LPF is by definition fair to both sides, it also protects rUK from unfair practices too.
One is moved at this point to observe that the parents of today's grey generation were willing to put up with privations like food rationing and carpet bombing for years and years, or to storm beaches in Normandy and be horribly maimed or killed as the price of making a better future for their children. Those children - or a great many of them, anyway - throw their toys out of the pram over having their freebie TV licences withdrawn. No way on Earth are they going to consent to having the gold plating stripped from their state pensions to try to help their grandkids out of the shit.
That's where we are as a society now. Britain is a gerontocracy. It was perfectly willing to lock its children away and do them out of an education for half-a-year in an attempt to save its elderly. But when sacrifices are called for from the other end of the age range, they are unlikely to be forthcoming.
But centuries later it didn’t take too long for affiliations to Mercia, Northumberland or Wessex to be replaced by England, despite the various ravages inflicted on the regions by the other heptarchy kingdoms at various times. What went wrong with Britain? What spurred 19th century Scottish nationalism? And when did it cease being a fringe interest to a mainstream one?
If we retained EEA membership then as a sizeable addition to the negotiating position of the EEA we can retain some influence. As a 3rd party we have no influence. We aren't going to dictate terms to the EU or to any of our larger more stable less desperate competitors. They will impose terms on us. Its just basic negotiation - the power gauge is about to massively swing to the side of our counterparty thanks to our own action. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so tragic.
I wouldn't object to the notion of existing standards in some areas being considered a floor (likewise applying to the EU), provided the rest of a deal could be reached. The idea of a political body we voted to leave having the right to perpetually impose laws on us is completely antithetical to the referendum result and democratic legitimacy.
Those people seem to have gone awfully quiet just lately...
Baseline Brexit is extremely crap and a Deal only makes it slightly less so, Nevertheless, there are reasons why it might the government might compromise to make a deal with the EU:
It's not acceptable for a foreign body to impose laws on us. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me. Do you think the US should be able to dictate our domestic laws? Or China? Or India?
The Tories have forgotten what it is like to get genuinely unpopular in office (and that you can still turn it around and win if you fall behind), and are so stung by 2017 they are terrified of old people getting angry, whether it is something justified or just a freebie.
England (not Britain or the UK, Engerland) is supreme. We will overcome. The inferior foreigner WILL yield. And when they don't, we exit transition with no trading deal, with no political alignment as we blame them, with no preparation for the immediate massive change in how we live.
Stock up. On things you need. Because you won't be able to get them easily or at a price you can afford. Which is the official view of the government who have already told the drug companies the same.
Covid - Brexit - Trump all still very active issues
I think it is a game where we pretend we don't know how things work, or like how we don't quote the lines of a play outloud in the theatre even if we have the script in front of us.
Start point : Biden 227 ECVs
Michigan Biden +6.7
Wisconsin Biden +6.5
Pennsylvania Biden +5.7
Minnesota Biden +5.3
Florida Biden +5.0 <- Current tipping point state (Biden 296 ECVs)
Nevada Biden +4.0
Ohio Biden +2.3
Arizona Biden +2.0
North Carolina Trump +0.6
Georgia Trump +1.1
Iowa Trump +1.7
Texas Trump +3.5
When we simultaneously tear up every trading deal with every nation on the planet on 01/01/21 we are fucked. That our government don't know/care that we're fucked is why we are the supplicant in these negotiations. Which is why none of the major counterparty nations are willing to engage with us this side of that date - why bother? They will be able to set their own terms and impose their own standards (and laws - we WILL buy whatever shite the Americans want regardless of what our legal standards are). Because we will be desperate.
No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Sections 6 of the Act explains.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/6
The problem is that the relationship of countries with the EU starts from a position that members get all benefits, and non members get none. Some 3rd countries (EFTA, Switzerland, Turkey, etc) have negotiated up from that position.
Our government has not recognised this, and seems to think that it is negotiating from a position of access to all benefits/costs. The reality is that it is negotiating from having neither.
Brexit means Brexit, and the default position of 3rd countries is WTO*. Anything over that has to be bought and paid for either in cash or kind.
*and the WTO is a pretty ineffective and unenforceable body at present.
As for the US dictating to us, that is exactly what they will do. They are already telling us that labelling on food must go and that the NHS must be available to US Pharma. India has already told us that immigration from India must be allowed to increase and I am sure China will have something in mind thanks to the Huwaie (sp?) situation.
They weren't camping. Though the Scottish Law permits wild camping (in accordance with a CoP) without permission anyway.
And I'm not actually clear that they want to criminalise "trespass". I thought it was "intentional trespass" - very different animal.
pay the pay as you play green fees and adhere to the club's etiquette codes.
But scampi (langoustine) and chips is a pub staple already, so I wouldn't expect much cheaper.
Mr. Pete, you're aware the EU also wants to do business with us? The economic scales are not equal but it's not the case that one side only will benefit from an agreement, or suffer from the lack thereof.
