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.
The EU aren't doing it effectively.
If the EU were being effective we would have signed the deal. That would have showed the EU has power. If we walk away, then the EU has no power and has been totally ineffective.
I'm not saying its unfair, I'm saying unless Barnier changes we happily walk away - and that the British public would be OK with that.
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!
Except that Johnson has proceeded to carry out much of Corbyn's programme - huge increases in public spending . renationalisation etc. Thatcher did not do 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?
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 UK’s request (hardly a demand) is for the U.K.-EU trade deal to look like their Canada and Japan trade deals. The EU are demanding we give them our fish, and agree to follow their rules in perpetuity.
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.
The EU aren't doing it effectively.
If the EU were being effective we would have signed the deal. That would have showed the EU has power. If we walk away, then the EU has no power and has been totally ineffective.
I'm not saying its unfair, I'm saying unless Barnier changes we happily walk away - and that the British public would be OK with that.
The EU have decided that doing a Canada deal with Canada will cost them less than doing the same deal with the UK. And they have a point- distance means that Canada does less Euro trade, so the deal is worth less to them. I'm not saying they're right, but they're not obviously wrong.
That's the EU's sovereign choice. Even if they're not rationally right, it's still their sovereign choice. So saying "But you gave Canada that deal" is whining that "It's not fair".
And again. Who, among the 700 million people living in EU countries, is telling Barnier to change course? Maybe they're all wrong. But that's democracy, and blaming one individual for doing the job that they've been given will get nobody anywhere.
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.
Strict Catholics believe marriage is between a man and a woman - and take a literal interpretation of the Bible. Some of them also don't believe in abortion under any circumstances (he doesn't take that view). There are other religions who feel similar on both issues.
Are all of them to be disqualified from public office under your criteria?
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 don't see the problem.
If the deal doesn't work out for us or the EU in years to come (because our economics or politics change) we can simply announce our termination or renegotiate it.
For now, we need a deal. So I'd take it.
[Having said that given State Aid is such a massive deal on both sides there must be more to it than meets the eye, which I find interesting.]
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.
Indeed, he's accepted the result and moved on.
Let's call this out for what it is: it's Lefties who don't like this Government or Brexit trying to find a line of attack.
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.
Burgon is 100/1 with William Hill to succeed Sir Keir Starmer QC KCB
Doesn't seem likely Labour won't manage a poll lead before the end of the year.
You'd have to show the views were both strongly held and a problem for that individual in doing the job.
Far too many now assume (a) must mean (b) whereas in the real world many (most) normal people are able to keep their personal private views separate from their professional work.
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 UK’s request (hardly a demand) is for the U.K.-EU trade deal to look like their Canada and Japan trade deals. The EU are demanding we give them our fish, and agree to follow their rules in perpetuity.
Chances are the EU will compromise on the fish if we give up everything else and Boris will probably agree at the last second.
If the deal doesn't work out for us or the EU in years to come (because our economics or politics change) we can simply announce our termination or renegotiate it.
For now, we need a deal. So I'd take it.
[Having said that given State Aid is such a massive deal on both sides there must be more to it than meets the eye, which I find interesting.]
I believe the state aid is in part the worry/expectation that the UK government might start nationalising/controlling certain companies via a golden share in the name of national security.
There's plenty of EU based companies that might be exposed if that happens, Deutsche Telekom at the BT Group, EDF with Hinckley Point as examples.
There's a new national security law coming this autumn.
I mean say Hutchinson decides to buy the BT Group I can see the UK government putting the kibosh on that, and that will cost Deutsche Telekom.
Edit - I mean the banning of Huawei is going to cost the BT Group lots of money, which will cost DT a lot of money. I think that's where we are headed.
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.
Indeed, he's accepted the result and moved on.
Let's call this out for what it is: it's Lefties who don't like this Government or Brexit trying to find a line of attack.
I find this bizarre. Johnson appoints a controversial politician to a position. Other people unsurprisingly don't agree with the appointment.
Cue pompous pearl-clutching from rightwing snowflakes.
