For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm actually somewhere between both of you.
I don't want to delay it (we need a practical deal this year) but, I'm perfectly happy with practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in (and the old ones out) over 6-18 months if that helps a smooth transition and avoids massive disruption.
That's not somewhere between the both of us. As I understand it, Philip wants Jan to be a hard date.
Your desire is just about what I think is most sensible under the circs. Let the transition continue for 6-18 months or thereabouts until we have the systems and processes in place and until the disruptions caused by Covid have worked themselves through the economy.
That's not what I said at all!
I said specifically that "I do not care about the date" and that if there are good reasons for delays we should have one.
What I don't accept as a good reason is simply kicking the can down the road. I want a decision made - deal or no deal - then get on with it. Once a decision is made, then practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in would be entirely logical. I 100% agree with Casino_Royale.
My objection is to kicking the can solely for the purpose of kicking the can, that is not acceptable. Kicking the can because there is a very good reason (eg we are transitioning to new arrangements that we have decided upon) I am entirely OK with.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm actually somewhere between both of you.
I don't want to delay it (we need a practical deal this year) but, I'm perfectly happy with practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in (and the old ones out) over 6-18 months if that helps a smooth transition and avoids massive disruption.
COVID of course is creating disruption now. Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
The key flaw in your argument is contained in the line: "Getting both done keeps disruption to a minimum".
Let's say that Covid will cause five units of disruption; let's say that ending transition will also cause five units of disruption. Why do you think they are dependent events? They are not, they are independent. We are likely to get 10 units of disruption if we do both at the same time. And let's say the country can only tolerate six or seven units of disruption before serious damage?
And given that they are independent events, how is doing both Covid and ending transition at the same time "keep[ing] disruption to a minimum"?
Indeed the independent events may well not just be additive, they may well by synergistic.
And that depends a lot on what the problems are and what capacity is needed to manage them.
So (to take a tiny example) if a port has to put up some different signs, doing it while the place is quiet (though is goods traffic that slow these days?) might be a sensible win-win.
But if you are a business, work done keeping the show on the road during a pandemic might contribute very little to being ready for a post-transition future.
And if you are a government, and you need to be deciding, implementing and communicating how the rules for how the country is going to operate, and all your spare headcount and attention is being taken up by a virus, is it any wonder that the necessary work isn't being done?
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Eesh... when I think about how much better this country would be if Ed had won in 2015...
It wouldn't - we'd have simply had a different set of problems. He'd also be out of office again by now (assuming the May 2020GE wasn't punted due to Covid) as he'd have done jack over simmering tensions on the constitution, immigration and the EU.
We find it hard to visualise because we can't live the counterfactual.
The latest update on the total number of remaining Covid patients in hospital in the UK is 799. It's beginning to look like the number may be levelling off rather than continuing its gradual decline, although I would add that (a) some strange things went on with the reporting over the Bank Holiday period, so perhaps now we've got that out of the way the trend could yet resume; and (b) the Scottish number, as a proportion of the total, remains improbably high.
On the latter point, the latest possible explanation I've read is that the Scottish hospital statistics may be suffering from the same quirk that previously applied to the English death statistics - i.e. that anybody admitted to hospital in Scotland who has ever been tested positive for Covid-19 is being reported as a Covid patient, regardless of whether or not they're actually suffering from the disease when they arrive. This would certainly help to explain why Scotland accounts for about 8% of the general population but 33% of all the remaining Covid patients!
Indeed. A former covidian who has fallen off his bike into a Glasgow gutter full of broken glass counts as a CV-19 hospitalisation in Scotland.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm actually somewhere between both of you.
I don't want to delay it (we need a practical deal this year) but, I'm perfectly happy with practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in (and the old ones out) over 6-18 months if that helps a smooth transition and avoids massive disruption.
That's not somewhere between the both of us. As I understand it, Philip wants Jan to be a hard date.
Your desire is just about what I think is most sensible under the circs. Let the transition continue for 6-18 months or thereabouts until we have the systems and processes in place and until the disruptions caused by Covid have worked themselves through the economy.
That's not what I said at all!
I said specifically that "I do not care about the date" and that if there are good reasons for delays we should have one.
What I don't accept as a good reason is simply kicking the can down the road. I want a decision made - deal or no deal - then get on with it. Once a decision is made, then practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in would be entirely logical. I 100% agree with Casino_Royale.
My objection is to kicking the can solely for the purpose of kicking the can, that is not acceptable. Kicking the can because there is a very good reason (eg we are transitioning to new arrangements that we have decided upon) I am entirely OK with.
Well you had lead me to believe that you didn't think Covid, and let's ignore the fact that we might not be prepared for Jan, was not a very good reason.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
How could the quesiton be answered without knowing what content they wish to produce?
It can't but of course you might make an educated guess that it won't be series on the influence of the Critique of Pure Reason on modern epistemology or a decent crime drama or a series looking thoughtfully at the Beethoven 250th anniversary and that it won't feature Monty Don or David Attenborough so you can give it a miss safely.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
I'm desperately trying to find vote count over time for states, especially Penn and Michigan, from 2016. But it seems everyone wants to show final totals now.
I think people are not fully aware of how large the on the day gap was compared to the final totals. And this wasn't just from absentee ballots but how phenomenally slow counting in Philly was.
I want to use them, but I neither like nor trust them.
I've never had any problems with them, but there are alternatives: I expect SpreadEx will also put up markets soon, and there's also Star Spreads, although I've only used them once.
They take down their markets whenever any bit of news comes out, of any kind, and take ages to put them back up.
@AlastairMeeks has posted on here before about their questionable ethics.
I'm not comfortable using them and don't feel I have control.
I might look at the other spread options - thanks.
Obviously the UK government and the EU will prefer that the population of NI are reduced to roasting rats and eating withered grass rather than that some principle should be breached.
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
I'm desperately trying to find vote count over time for states, especially Penn and Michigan, from 2016. But it seems everyone wants to show final totals now.
I think people are not fully aware of how large the on the day gap was compared to the final totals. And this wasn't just from absentee ballots but how phenomenally slow counting in Philly was.
As James Carville said Pennsylvania is basically Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Alabama in between so until Philly reports fully Trump will likely be clearly ahead
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
I'm desperately trying to find vote count over time for states, especially Penn and Michigan, from 2016. But it seems everyone wants to show final totals now.
I think people are not fully aware of how large the on the day gap was compared to the final totals. And this wasn't just from absentee ballots but how phenomenally slow counting in Philly was.
I don't think the 2016 figures are likely to be good comparators, anyway.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm actually somewhere between both of you.
I don't want to delay it (we need a practical deal this year) but, I'm perfectly happy with practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in (and the old ones out) over 6-18 months if that helps a smooth transition and avoids massive disruption.
That's not somewhere between the both of us. As I understand it, Philip wants Jan to be a hard date.