In most areas, we'd stand to suffer more. But we also have the financial capital of the world, and it's plain stupid for the EU to demand suzerainty and prefer no deal and all the bad blood that comes with that (good for neither side) instead of a Canada style deal, which they offered for years until the UK indicated it'd go for that.
I am a member of a number of clubs and we do not worry about what non-members think or want. Or former members at that...
It is the same if we decide we want to play at LaManga or Augusta. We play to the respective club rules
Dragging two dining chairs all the way from the house in order to climb over a barbed wire fence, rather than walk round and use the gate to the field, reveals a certain lack of common sense.
The first is that, if the UK really wanted Canada, it should have blooming well have been preparing for Canada style checks and paperwork from the off. Certainly from summer 2019. It hasn't really, about from some starting schedules and immigration points scales that look like they're drawn in orange Crayola crayons. The systems in the UK are woefully unprepared for what happens if Johnson gets the deal he claims he wants, and that's on nobody's head but this government's.
Second, the EU have decided they value the purity of their single market really highly. That's up to them, and howling about their unfairness or foolishness makes the UK look like a jilted teenager. Sometimes Sovereignty trumps economy rationalism. Ignoring that was one of the mistakes the Remain campaign made, wasn't it?
One thing that Joseph Heller anticipated well was the corporatisation and privatisation of state functions, such as when Milo contracted with the Germans a deal including bombing his own airbase.
This has the feel of another David Davies lie. See also: Enda Kenny was writing a frictionless border system in Java until he got turfed out.
Even the nutters at The National are not claiming "camping"
In the EU, the largest and most economically and politically dominant power is Germany. Germany is the centre of gravity, the centre of influence, and it writes the cheques.
The smooth functioning of the EU is therefore predicated upon constant self-denial by the Germans. Whenever a conflict arises between their desires and interests and those of their smaller neighbours, the tail must wag the dog. The single currency is a shambles because the German taxpayer likes the upsides for Germany - having entered into it at a competitive exchange rate and then cleaned up through, for example, property speculation in Spain and laying waste to chunks of Italian manufacturing - but won't open its collective wallet and fork out for transfer payments to its poorer allies and the mutualisation of debt. Whenever Germany acts in its own interest, the outraged howling and the finger pointing begin and things stop working properly.
And thus, in the same fashion, we are told that the Brexit backing majority in England couldn't possibly give two hoots about the Union, because otherwise it would've listened to the mood music coming from Scotland and voted against its own inclinations just to keep its smaller partner happy. The existence of asymmetric devolution, the Barnett formula, mutual defence and any other possible benefits of the Union ultimately count for nothing because Scotland wants to entirely control its own destiny, and can therefore only be appeased by sovereign independence or by England bending to its wishes 100% of the time. On every occasion that the latter fails to be offered, the attraction of the former grows stronger: the long-term survival of the structure is, therefore, ultimately dependent upon the eternal self-denial of the strongest member.
England voted to leave the EU because it felt consistently marginalised, ignored and dominated and wanted to do its own thing. Scotland will leave the UK for precisely the same reasons. It is what happens to political arrangements like the EU and the UK, and it's the same fate as befell Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union before them - unless the constituent parts merge seamlessly into a single people with a single culture, then there will come a point in time when some disagreement between them becomes so serious that their bond is unable to withstand the tension, and it collapses.
The UK and the EU are both doomed to ultimate failure. It's just a matter of time.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
You just want something for nothing , a lazy greedy lowlife barsteward.
The EU must show that members can't leave without it being bad. They seem prepared for member states to suffer in pursuing this goal. That's not a great argument for staying in when you think about it, but they don't seem to have realised that point.
"The UK must be seen to be punished".
I thought (hoped
The latest poll from yougov showed labour is uniting the left but isn't really taking tory votes. The Brexit party is, despite not even campaigning for them or even saying they will be a force next time around.
A bad Brexit spells doom for the tories. Combine that with raising taxes on middle england and ending the triple lock on pensions, and overnight the tories will shed up to 20% in the polls.
Boris could not brook that. He simply cannot abide unpopularity.
What's more, those votes would not be coming back. They are on loan to the tories on the basis of their manifesto promises.
IF the tories make the wrong moves in the autumn, they are out of power for a generation, 80 seat majority or no 80 seat majority.
Also, I don't suggest that Leavers should value the Union; I am saying, in fact, they don't value it, despite professions of love from many, including from Johnson himself.
On social and environmental protection, and workers rights, the UK is always going to have similar or better standards than the rest of the EU. We aren't going to allow industries to dump raw sewage into rivers to allow them to produce things more cheaply, and nor are we going to cut annual leave entitlements to zero, so I think it's a non-issue.
On competition and state aid (or subsidies for business) this only seems to happen in emergency situations - in normal times, it's a complete waste of money. I can understand Corbyn being unhappy about it, but not the Tories.
I'd have thought the bigger issue in a level-playing field would be taxation, where the rates we set are a matter for domestic debate and the Treasury, but strangely that doesn't seem to have come up.