If the deal doesn't work out for us or the EU in years to come (because our economics or politics change) we can simply announce our termination or renegotiate it.
For now, we need a deal. So I'd take it.
[Having said that given State Aid is such a massive deal on both sides there must be more to it than meets the eye, which I find interesting.]
I believe the state aid is in part the worry/expectation that the UK government might start nationalising/controlling certain companies via a golden share in the name of national security.
There's plenty of EU based companies that might be exposed if that happens, Deutsche Telekom at the BT Group, EDF with Hinckley Point as examples.
There's a new national security law coming this autumn.
I mean say Hutchinson decides to buy the BT Group I can see the UK government putting the kibosh on that, and that will cost Deutsche Telekom.
Edit - I mean the banning of Huawei is going to cost the BT Group lots of money, which will cost DT a lot of money. I think that's where we are headed.
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.
Indeed, he's accepted the result and moved on.
Let's call this out for what it is: it's Lefties who don't like this Government or Brexit trying to find a line of attack.
I find this bizarre. Johnson appoints a controversial politician to a position. Other people unsurprisingly don't agree with the appointment.
Cue pompous pearl-clutching from rightwing snowflakes.
There's only one snowflake I can see on this discussion.
If the deal doesn't work out for us or the EU in years to come (because our economics or politics change) we can simply announce our termination or renegotiate it.
For now, we need a deal. So I'd take it.
[Having said that given State Aid is such a massive deal on both sides there must be more to it than meets the eye, which I find interesting.]
I believe the state aid is in part the worry/expectation that the UK government might start nationalising/controlling certain companies via a golden share in the name of national security.
There's plenty of EU based companies that might be exposed if that happens, Deutsche Telekom at the BT Group, EDF with Hinckley Point as examples.
There's a new national security law coming this autumn.
I mean say Hutchinson decides to buy the BT Group I can see the UK government putting the kibosh on that, and that will cost Deutsche Telekom.
Edit - I mean the banning of Huawei is going to cost the BT Group lots of money, which will cost DT a lot of money. I think that's where we are headed.
Owt Chinese is going to be viewed as very bad.
Thanks.
Plus the EU really don't trust Boris Johnson.
They look at how he has tried to resile from the withdrawal agreement, things such as the Northern Ireland protocol where Boris Johnson has repeatedly said the opposite will happen to what is in the agreement.
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
A bit late to be having second thoughts. It was all perfectly clear, to those who chose to look.
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.
So Boris the saviour of the union is going to pop up to Scotland to tell the fishermen that they are about to lose their export market? To quote a popular film of the 1980's "You call that a knife?".
Ultimately everything the UK thinks it holds as leverage on the EU the EU has as leverage on the UK and to a greater extent. The UK can't even manage full import substitution if the UK tried to shut out EU food imports.
Pragmatism will prevail and that will result in less SM access for the UK and tarrifs pushing up UK food prices, friction at the borders contracting UK industry and making the UK less attractive for foreign investment. Its not a disaster but is it what was advertised? No.
What I hear from a lot of Brexiter arguments and I do listen to them, is that all this is predacated on the idea of some kind of British Exceptionalism. As a conservative I really want to embrace that but I just know its a fantasy and what is really happening is that an average European country is fooling itself into thinking it is something it isn't, selling itself on a dream that simply isn't sustainable. The bump when it comes will be painful and will bring a whole host of other problems with it. The probable break-up of the union and the end of the country I was born in being the first.
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.
Burgon is 100/1 with William Hill to succeed Sir Keir Starmer QC KCB
Doesn't seem likely Labour won't manage a poll lead before the end of the year.
You'd have to show the views were both strongly held and a problem for that individual in doing the job.
Far too many now assume (a) must mean (b) whereas in the real world many (most) normal people are able to keep their personal private views separate from their professional work.
I don't remember Tim Farron getting such indulgent treatment for his beliefs from the PB Tories.
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.
Burgon is 100/1 with William Hill to succeed Sir Keir Starmer QC KCB
Doesn't seem likely Labour won't manage a poll lead before the end of the year.