Your desire is just about what I think is most sensible under the circs. Let the transition continue for 6-18 months or thereabouts until we have the systems and processes in place and until the disruptions caused by Covid have worked themselves through the economy.
That's not what I said at all!
I said specifically that "I do not care about the date" and that if there are good reasons for delays we should have one.
What I don't accept as a good reason is simply kicking the can down the road. I want a decision made - deal or no deal - then get on with it. Once a decision is made, then practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in would be entirely logical. I 100% agree with Casino_Royale.
My objection is to kicking the can solely for the purpose of kicking the can, that is not acceptable. Kicking the can because there is a very good reason (eg we are transitioning to new arrangements that we have decided upon) I am entirely OK with.
Well you had lead me to believe that you didn't think Covid, and let's ignore the fact that we might not be prepared for Jan, was not a very good reason.
Because COVID is not a good reason.
What @Casino_Royale wrote which was smoothing the transition to new decided upon arrangements on the other hand is a very, very good reason.
I even said similar myself: "A good reason to delay would be if Barnier and Frost said something along the lines of "talks are going well, we've reached compromises on key areas, but we need more time to finalise the agreement and get it ratified". If they said that then 100% I would support an extension."
I also said: "If it was a case of COVID had meant talks hadn't occurred and Frost wanted more time then yes, of course delay."
What I am against is kicking the can just for the sake of kicking the can.
Obviously the UK government and the EU will prefer that the population of NI are reduced to roasting rats and eating withered grass rather than that some principle should be breached.
Surely NI could import freely from RoI as we have promised no infrastructure there, and free movement of goods? It is only GB goods that are a problem.
The latest update on the total number of remaining Covid patients in hospital in the UK is 799. It's beginning to look like the number may be levelling off rather than continuing its gradual decline, although I would add that (a) some strange things went on with the reporting over the Bank Holiday period, so perhaps now we've got that out of the way the trend could yet resume; and (b) the Scottish number, as a proportion of the total, remains improbably high.
On the latter point, the latest possible explanation I've read is that the Scottish hospital statistics may be suffering from the same quirk that previously applied to the English death statistics - i.e. that anybody admitted to hospital in Scotland who has ever been tested positive for Covid-19 is being reported as a Covid patient, regardless of whether or not they're actually suffering from the disease when they arrive. This would certainly help to explain why Scotland accounts for about 8% of the general population but 33% of all the remaining Covid patients!
Indeed. A former covidian who has fallen off his bike into a Glasgow gutter full of broken glass counts as a CV-19 hospitalisation in Scotland.
It works both ways.
I rent a small office/studio from a couple of brothers who have a flooring company in the east end. Their dad was in his seventies and I used to see hm about the place quite frequently. He came down with the Covid (as did one of the brothers) & went into hospital in April. According to him he was told to say goodbye to his family then. He got really sick and the doc told him that they could put him on a ventilator but the prognosis wasn't good. They advised (again according to him) to stay on oxygen and that they'd keep his temperature really low, which he went for. He pulled through and got home at the start of July.
He went out for a family meal 2 weeks ago and had his first couple of pints since being in hospital, was found dead in front of the telly at 3am the following morning. I assume that since it was longer than 28 days since he left hospital and he hadn't gone back in, that would be counted as a non Covid death, but the chances of it not being related to a recent near death experience seem pretty slim to me.
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
It does seem a bit strange they couldn't find a rightwing Brexit supporter who isn't a sexist homophobic climate change denier for the job.
COVID of course is creating disruption now. Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
The key flaw in your argument is contained in the line: "Getting both done keeps disruption to a minimum".
Let's say that Covid will cause five units of disruption; let's say that ending transition will also cause five units of disruption. Why do you think they are dependent events? They are not, they are independent.
And given that they are independent events, how is doing both Covid and ending transition at the same time "keep[ing] disruption to a minimum"?
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
The border synergy between reduced capacity and reduced volume is a pretty narrow one, and you would assume social distancing is also a potential contributor to the reduced capacity of new border checks.
I think for each synergy you could probably consider more dysergies. The double burden of COVID and import restrictions stretching businesses at the same time rather than in sequence, the possibility that large volumes of vaccines could need importing to save lives into an uncertain regulatory environment, lockdowns restricting food production (e.g. the March pasta shortages) at the same time imports are hit. These are off the top of my head and should be treated sceptically, but tbh your synergy is too.
I could say we will not be ready with systems whenever it happens, so now is as good as time as any, but that ignores that work is belatedly in progress and is overly fatalistic even given this administration.
I'm not sure how we now avoid January save a position of weakness deal with some phasing, but I'd never actually choose to simply go for it from this position if alternatives are available.
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
It does seem a bit strange they couldn't find a rightwing Brexit supporter who isn't a sexist homophobic climate change denier for the job.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
The latest update on the total number of remaining Covid patients in hospital in the UK is 799. It's beginning to look like the number may be levelling off rather than continuing its gradual decline, although I would add that (a) some strange things went on with the reporting over the Bank Holiday period, so perhaps now we've got that out of the way the trend could yet resume; and (b) the Scottish number, as a proportion of the total, remains improbably high.
On the latter point, the latest possible explanation I've read is that the Scottish hospital statistics may be suffering from the same quirk that previously applied to the English death statistics - i.e. that anybody admitted to hospital in Scotland who has ever been tested positive for Covid-19 is being reported as a Covid patient, regardless of whether or not they're actually suffering from the disease when they arrive. This would certainly help to explain why Scotland accounts for about 8% of the general population but 33% of all the remaining Covid patients!
Indeed. A former covidian who has fallen off his bike into a Glasgow gutter full of broken glass counts as a CV-19 hospitalisation in Scotland.
It works both ways.
I rent a small office/studio from a couple of brothers who have a flooring company in the east end. Their dad was in his seventies and I used to see hm about the place quite frequently. He came down with the Covid (as did one of the brothers) & went into hospital in April. According to him he was told to say goodbye to his family then. He got really sick and the doc told him that they could put him on a ventilator but the prognosis wasn't good. They advised (again according to him) to stay on oxygen and that they'd keep his temperature really low, which he went for. He pulled through and got home at the start of July.
He went out for a family meal 2 weeks ago and had his first couple of pints since being in hospital, was found dead in front of the telly at 3am the following morning. I assume that since it was longer than 28 days since he left hospital and he hadn't gone back in, that would be counted as a non Covid death, but the chances of it not being related to a recent near death experience seem pretty slim to me.
It's not just about the mortality figures, anyway.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
I'm desperately trying to find vote count over time for states, especially Penn and Michigan, from 2016. But it seems everyone wants to show final totals now.
I think people are not fully aware of how large the on the day gap was compared to the final totals. And this wasn't just from absentee ballots but how phenomenally slow counting in Philly was.
I don't think the 2016 figures are likely to be good comparators, anyway.
It's about difference over time. On the night people were talking about narrow but definitive leads in those states. By the end of the month they were measured in fractions of a percent.
I suppose I can synthesise totals by breaking it down on a county basis.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
No I don't think that! Why do you keep saying I think things when I have literally said the exact opposite?
If the transition ends on Jan 1st then there will be a period of disruption associated with that. I specifically said for instance the border I would expect disruptions for days or weeks.
But if disruption is going to occur either way then better sooner than later dragging it out. COVID isn't going to be over by 2nd January either. Even if a vaccine were announced in November which is wildly optimistic it is still frankly implausible that it would be distributed to everyone who needs it before next Spring at the very earliest. And so by this time next year hopefully we will be able to put both COVID and Brexit disruptions behind us.
On the other hand if we followed your suggestion then by this time next year COVID will be behind us but the country will still have a major cloud of uncertainty over it with regards to the forthcoming end of transition and the damage you say that will cause.
As for economics there is evidence that uncertainty puts off investment yes. Hence removing the uncertainty is best done sooner rather than later. If a deal is reachable it is irresponsible not to reach it now.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full EU citizens free movement to the UK, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
A mistake by Team Trump to continually talk down Biden's ability to think on his feet, I think, as it sets him up to outperform expectations in the forthcoming debates.
If I were them, at this stage I'd be saying Biden's been part of the Washington swamp long enough to know a few oratorical tricks, but the American public can't be fooled so easily (etc).
When he was announcing the VP he had her name on a card with a picture (sic) ....
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full free movement, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full free movement, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
True. Some of us warned at the time, and for months before, that making ludicrous contradictory promises based on fantasy and wishing away practicalities was not only bad for the country, but would also in the longer term be disastrous for the Conservative Party. But it's a bit late now to do anything about that.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
No I don't think that! Why do you keep saying I think things when I have literally said the exact opposite?
If the transition ends on Jan 1st then there will be a period of disruption associated with that. I specifically said for instance the border I would expect disruptions for days or weeks.
But if disruption is going to occur either way then better sooner than later dragging it out. COVID isn't going to be over by 2nd January either. Even if a vaccine were announced in November which is wildly optimistic it is still frankly implausible that it would be distributed to everyone who needs it before next Spring at the very earliest. And so by this time next year hopefully we will be able to put both COVID and Brexit disruptions behind us.
On the other hand if we followed your suggestion then by this time next year COVID will be behind us but the country will still have a major cloud of uncertainty over it with regards to the forthcoming end of transition and the damage you say that will cause.
As for economics there is evidence that uncertainty puts off investment yes. Hence removing the uncertainty is best done sooner rather than later. If a deal is reachable it is irresponsible not to reach it now.
Again it sounds very sensible prima facie but the missing link is the extent of disruption and damage of having both occur at the same time. On the page your theory sounds fine. In real life, the damage will be significant if both are undertaken together.
But I think we have both made our points. The evening beckons!
The latest update on the total number of remaining Covid patients in hospital in the UK is 799. It's beginning to look like the number may be levelling off rather than continuing its gradual decline, although I would add that (a) some strange things went on with the reporting over the Bank Holiday period, so perhaps now we've got that out of the way the trend could yet resume; and (b) the Scottish number, as a proportion of the total, remains improbably high.
On the latter point, the latest possible explanation I've read is that the Scottish hospital statistics may be suffering from the same quirk that previously applied to the English death statistics - i.e. that anybody admitted to hospital in Scotland who has ever been tested positive for Covid-19 is being reported as a Covid patient, regardless of whether or not they're actually suffering from the disease when they arrive. This would certainly help to explain why Scotland accounts for about 8% of the general population but 33% of all the remaining Covid patients!
Indeed. A former covidian who has fallen off his bike into a Glasgow gutter full of broken glass counts as a CV-19 hospitalisation in Scotland.
It works both ways.
I rent a small office/studio from a couple of brothers who have a flooring company in the east end. Their dad was in his seventies and I used to see hm about the place quite frequently. He came down with the Covid (as did one of the brothers) & went into hospital in April. According to him he was told to say goodbye to his family then. He got really sick and the doc told him that they could put him on a ventilator but the prognosis wasn't good. They advised (again according to him) to stay on oxygen and that they'd keep his temperature really low, which he went for. He pulled through and got home at the start of July.
He went out for a family meal 2 weeks ago and had his first couple of pints since being in hospital, was found dead in front of the telly at 3am the following morning. I assume that since it was longer than 28 days since he left hospital and he hadn't gone back in, that would be counted as a non Covid death, but the chances of it not being related to a recent near death experience seem pretty slim to me.
It's not just about the mortality figures, anyway.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full free movement, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
That is true. How do you see it?
Personally I would extend for a few months more but regardless the transition period has to be ended by the next general election deal or no deal, extension into 2021 would also mean another Tory local elections bloodbath next year but it might help Scottish Tories and Unionists at Holyrood a bit, though not in fishing seats.
Personally I would also allow some regulatory alignment for a FTA but with Barnier also refusing to budge today on allowing us control of our fishing waters no deal looks the likely outcome
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full free movement, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
True. Some of us warned at the time, and for months before, that making ludicrous contradictory promises based on fantasy and wishing away practicalities was not only bad for the country, but would also in the longer term be disastrous for the Conservative Party. But it's a bit late now to do anything about that.
The depressing thing for me is just how much of Labour's 1983 manifesto Boris Johnson is implementing, and is likely to implement if we get no deal.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full free movement, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
That is true. How do you see it?
Personally I would extend for a few months more but regardless the transition period has to be ended by the next general election deal or no deal, extension into 2021 would also mean another Tory local elections bloodbath next year but it might help Scottish Tories and Unionists at Holyrood a bit, though not in fishing seats.
Personally I would allow some regulatory alignment for aFTA but with Barnier also refusing to budge today on allowing us control of our fishing waters no deal looks the likely outcome
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
It does seem a bit strange they couldn't find a rightwing Brexit supporter who isn't a sexist homophobic climate change denier for the job.
He's a strict catholic, who led the campaign to oppose gay marriage in Australia. He also repealed the carbon tax (although he accepted climate change was real, and didn't deny it as an issue) when Prime Minister.
As it happens I don't agree with him on either of those issues, but not having the correct Woke views today on everything doesn't disqualify you from public office. It's just a lazy way to try and excommunicate him, although often, sadly, an effective one.
If you want to convince me he's not the right man for the job then show me he's shit at trade. In the two years he was in office he concluded trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea, so he must know something.
COVID of course is creating disruption now. Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
The key flaw in your argument is contained in the line: "Getting both done keeps disruption to a minimum".
Let's say that Covid will cause five units of disruption; let's say that ending transition will also cause five units of disruption. Why do you think they are dependent events? They are not, they are independent.
And given that they are independent events, how is doing both Covid and ending transition at the same time "keep[ing] disruption to a minimum"?
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
The border synergy between reduced capacity and reduced volume is a pretty narrow one, and you would assume social distancing is also a potential contributor to the reduced capacity of new border checks.