You'd have to show the views were both strongly held and a problem for that individual in doing the job.
Far too many now assume (a) must mean (b) whereas in the real world many (most) normal people are able to keep their personal private views separate from their professional work.
I don't remember Tim Farron getting such indulgent treatment for his beliefs from the PB Tories.
Surely the issue there was that he was leader of the Liberal(!) Democrats. I found his lies about Theresa May stealing your house far more offensive.
I suppose guessing what the question means and guessing what the answers mean are equally futile. What on earth is the Economist doing sustaining this drivel?
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.
Burgon is 100/1 with William Hill to succeed Sir Keir Starmer QC KCB
Doesn't seem likely Labour won't manage a poll lead before the end of the year.
You'd have to show the views were both strongly held and a problem for that individual in doing the job.
Far too many now assume (a) must mean (b) whereas in the real world many (most) normal people are able to keep their personal private views separate from their professional work.
I don't remember Tim Farron getting such indulgent treatment for his beliefs from the PB Tories.
I can't speak for others but I never gave him any grief for his Christian beliefs.
Let's be honest, if it was Labour in power PB Tories would say views were absolutely crucial. Hypocrisy as usual
It depends upon the type of view CHB.
If the view is no different to the views of many MPs in Parliament I don't see how it makes a difference?
If it was eg antisemitism or homophobia in general etc then absolutely it makes a difference.
All I've seen here is that he voted on a controversial subject the same as many MPs for the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems did at the time!
I think bigotted homophobes, antisemites etc should be expelled from parties but that doesn't go as far as everyone who voted against at the time it wasn't yet legal which included MPs of every single major party at the time.
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.
Burgon is 100/1 with William Hill to succeed Sir Keir Starmer QC KCB
Doesn't seem likely Labour won't manage a poll lead before the end of the year.
You'd have to show the views were both strongly held and a problem for that individual in doing the job.
Far too many now assume (a) must mean (b) whereas in the real world many (most) normal people are able to keep their personal private views separate from their professional work.
I don't remember Tim Farron getting such indulgent treatment for his beliefs from the PB Tories.
I do. He did when he was in a minor role. As did Sarah Teather and the other then LD MPs who voted against equal marriage.
If we were talking about Abbott becoming Tory Party leader the comparison would be relevant.
MY current take on the polls is a BUY of Biden at 281 looks a reasonable bet. I can get him to 351 by winning all of the target states.
I think @rcs1000 made an interesting point about Republican strength in FL and I can foresee Trump winning Minnesota. The problem is you are punting on 118 EC votes. If Trump wins or holds all the key states you will be looking at a 59-point loss but if Biden scoops the lot it's a 70-point win.
As someone said, it's one for the big boys or girls.
On the EU trade talks, the reality is that neither side has any incentive to agree anything until about 23:59:59.
I would expect that we'll see agreement between Christmas and New Year that will also contain a one page "three month standstill" treaty that will result in us leaving the transition period but nothing really changing until the full treaty is agreed and implemented in mid 2021.
No idea what all this is about but Jesus' given name is Jesus, remarkably enough; if he has a surname it would be Bar Joseph, or 'Son of Joseph' like the Icelanders do, but in the circumstances Jesus will do, as there is legitimate doubt about his paternity. Anyway we don't call St John 'Bar Zebedee'. To call Jesus 'Christ' as if it's a name is less good but very common, and at least is respectful. To complicate things Jesus favourite self appellation appears to be 'The son of man' (though like everything else this is disputed) but no-one else in the New Testament ever calls him that for reasons which are the cause of sackfuls of books and articles.
On the EU trade talks, the reality is that neither side has any incentive to agree anything until about 23:59:59.
I would expect that we'll see agreement between Christmas and New Year that will also contain a one page "three month standstill" treaty that will result in us leaving the transition period but nothing really changing until the full treaty is agreed and implemented in mid 2021.