I think for each synergy you could probably consider more dysergies. The double burden of COVID and import restrictions stretching businesses at the same time rather than in sequence, the possibility that large volumes of vaccines could need importing to save lives into an uncertain regulatory environment, lockdowns restricting food production (e.g. the March pasta shortages) at the same time imports are hit. These are off the top of my head and should be treated sceptically, but tbh your synergy is too.
I could say we will not be ready with systems whenever it happens, so now is as good as time as any, but that ignores that work is belatedly in progress and is overly fatalistic even given this administration.
I'm not sure how we now avoid January save a position of weakness deal with some phasing, but I'd never actually choose to simply go for it from this position if alternatives are available.
Oh absolutely I agree there could by synergies and there could be dysergies.
But frankly I think the difference is quite miniscule. What matters far more is the uncertainty. Once companies have more clarity on what future arrangements are then they can build for the future. If on the other hand we leave a great cloud of uncertainty hanging over us because we can't be bothered to make a decision just yet then investment will be left on hold - which is the last thing you want after a recession.
Once a decision is made, then I don't care about further extensions or transitions they are entirely reasonable. The issue is simply having an extension because we couldn't be bothered to make a decision - that is totally irresponsible. Having an extension solely to smooth out transition to the pre-determined end point could absolutely be a good idea.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Absolutely 100% agreed. Barnier is giving Boris a blank cheque to walk away right now, whether he wanted to or not. We will see what happens but I doubt any Brexiteer will have an issue with the UK demanding to be a sovereign country . . . and I suspect even many Remainers like your good self will be the same.
Only the die hard pro-Europeans who would never forgive this generation of Tories anyway are going to be upset.
Had Barnier been more reasonable then it might have played out differently.
"Because Justice is a devolved issue, UK ministers need to seek a Legislative Consent Motion - permission from Scottish ministers to amend Scottish law - but the SNP administration are saying no."
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Absolutely 100% agreed. Barnier is giving Boris a blank cheque to walk away right now, whether he wanted to or not. We will see what happens but I doubt any Brexiteer will have an issue with the UK demanding to be a sovereign country . . . and I suspect even many Remainers like your good self will be the same.
Only the die hard pro-Europeans who would never forgive this generation of Tories anyway are going to be upset.
Had Barnier been more reasonable then it might have played out differently.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full EU citizens free movement to the UK, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
I wouldn't worry about it. Both UK and EU have said no extension, and if there were to be one it had to be agreed by July 1st. We exit transition at midnight 31st Dec.
We could agree something else, but that would constitute a Trade Agreement, which would have to be unanimously agreed by the EU27.
As I understand it, that requires votes in the EU Parliament, and in some or all EU national parliaments, but the UK Parliament voted to not have a say, and let the executive decide. Why the Commons chose to emasculate themselves I don't know.
Perhaps our governments brown trouser phase might concentrate minds. After all they believe in the power of rigid deadlines.
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
It does seem a bit strange they couldn't find a rightwing Brexit supporter who isn't a sexist homophobic climate change denier for the job.
He's a strict catholic, who led the campaign to oppose gay marriage in Australia. He also repealed the carbon tax (although he accepted climate change was real, and didn't deny it as an issue) when Prime Minister.
As it happens I don't agree with him on either of those issues, but not having the correct Woke views today on everything doesn't disqualify you from public office. It's just a lazy way to try and excommunicate him, although often, sadly, an effective one.
If you want to convince me he's not the right man for the job then show me he's shit at trade. In the two years he was in office he concluded trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea, so he must know something.
Indeed. I 100% disagree with him on those issues, but we have MPs in the party who voted against gay marriage. Should we remove the whip from everyone who was against gay marriage?
It is absolutely 100% irrelevant now, the issue has been decided and its not related to the role at all.
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
It does seem a bit strange they couldn't find a rightwing Brexit supporter who isn't a sexist homophobic climate change denier for the job.
He's a strict catholic, who led the campaign to oppose gay marriage in Australia. He also repealed the carbon tax (although he accepted climate change was real, and didn't deny it as an issue) when Prime Minister.
As it happens I don't agree with him on either of those issues, but not having the correct Woke views today on everything doesn't disqualify you from public office. It's just a lazy way to try and excommunicate him, although often, sadly, an effective one.
If you want to convince me he's not the right man for the job then show me he's shit at trade. In the two years he was in office he concluded trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea, so he must know something.
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, more having a joke, but I don't think someone being a "strict catholic" should have any relevance, and certainly no kind of excuse for campaigning against gay people having human rights.
In terms of him being the right person for a trade job, as I believe climate change should be one of the most important considerations in trade policy, no I don't think he is right.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Absolutely 100% agreed. Barnier is giving Boris a blank cheque to walk away right now, whether he wanted to or not. We will see what happens but I doubt any Brexiteer will have an issue with the UK demanding to be a sovereign country . . . and I suspect even many Remainers like your good self will be the same.
Only the die hard pro-Europeans who would never forgive this generation of Tories anyway are going to be upset.
Had Barnier been more reasonable then it might have played out differently.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Fine. Then the UK should pull the plug on the talks. The sooner the better, so that people and business can brace themselves for the glorious future to come.
Even if they want to, and I'm not aware of any politician in any EU country who wants to, the EU can't afford to move that far towards the UK's demands. Because it ruins their credibility in every other negotiation they do. So don't blame Barnier for doing the job he has been given.
Maybe that makes them terrible people, rather than jolly good at what they do. Maybe the UK should embrace the hairshirted moral high ground. But if so, the government needs to be honest about that, and the practical realities.
Basically, if we must do this silly thing, please let us not do it in this silly way.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Absolutely 100% agreed. Barnier is giving Boris a blank cheque to walk away right now, whether he wanted to or not. We will see what happens but I doubt any Brexiteer will have an issue with the UK demanding to be a sovereign country . . . and I suspect even many Remainers like your good self will be the same.
Only the die hard pro-Europeans who would never forgive this generation of Tories anyway are going to be upset.
Had Barnier been more reasonable then it might have played out differently.
Yeah, its the evil EU leaving the UK, right?
It is precisely that attitude that will end with no deal
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Absolutely 100% agreed. Barnier is giving Boris a blank cheque to walk away right now, whether he wanted to or not. We will see what happens but I doubt any Brexiteer will have an issue with the UK demanding to be a sovereign country . . . and I suspect even many Remainers like your good self will be the same.
Only the die hard pro-Europeans who would never forgive this generation of Tories anyway are going to be upset.
Had Barnier been more reasonable then it might have played out differently.
Yeah, its the evil EU leaving the UK, right?
It is precisely that attitude that will end with no deal
They have their red lines, we have ours. This was supposed to be the easiest deal in history remember.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Fine. Then the UK should pull the plug on the talks. The sooner the better, so that people and business can brace themselves for the glorious future to come.
Even if they want to, and I'm not aware of any politician in any EU country who wants to, the EU can't afford to move that far towards the UK's demands. Because it ruins their credibility in every other negotiation they do. So don't blame Barnier for doing the job he has been given.
Maybe that makes them terrible people, rather than jolly good at what they do. Maybe the UK should embrace the hairshirted moral high ground. But if so, the government needs to be honest about that, and the practical realities.
Basically, if we must do this silly thing, please let us not do it in this silly way.
The EU does not need to be stubborn, as the UK is not asking for anything unreasonable. In fact what we are asking is to be treated just the same as everyone else that is an independent sovereign country. We are asking to be treated the same as the EU treats everyone else in every other negotiation.
On fish all we are asking is that our waters are treated as our waters just like Norway's waters are regarded as Norway's waters. The EU has regular negotiations about stocks with Norway and we are asking to be treated just the same. How is that at all unreasonable?
On the LPF we are asking for the same LPF as the EU agreed with Canada etc already.
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
It does seem a bit strange they couldn't find a rightwing Brexit supporter who isn't a sexist homophobic climate change denier for the job.
He's a strict catholic, who led the campaign to oppose gay marriage in Australia. He also repealed the carbon tax (although he accepted climate change was real, and didn't deny it as an issue) when Prime Minister.
As it happens I don't agree with him on either of those issues, but not having the correct Woke views today on everything doesn't disqualify you from public office. It's just a lazy way to try and excommunicate him, although often, sadly, an effective one.
If you want to convince me he's not the right man for the job then show me he's shit at trade. In the two years he was in office he concluded trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea, so he must know something.
I think there is a case to be made about people's views and characters being relevant to whether they should get a certain role even if they have other good qualities, but it depends on the role and the views - being leader of a country for instance likely opens up background and views to being more relevant than, say, a diplomat to a sleepy posting.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Fine. Then the UK should pull the plug on the talks. The sooner the better, so that people and business can brace themselves for the glorious future to come.
Even if they want to, and I'm not aware of any politician in any EU country who wants to, the EU can't afford to move that far towards the UK's demands. Because it ruins their credibility in every other negotiation they do. So don't blame Barnier for doing the job he has been given.
Maybe that makes them terrible people, rather than jolly good at what they do. Maybe the UK should embrace the hairshirted moral high ground. But if so, the government needs to be honest about that, and the practical realities.
Basically, if we must do this silly thing, please let us not do it in this silly way.
They negotiated a deal with Canada and promised similar to the UK
Their fear that the UK may be successful is made more likely by no deal outcome
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full free movement, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
True. Some of us warned at the time, and for months before, that making ludicrous contradictory promises based on fantasy and wishing away practicalities was not only bad for the country, but would also in the longer term be disastrous for the Conservative Party. But it's a bit late now to do anything about that.
The depressing thing for me is just how much of Labour's 1983 manifesto Boris Johnson is implementing, and is likely to implement if we get no deal.
Mrs Thatcher must be turning in her grave.
Boris killed socialism for a generation in 2019 the same way that Thatcher did in 1983 - he is her direct heir in that sense. Nothing remains of the Corbyn project - not only was it defeated, it was pulverized and discredited, a broken object of derision even amongst some of its most devoted erstwhile fans.
Just as The Lady liked to say that her greatest achievement was New Labour, so too Boris single-handedly created the conditions for Starmer's New New Labour to come into existence, so that in the sad eventuality that Labour ever manages to win an election, we'll simply be bored to tears instead of having the entire country destroyed.
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
It does seem a bit strange they couldn't find a rightwing Brexit supporter who isn't a sexist homophobic climate change denier for the job.
He's a strict catholic, who led the campaign to oppose gay marriage in Australia. He also repealed the carbon tax (although he accepted climate change was real, and didn't deny it as an issue) when Prime Minister.
As it happens I don't agree with him on either of those issues, but not having the correct Woke views today on everything doesn't disqualify you from public office. It's just a lazy way to try and excommunicate him, although often, sadly, an effective one.
If you want to convince me he's not the right man for the job then show me he's shit at trade. In the two years he was in office he concluded trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea, so he must know something.
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, more having a joke, but I don't think someone being a "strict catholic" should have any relevance, and certainly no kind of excuse for campaigning against gay people having human rights.
In terms of him being the right person for a trade job, as I believe climate change should be one of the most important considerations in trade policy, no I don't think he is right.
Living in a democracy is why people are free to campaign.
Many MPs in Parliament campaigned and voted against equal marriage. Doesn't make them lose the whip. They lost the vote thank goodness, now move on.
If its good enough to be an MP in Parliament in Westminster I don't see why it shouldn't be good enough for a foreign advisor on trade matters.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full free movement, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
True. Some of us warned at the time, and for months before, that making ludicrous contradictory promises based on fantasy and wishing away practicalities was not only bad for the country, but would also in the longer term be disastrous for the Conservative Party. But it's a bit late now to do anything about that.
The depressing thing for me is just how much of Labour's 1983 manifesto Boris Johnson is implementing, and is likely to implement if we get no deal.
Mrs Thatcher must be turning in her grave.
Boris killed socialism for a generation in 2019 the same way that Thatcher did in 1983 - he is her direct heir in that sense. Nothing remains of the Corbyn project - not only was it defeated, it was pulverized and discredited, a broken object of derision even amongst some of its most devoted erstwhile fans.
Just as The Lady liked to say that her greatest achievement was New Labour, so too Boris single-handedly created the conditions for Starmer's New New Labour to come into existence, so that in the sad eventuality that Labour ever manages to win an election, we'll simply be bored to tears instead of having the entire country destroyed.
You're welcome!
All good things must come to an end.
By the next election the Tories will have been in Downing Street for 14 years. By the election after 19. Losing to Labour is inevitable at some point.
I can live with losing to Starmer. I would be distraught to lose to Corbyn.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Absolutely 100% agreed. Barnier is giving Boris a blank cheque to walk away right now, whether he wanted to or not. We will see what happens but I doubt any Brexiteer will have an issue with the UK demanding to be a sovereign country . . . and I suspect even many Remainers like your good self will be the same.
Only the die hard pro-Europeans who would never forgive this generation of Tories anyway are going to be upset.
Had Barnier been more reasonable then it might have played out differently.
Yeah, its the evil EU leaving the UK, right?
It is precisely that attitude that will end with no deal
What attitude? The UK has left with a deal: the Withdrawal agreement, one which the EU is very happy with since the money is paid, the citizens rights protected and the Northern Ireland Protocol is being effected by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster right now.
The UK has asked the EU for a trade deal and they are negotiating. Both sides have set out initial requests and then boiled it down to where they stand now. The agreement has become pretty thin in that process and it appears that the current terms still aren't acceptable to both parties.
The transition period will end and there will be chaos at the UK border (with or without the current agreement), but the negotiations will continue until one is met it really is as simple as that.