If it isn't signed by the end of October it can't be ratified
So if the Tory MP is right - I don't think she is - and Tory MPs won't vote for tax rises, where do we go from here? Letters to the 1922 Committee?
They won't vote to break the Tory manifesto by increasing VAT, income tax or National Insurance, which Sunak won't do anyway.
They may not vote to increase fuel tax but are less likely to oppose a small rise in fuel duties.
They will vote to equate CGT with income tax rates and for a small increase in corporation tax which will not really have much effect in the red wall and in terms of CGT is simply a matter of ensuring it is brought into line with income tax
Biden will be higher than 281. I think downside risk right now is small.
The curiosity is the sell on Trump winning. If you think the polls will stick its a bet of interest.
I tend to agree that this is an asymmetrical risk bet.
Can Trump win? Yes. But if he does, it will probably be with a small EC lead. The chances of him getting 330+ are very small.
Can Biden win? Yes - but there's also the possibility he does achieve a ten point popular vote lead, and then there are a raft of states (like Texas) that are in reach.
The right strategy is probably to buy Biden in the spreads, and then cover it with a small bet on Trump with Betfair. If Trump wins, you're flat because Betfair has paid off your small losses in the spreads. You're only real losing scenario is a small Biden win. Which is far from impossible.
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
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.
So Boris the saviour of the union is going to pop up to Scotland to tell the fishermen that they are about to lose their export market? To quote a popular film of the 1980's "You call that a knife?".
Ultimately everything the UK thinks it holds as leverage on the EU the EU has as leverage on the UK and to a greater extent. The UK can't even manage full import substitution if the UK tried to shut out EU food imports.
Pragmatism will prevail and that will result in less SM access for the UK and tarrifs pushing up UK food prices, friction at the borders contracting UK industry and making the UK less attractive for foreign investment. Its not a disaster but is it what was advertised? No.
What I hear from a lot of Brexiter arguments and I do listen to them, is that all this is predacated on the idea of some kind of British Exceptionalism. As a conservative I really want to embrace that but I just know its a fantasy and what is really happening is that an average European country is fooling itself into thinking it is something it isn't, selling itself on a dream that simply isn't sustainable. The bump when it comes will be painful and will bring a whole host of other problems with it. The probable break-up of the union and the end of the country I was born in being the first.
Why would the Scots lose their export market? Don't you understand that even under WTO the exports can still occur? They might be different but the market is still there.
Secondly the UK can't "shut out" food exports that has never been on the table for one second.
You're completely tilting at windmills.
No wonder you're so extremely against this, your idea of what's on the table is simply not.
On the EU trade talks, the reality is that neither side has any incentive to agree anything until about 23:59:59.
I would expect that we'll see agreement between Christmas and New Year that will also contain a one page "three month standstill" treaty that will result in us leaving the transition period but nothing really changing until the full treaty is agreed and implemented in mid 2021.
If it isn't signed by the end of October it can't be ratified
That's both true, and deeply misleading.
(1) The EU has competence to agree certain things without the ratification of all the states.
(2) There are provisions under existing EU law to enable unratified trade treaties to be in effect. And there provisions are enshrined at the WTO, to allow free trade areas to exist during the finalisation of agreements.
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
Odd thing to be complaining about. Sure I could probably guess which Mohammed the story was about otherwise, but adding the Prophet part makes it much clearer.
If it's No Deal, there seems to be this odd idea from the UK that the EU will come back with a deal then which undermines the SM and gives the UK everything it wants.
Considering this hasn't happened in any of the negotiations we've had with the EU, it seems to odd to think it will happen this time.
Doubly odd that the EU would now give us a better deal when we've just damaged ourselves but there you go, British exceptionalism and arrogance
Mike - you need to brush up on your basic arithmetic. If you sold Tory seats at 383 and they finished up winning 318 seats, your profit was 65 times your "stake" as you rather curiously choose to describe it, NOT 75 times as incorrectly referred to in the header.
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
If that is the position people are taking sure, but personally I do think not all positions or character are the same, so it is not inherently unreasonable to say character x matters more in role y than character y would matter in role x. It's a spectrum, and surely we might expect more or less from people in specific roles as compared to other roles?