It can be sentimentalised as "sovereignty" or "crashing out" but its a negotiation and the facts of it are simple and its not David vs Goliath its fact vs fantasy and the beans the UK has bought aren't going to grow into anything.
So to actually answer the point, this doesn't end with no deal but 1 January 2021 can certainly arrive without one being agreed.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Fine. Then the UK should pull the plug on the talks. The sooner the better, so that people and business can brace themselves for the glorious future to come.
Even if they want to, and I'm not aware of any politician in any EU country who wants to, the EU can't afford to move that far towards the UK's demands. Because it ruins their credibility in every other negotiation they do. So don't blame Barnier for doing the job he has been given.
Maybe that makes them terrible people, rather than jolly good at what they do. Maybe the UK should embrace the hairshirted moral high ground. But if so, the government needs to be honest about that, and the practical realities.
Basically, if we must do this silly thing, please let us not do it in this silly way.
They negotiated a deal with Canada and promised similar to the UK
Their fear that the UK may be successful is made more likely by no deal outcome
I am glad to see you accept that No Deal could be the right end to transition if the EU is unreasonable.
I mean looking at the headlines there has to be an extension to the transition period.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
No, I think that we exit Transition on Jan 1st, to WTO terms in the absence of a trade agreement.
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
Interesting. Perhaps. I can't see it. It ignores all the third party agreements, etc. The disruption would be huge and @HYUFD would be proven right in his prognosis of what would follow. Which, in short, wouldn't be great for the Cons Party and surely some of them could see that?
Extending the transition period beyond December in breach of the 2019 Conservative manifesto with full free movement, full EU fishing boat access to UK waters and no trade deals and full regulatory alignment would also not be great for the Tory Party either, in fact it would be a Nigel Farage wet dream!
True. Some of us warned at the time, and for months before, that making ludicrous contradictory promises based on fantasy and wishing away practicalities was not only bad for the country, but would also in the longer term be disastrous for the Conservative Party. But it's a bit late now to do anything about that.
The depressing thing for me is just how much of Labour's 1983 manifesto Boris Johnson is implementing, and is likely to implement if we get no deal.
Mrs Thatcher must be turning in her grave.
Boris killed socialism for a generation in 2019 the same way that Thatcher did in 1983 - he is her direct heir in that sense. Nothing remains of the Corbyn project - not only was it defeated, it was pulverized and discredited, a broken object of derision even amongst some of its most devoted erstwhile fans.
Just as The Lady liked to say that her greatest achievement was New Labour, so too Boris single-handedly created the conditions for Starmer's New New Labour to come into existence, so that in the sad eventuality that Labour ever manages to win an election, we'll simply be bored to tears instead of having the entire country destroyed.
You're welcome!
All good things must come to an end.
By the next election the Tories will have been in Downing Street for 14 years. By the election after 19. Losing to Labour is inevitable at some point.
I can live with losing to Starmer. I would be distraught to lose to Corbyn.
Exactly. Losing to Starmer would be unpleasant; losing to Corbyn would be existential.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Absolutely 100% agreed. Barnier is giving Boris a blank cheque to walk away right now, whether he wanted to or not. We will see what happens but I doubt any Brexiteer will have an issue with the UK demanding to be a sovereign country . . . and I suspect even many Remainers like your good self will be the same.
Only the die hard pro-Europeans who would never forgive this generation of Tories anyway are going to be upset.
Had Barnier been more reasonable then it might have played out differently.
Yeah, its the evil EU leaving the UK, right?
It is precisely that attitude that will end with no deal
What attitude? The UK has left with a deal: the Withdrawal agreement, one which the EU is very happy with since the money is paid, the citizens rights protected and the Northern Ireland Protocol is being effected by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster right now.
The UK has asked the EU for a trade deal and they are negotiating. Both sides have set out initial requests and then boiled it down to where they stand now. The agreement has become pretty thin in that process and it appears that the current terms still aren't acceptable to both parties.
The transition period will end and there will be chaos at the UK border (with or without the current agreement), but the negotiations will continue until one is met it really is as simple as that.
It can be sentimentalised as "sovereignty" or "crashing out" but its a negotiation and the facts of it are simple and its not David vs Goliath its fact vs fantasy and the beans the UK has bought aren't going to grow into anything.
So to actually answer the point, this doesn't end with no deal but 1 January 2021 can certainly arrive without one being agreed.
The beans the UK has bought absolutely will grow into something.
If there is no deal when we end transition then the UK gains complete and total sovereignty over its waters and fish stocks overnight. The EU fishermen lose everything. No ifs, no buts that is it game over for them.
If there is no deal when we end transition the UK gains complete and total sovereignty over its state aid and LP issues. The EU have no say whatsoever over us domestically anymore.
So every sticking point that we are debating - if there is no deal then we gain it all and they get nothing. Zero, zip, nada.
If that happens then yes we will continue talking and hopefully at some point the EU will drop its unreasonable demands and a deal will be reachable. It may be easier for the EU to drop its unreasonable demands after next year because by then the EU fishermen would have already lost access to our waters rather than facing losing it.
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
Ending the transition period, especially ending it if we are unprepared, will result in economic disruption as you have accepted. Is that an environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by Covid?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
Yes it is the environment in which firms look to expand or to hire people made unemployed by COVID.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
So the transition ends on Jan 1st and you think that by Jan 2nd it "will have already happened".
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
There has to be an end to this otherwise the same impasse will just go on and on
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
That's an argument for cutting the negotiations short but extending the pay-as-you-go transition. Accepting that governments and real businesses will take time to get new systems in place. That was on offer (at a price), but Boris spat it out.
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
As long as Barnier says non on fishing and state aid there can only be one outcome
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
Fine. Then the UK should pull the plug on the talks. The sooner the better, so that people and business can brace themselves for the glorious future to come.
Even if they want to, and I'm not aware of any politician in any EU country who wants to, the EU can't afford to move that far towards the UK's demands. Because it ruins their credibility in every other negotiation they do. So don't blame Barnier for doing the job he has been given.
Maybe that makes them terrible people, rather than jolly good at what they do. Maybe the UK should embrace the hairshirted moral high ground. But if so, the government needs to be honest about that, and the practical realities.
Basically, if we must do this silly thing, please let us not do it in this silly way.
The EU does not need to be stubborn, as the UK is not asking for anything unreasonable. In fact what we are asking is to be treated just the same as everyone else that is an independent sovereign country. We are asking to be treated the same as the EU treats everyone else in every other negotiation.
On fish all we are asking is that our waters are treated as our waters just like Norway's waters are regarded as Norway's waters. The EU has regular negotiations about stocks with Norway and we are asking to be treated just the same. How is that at all unreasonable?
On the LPF we are asking for the same LPF as the EU agreed with Canada etc already.
Who said anything about fairness?
Indeed, one of the arguments used by Brexiteers has been that the UK should use its power as a buyer of Euro goods to haggle a better deal. That's not about fairness, it's about power. The EU are doing the same to us, only more effectively.
And, to repeat the key question- where's the pressure from people or politicians in the EU for Barnier to soften his stance? Democratic will of the people, isn't it?
The UK has two grown-up responses from here. One is to act on "very well, alone". Prepare properly, then go. We will be probably poorer, but purer. So be it.
The other is to swallow some pride, recognise that the will of 500 million weighs more than the will of 70 million, and choose from the options that the 500 million are offering us.
But saying "it's not fair" isn't grown-up, even if it's true. When I'm not here, I teach. "It's not fair" is what adolescents say when they have run out of other arguments.
On Tony Abbott, I take all this sledging of him being appointed to the Board of Trade because he's sexist, homophobe, climate change denier etc. with a pinch of salt.
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
It does seem a bit strange they couldn't find a rightwing Brexit supporter who isn't a sexist homophobic climate change denier for the job.
He's a strict catholic, who led the campaign to oppose gay marriage in Australia. He also repealed the carbon tax (although he accepted climate change was real, and didn't deny it as an issue) when Prime Minister.
As it happens I don't agree with him on either of those issues, but not having the correct Woke views today on everything doesn't disqualify you from public office. It's just a lazy way to try and excommunicate him, although often, sadly, an effective one.
If you want to convince me he's not the right man for the job then show me he's shit at trade. In the two years he was in office he concluded trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea, so he must know something.
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, more having a joke, but I don't think someone being a "strict catholic" should have any relevance, and certainly no kind of excuse for campaigning against gay people having human rights.
In terms of him being the right person for a trade job, as I believe climate change should be one of the most important considerations in trade policy, no I don't think he is right.
Living in a democracy is why people are free to campaign.
Many MPs in Parliament campaigned and voted against equal marriage. Doesn't make them lose the whip. They lost the vote thank goodness, now move on.
If its good enough to be an MP in Parliament in Westminster I don't see why it shouldn't be good enough for a foreign advisor on trade matters.
Jeez keep your hair on. I'm not sure where I said it had any relevance to him being a trade advisor.
Comments
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philosophy/survey-results/daily/2020/01/22/d1cab/2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=terrorists_lie_detector
I said specifically that "I do not care about the date" and that if there are good reasons for delays we should have one.
What I don't accept as a good reason is simply kicking the can down the road. I want a decision made - deal or no deal - then get on with it. Once a decision is made, then practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in would be entirely logical. I 100% agree with Casino_Royale.
My objection is to kicking the can solely for the purpose of kicking the can, that is not acceptable. Kicking the can because there is a very good reason (eg we are transitioning to new arrangements that we have decided upon) I am entirely OK with.
I might write a thread on this.
Précis, innocent people, are more likely to fail these tests, simply they've never been under pressure like this before.
So (to take a tiny example) if a port has to put up some different signs, doing it while the place is quiet (though is goods traffic that slow these days?) might be a sensible win-win.
But if you are a business, work done keeping the show on the road during a pandemic might contribute very little to being ready for a post-transition future.
And if you are a government, and you need to be deciding, implementing and communicating how the rules for how the country is going to operate, and all your spare headcount and attention is being taken up by a virus, is it any wonder that the necessary work isn't being done?
I find it amazing that you should dismiss the risks so airily.
What on earth is wrong with overcoming the Covid challenges, getting the UK back to some kind of trend growth, reducing unemployment, getting some decent quarterly stats under our belt, and then turn to ending the transition?
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1301546205617491970
We find it hard to visualise because we can't live the counterfactual.
The reason the answer is yes is because it will have already happened. Since it has already happened (by then) businesses can take stock of what has happened and move forward with confidence.
What is far more damaging is fear and uncertainty. If you insist that the end of transition will be damaging then by kicking the can down the road you're just leaving that damage to the future. So if companies are afraid of forthcoming damage then they may not take people on.
Why would there be "some kind of trend growth" or a reduction in unemployment if the cloud of uncertainty is hanging over us?
Remove the uncertainty, have some clarity and then we can have sustainable trend growth.
I think people are not fully aware of how large the on the day gap was compared to the final totals. And this wasn't just from absentee ballots but how phenomenally slow counting in Philly was.
It will not end on Jan 1st.
I know this is as insightful as noting that the sun rises every day but I just thought I would state it for the sake of clarity.
@AlastairMeeks has posted on here before about their questionable ethics.
I'm not comfortable using them and don't feel I have control.
I might look at the other spread options - thanks.
https://order-order.com/2020/09/03/richard-leonard-facing-scottish-labour-party-ultimatum-following-reeves-gaffe/
Their main objection is simply that he's a right-wing Brexit supporter and his opponents are simply grasping for the best weapons to bring him down.
Dear god.
Edit: and you're a trained economist. Do you have the stats to hand for what happens to the workforce in times of economic disruption?
What @Casino_Royale wrote which was smoothing the transition to new decided upon arrangements on the other hand is a very, very good reason.
I even said similar myself: "A good reason to delay would be if Barnier and Frost said something along the lines of "talks are going well, we've reached compromises on key areas, but we need more time to finalise the agreement and get it ratified". If they said that then 100% I would support an extension."
I also said: "If it was a case of COVID had meant talks hadn't occurred and Frost wanted more time then yes, of course delay."
What I am against is kicking the can just for the sake of kicking the can.
Who could have predicted that BJ and his crew would be attracted to empty, populist bollocks?
Sure, it's unlikely, but hope springs eternal.
https://twitter.com/pupadhyaya_/status/1301544819731451904
I think for each synergy you could probably consider more dysergies. The double burden of COVID and import restrictions stretching businesses at the same time rather than in sequence, the possibility that large volumes of vaccines could need importing to save lives into an uncertain regulatory environment, lockdowns restricting food production (e.g. the March pasta shortages) at the same time imports are hit. These are off the top of my head and should be treated sceptically, but tbh your synergy is too.
I could say we will not be ready with systems whenever it happens, so now is as good as time as any, but that ignores that work is belatedly in progress and is overly fatalistic even given this administration.
I'm not sure how we now avoid January save a position of weakness deal with some phasing, but I'd never actually choose to simply go for it from this position if alternatives are available.
Transition to resolve practical issues following an agreement is sensible but no transition that enables Barnier to continue to say 'non' is justified
https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercomputer-analyzed-covid-19-and-an-interesting-new-theory-has-emerged-31cb8eba9d63
Obviously that is an unstable state and Trade agreement talks would continue. With our government not planning any customs on imports to the UK, while EU customs apply, it will be rather asymmetric pressure for that period.
I suppose I can synthesise totals by breaking it down on a county basis.
If the transition ends on Jan 1st then there will be a period of disruption associated with that. I specifically said for instance the border I would expect disruptions for days or weeks.