It's why I don't have an issue, in itself, with a political leader not being the most moral if it was felt they had other positive qualities to overcome that, and why for a lesser role I'd probably be even more willing to forgive defects of character.
Thoufh as far I could tell people are saying about Abbott that he is an expert, not that expertise doesn't matter, though I have no idea if he is an expert or not. Since people are focusing on his personal character I assume that issue is less clear cut that his general offensiveness.
Given the nature of the government it seems pretty likely his Brexit credentials were at the forefront of any decision rather than any merit, but I think it is a bit silly to suggest that the role is irrelevant when determining whether expertise (real or imagined in this case) trumps personal failings.
Odd thing to be complaining about. Sure I could probably guess which Mohammed the story was about otherwise, but adding the Prophet part makes it much clearer.
It is pure culture war. Oppressed Christians exulted Muslims etc.
Biden will be higher than 281. I think downside risk right now is small.
The curiosity is the sell on Trump winning. If you think the polls will stick its a bet of interest.
I tend to agree that this is an asymmetrical risk bet.
Can Trump win? Yes. But if he does, it will probably be with a small EC lead. The chances of him getting 330+ are very small.
Can Biden win? Yes - but there's also the possibility he does achieve a ten point popular vote lead, and then there are a raft of states (like Texas) that are in reach.
The right strategy is probably to buy Biden in the spreads, and then cover it with a small bet on Trump with Betfair. If Trump wins, you're flat because Betfair has paid off your small losses in the spreads. You're only real losing scenario is a small Biden win. Which is far from impossible.
I see this as a possible result on the latest polling with a small swing to Trump, Trump 274 Biden 264.
Biden picks up Arizona and Pennsylvania and NE02, Trump holds Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and North Carolina (alternatively Trump loses Wisconsin and picks up Minnesota gives the same result). https://www.270towin.com/
Important to note unless they have changed their likely to vote filter for a quinipac poll if you didn't vote in the previous presidential election you are filtered out.
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
Not whether the need for them is a good or bad thing, but if there is a need for them is it a good thing that they take action to deliver on that need?
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
Who is saying that?
Read the thread.
I have. I've not seen a single person say what you wrote.
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
If that is the position people are taking sure, but personally I do think not all positions or character are the same, so it is not inherently unreasonable to say character x matters more in role y than character y would matter in role x. It's a spectrum, and surely we might expect more or less from people in specific roles as compared to other roles?
It's why I don't have an issue, in itself, with a political leader not being the most moral if it was felt they had other positive qualities to overcome that, and why for a lesser role I'd probably be even more willing to forgive defects of character.
Thoufh as far I could tell people are saying about Abbott that he is an expert, not that expertise doesn't matter, though I have no idea if he is an expert or not. Since people are focusing on his personal character I assume that issue is less clear cut that his general offensiveness.
Given the nature of the government it seems pretty likely his Brexit credentials were at the forefront of any decision rather than any merit, but I think it is a bit silly to suggest that the role is irrelevant when determining whether expertise (real or imagined in this case) trumps personal failings.
Trade is a fiendishly difficult subject - I'll be honest, I find it difficult to follow some of the discussions on here - but gay marriage, and whether it's acceptable to oppose it, is a very simple thing to have an opinion on so that's what gets the attention.
The Quinnipaic supplemtals are fascinating. It is hard to argue with @rcs1000 that without Coronavirus Trump would be walking this.
In both Florida and Penn the voters say both that the economy is the most important issue and that Trump has a clear lead on who would be best to handle the economy.
If it's No Deal, there seems to be this odd idea from the UK that the EU will come back with a deal then which undermines the SM and gives the UK everything it wants.
Considering this hasn't happened in any of the negotiations we've had with the EU, it seems to odd to think it will happen this time.
Doubly odd that the EU would now give us a better deal when we've just damaged ourselves but there you go, British exceptionalism and arrogance
What the UK is asking for doesn't undermine the Single Market.
For instance: on fishing the UK is asking to be treated the same as Norway which is a member of the Single Market.
How does the UK having the same sea arrangements as a member of the Single Market undermine the Single Market?
Mike - you need to brush up on your basic arithmetic. If you sold Tory seats at 383 and they finished up winning 318 seats, your profit was 65 times your "stake" as you rather curiously choose to describe it, NOT 75 times as incorrectly referred to in the header.
It's a typo, Mike did sell at 393, so his profit was 75 times his stake.
If it's No Deal, there seems to be this odd idea from the UK that the EU will come back with a deal then which undermines the SM and gives the UK everything it wants.
Considering this hasn't happened in any of the negotiations we've had with the EU, it seems to odd to think it will happen this time.
Doubly odd that the EU would now give us a better deal when we've just damaged ourselves but there you go, British exceptionalism and arrogance
What the UK is asking for doesn't undermine the Single Market.
For instance: on fishing the UK is asking to be treated the same as Norway which is a member of the Single Market.
How does the UK having the same sea arrangements as a member of the Single Market undermine the Single Market?
If we leave with No Deal, why do you think the EU is going to change its mind
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
If that is the position people are taking sure, but personally I do think not all positions or character are the same, so it is not inherently unreasonable to say character x matters more in role y than character y would matter in role x. It's a spectrum, and surely we might expect more or less from people in specific roles as compared to other roles?
It's why I don't have an issue, in itself, with a political leader not being the most moral if it was felt they had other positive qualities to overcome that, and why for a lesser role I'd probably be even more willing to forgive defects of character.
Thoufh as far I could tell people are saying about Abbott that he is an expert, not that expertise doesn't matter, though I have no idea if he is an expert or not. Since people are focusing on his personal character I assume that issue is less clear cut that his general offensiveness.
Given the nature of the government it seems pretty likely his Brexit credentials were at the forefront of any decision rather than any merit, but I think it is a bit silly to suggest that the role is irrelevant when determining whether expertise (real or imagined in this case) trumps personal failings.
Trade is a fiendishly difficult subject - I'll be honest, I find it difficult to follow some of the discussions on here - but gay marriage, and whether it's acceptable to oppose it, is a very simple thing to have an opinion on so that's what gets the attention.
Sure, but while I am sure there is hypocrisy in play here, I find it difficult to accept the premise that it is unreasonable to look beyond personal morals for every role that exists as if they are equal. An MP, PM, President, Bishop or whatever, we probably are willing to put up with different standards for them.
Not whether the need for them is a good or bad thing, but if there is a need for them is it a good thing that they take action to deliver on that need?
I think that depends...
1. if you live near one 2. If you are an MP with one in your constituency
Odd thing to be complaining about. Sure I could probably guess which Mohammed the story was about otherwise, but adding the Prophet part makes it much clearer.
If they always added "pbuh" he might have a point.
The previous Quinnipaic poll was registered voters. This one was Likely Voters. They literally say in their press release you cannot compare the two polls.
Not whether the need for them is a good or bad thing, but if there is a need for them is it a good thing that they take action to deliver on that need?
I think that depends...
1. if you live near one 2. If you are an MP with one in your constituency
I was thinking more 3. the country, since I would presume no one living near or representing the area would want one.
Some facts (I know, I know) about Tony Abbott and Australia’s trade deals during his premiership.
- Abbott was Australian PM between Sept 2013 - Sept 2015
- The Australia-China trade deal was announced November 2014 - after a decade of talks. It was signed signed in June 2015, coming into force in December 2015.
- The Australia - Korea FTA was signed in 2014 coming into force in December 2014.
- The Australia - Japan Economic Partnership: negotiations concluded in April 2014, the agreement signed in July and came into force in January 2015.
Abbott signed 3 FTA’s during his time as Premier. But if you look at the dates and what the Australians themselves have said about how long it took to get those deals agreed, a fact which is well-known to anyone who has even the most cursory understanding of how lengthy and complicated such negotiations are, the likelihood that Abbott himself played any sort of significant role let enough to make him an expert, is unlikely. The detailed hard work will have been done by others - and it is these people we need - not the politician who swans in at the end.