But if disruption is going to occur either way then better sooner than later dragging it out. COVID isn't going to be over by 2nd January either. Even if a vaccine were announced in November which is wildly optimistic it is still frankly implausible that it would be distributed to everyone who needs it before next Spring at the very earliest. And so by this time next year hopefully we will be able to put both COVID and Brexit disruptions behind us.
On the other hand if we followed your suggestion then by this time next year COVID will be behind us but the country will still have a major cloud of uncertainty over it with regards to the forthcoming end of transition and the damage you say that will cause.
As for economics there is evidence that uncertainty puts off investment yes. Hence removing the uncertainty is best done sooner rather than later. If a deal is reachable it is irresponsible not to reach it now.
any weapons
So instead, the negotiations are dragging and the end of transition is coming into view.
But I think we have both made our points. The evening beckons!
Personally I would also allow some regulatory alignment for a FTA but with Barnier also refusing to budge today on allowing us control of our fishing waters no deal looks the likely outcome
Mrs Thatcher must be turning in her grave.
As it happens I don't agree with him on either of those issues, but not having the correct Woke views today on everything doesn't disqualify you from public office. It's just a lazy way to try and excommunicate him, although often, sadly, an effective one.
If you want to convince me he's not the right man for the job then show me he's shit at trade. In the two years he was in office he concluded trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea, so he must know something.
But frankly I think the difference is quite miniscule. What matters far more is the uncertainty. Once companies have more clarity on what future arrangements are then they can build for the future. If on the other hand we leave a great cloud of uncertainty hanging over us because we can't be bothered to make a decision just yet then investment will be left on hold - which is the last thing you want after a recession.
Once a decision is made, then I don't care about further extensions or transitions they are entirely reasonable. The issue is simply having an extension because we couldn't be bothered to make a decision - that is totally irresponsible. Having an extension solely to smooth out transition to the pre-determined end point could absolutely be a good idea.
I do not think Boris will have a problem with the electorate if it is demonstrated the EU will not recognise UK coastal waters and insists on dictating state aid rules in the light of covid and the UK need to protect our businesses
https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1301218033424379904?s=19
Only the die hard pro-Europeans who would never forgive this generation of Tories anyway are going to be upset.
Had Barnier been more reasonable then it might have played out differently.
"Because Justice is a devolved issue, UK ministers need to seek a Legislative Consent Motion - permission from Scottish ministers to amend Scottish law - but the SNP administration are saying no."
https://twitter.com/SCG_Supporters/status/1301443962784415746
Burgon is 100/1 with William Hill to succeed Sir Keir Starmer QC KCB
We could agree something else, but that would constitute a Trade Agreement, which would have to be unanimously agreed by the EU27.
As I understand it, that requires votes in the EU Parliament, and in some or all EU national parliaments, but the UK Parliament voted to not have a say, and let the executive decide. Why the Commons chose to emasculate themselves I don't know.
Perhaps our governments brown trouser phase might concentrate minds. After all they believe in the power of rigid deadlines.
It is absolutely 100% irrelevant now, the issue has been decided and its not related to the role at all.
In terms of him being the right person for a trade job, as I believe climate change should be one of the most important considerations in trade policy, no I don't think he is right.
Even if they want to, and I'm not aware of any politician in any EU country who wants to, the EU can't afford to move that far towards the UK's demands. Because it ruins their credibility in every other negotiation they do. So don't blame Barnier for doing the job he has been given.
Maybe that makes them terrible people, rather than jolly good at what they do. Maybe the UK should embrace the hairshirted moral high ground. But if so, the government needs to be honest about that, and the practical realities.
Basically, if we must do this silly thing, please let us not do it in this silly way.
https://twitter.com/jensstoltenberg/status/1301556495688048640
This was always going to happen.
On fish all we are asking is that our waters are treated as our waters just like Norway's waters are regarded as Norway's waters. The EU has regular negotiations about stocks with Norway and we are asking to be treated just the same. How is that at all unreasonable?
On the LPF we are asking for the same LPF as the EU agreed with Canada etc already.
Their fear that the UK may be successful is made more likely by no deal outcome
Just as The Lady liked to say that her greatest achievement was New Labour, so too Boris single-handedly created the conditions for Starmer's New New Labour to come into existence, so that in the sad eventuality that Labour ever manages to win an election, we'll simply be bored to tears instead of having the entire country destroyed.
You're welcome!
Many MPs in Parliament campaigned and voted against equal marriage. Doesn't make them lose the whip. They lost the vote thank goodness, now move on.
If its good enough to be an MP in Parliament in Westminster I don't see why it shouldn't be good enough for a foreign advisor on trade matters.
By the next election the Tories will have been in Downing Street for 14 years. By the election after 19. Losing to Labour is inevitable at some point.
I can live with losing to Starmer. I would be distraught to lose to Corbyn.
The UK has asked the EU for a trade deal and they are negotiating. Both sides have set out initial requests and then boiled it down to where they stand now. The agreement has become pretty thin in that process and it appears that the current terms still aren't acceptable to both parties.
The transition period will end and there will be chaos at the UK border (with or without the current agreement), but the negotiations will continue until one is met it really is as simple as that.
It can be sentimentalised as "sovereignty" or "crashing out" but its a negotiation and the facts of it are simple and its not David vs Goliath its fact vs fantasy and the beans the UK has bought aren't going to grow into anything.
So to actually answer the point, this doesn't end with no deal but 1 January 2021 can certainly arrive without one being agreed.
It would be hilarious, as one sided as Omdurman.
If there is no deal when we end transition then the UK gains complete and total sovereignty over its waters and fish stocks overnight. The EU fishermen lose everything. No ifs, no buts that is it game over for them.
If there is no deal when we end transition the UK gains complete and total sovereignty over its state aid and LP issues. The EU have no say whatsoever over us domestically anymore.
So every sticking point that we are debating - if there is no deal then we gain it all and they get nothing. Zero, zip, nada.
If that happens then yes we will continue talking and hopefully at some point the EU will drop its unreasonable demands and a deal will be reachable. It may be easier for the EU to drop its unreasonable demands after next year because by then the EU fishermen would have already lost access to our waters rather than facing losing it.
And then he says or does it so it's back to the drawing board.
Indeed, one of the arguments used by Brexiteers has been that the UK should use its power as a buyer of Euro goods to haggle a better deal. That's not about fairness, it's about power. The EU are doing the same to us, only more effectively.
And, to repeat the key question- where's the pressure from people or politicians in the EU for Barnier to soften his stance? Democratic will of the people, isn't it?
The UK has two grown-up responses from here. One is to act on "very well, alone". Prepare properly, then go. We will be probably poorer, but purer. So be it.
The other is to swallow some pride, recognise that the will of 500 million weighs more than the will of 70 million, and choose from the options that the 500 million are offering us.
But saying "it's not fair" isn't grown-up, even if it's true. When I'm not here, I teach. "It's not fair" is what adolescents say when they have run out of other arguments.