There is another aspect which is relevant: Abbott is on record saying that you can get deals done quickly if you ignore environmental and labour standards. Lovely. But this goes against the British government’s express statements that these will not be traded away.
So the case against Abbott is that he is not frankly much of an expert, if at all, and his approach seems to be quite contrary to the government’s stated aims - that is, if you believe the government is sincere in stating that they don’t want to lower environmental and labour standards. (And I don’t.)
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
If that is the position people are taking sure, but personally I do think not all positions or character are the same, so it is not inherently unreasonable to say character x matters more in role y than character y would matter in role x. It's a spectrum, and surely we might expect more or less from people in specific roles as compared to other roles?
It's why I don't have an issue, in itself, with a political leader not being the most moral if it was felt they had other positive qualities to overcome that, and why for a lesser role I'd probably be even more willing to forgive defects of character.
Thoufh as far I could tell people are saying about Abbott that he is an expert, not that expertise doesn't matter, though I have no idea if he is an expert or not. Since people are focusing on his personal character I assume that issue is less clear cut that his general offensiveness.
Given the nature of the government it seems pretty likely his Brexit credentials were at the forefront of any decision rather than any merit, but I think it is a bit silly to suggest that the role is irrelevant when determining whether expertise (real or imagined in this case) trumps personal failings.
Trade is a fiendishly difficult subject - I'll be honest, I find it difficult to follow some of the discussions on here - but gay marriage, and whether it's acceptable to oppose it, is a very simple thing to have an opinion on so that's what gets the attention.
Sure, but while I am sure there is hypocrisy in play here, I find it difficult to accept the premise that it is unreasonable to look beyond personal morals for every role that exists as if they are equal. An MP, PM, President, Bishop or whatever, we probably are willing to put up with different standards for them.
It's not going to happen, but if Rod Crosby popped up on here with a new account (before being banned again) and gave a view on the US Presidential Election (especially if he thinks Biden is going to win), then I'd listen to him irrespective of his opinions regarding a certain subject.
Where are you getting the results, HYUFD? I've been following RCP for ages, but recently they seem to only update every few days, and frequently miss some of the ones you (very helpfully) report.
Some facts (I know, I know) about Tony Abbott and Australia’s trade deals during his premiership.
- Abbott was Australian PM between Sept 2013 - Sept 2015
- The Australia-China trade deal was announced November 2014 - after a decade of talks. It was signed signed in June 2015, coming into force in December 2015.
- The Australia - Korea FTA was signed in 2014 coming into force in December 2014.
- The Australia - Japan Economic Partnership: negotiations concluded in April 2014, the agreement signed in July and came into force in January 2015.
Abbott signed 3 FTA’s during his time as Premier. But if you look at the dates and what the Australians themselves have said about how long it took to get those deals agreed, a fact which is well-known to anyone who has even the most cursory understanding of how lengthy and complicated such negotiations are, the likelihood that Abbott himself played any sort of significant role let enough to make him an expert, is unlikely. The detailed hard work will have been done by others - and it is these people we need - not the politician who swans in at the end.
There is another aspect which is relevant: Abbott is on record saying that you can get deals done quickly if you ignore environmental and labour standards. Lovely. But this goes against the British government’s express statements that these will not be traded away.
So the case against Abbott is that he is not frankly much of an expert, if at all, and his approach seems to be quite contrary to the government’s stated aims - that is, if you believe the government is sincere in stating that they don’t want to lower environmental and labour standards. (And I don’t.)
And also, Australia is a very different economy to the UK.
But gay marriage is a much easier target, so culture war it is.
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
If that is the position people are taking sure, but personally I do think not all positions or character are the same, so it is not inherently unreasonable to say character x matters more in role y than character y would matter in role x. It's a spectrum, and surely we might expect more or less from people in specific roles as compared to other roles?
It's why I don't have an issue, in itself, with a political leader not being the most moral if it was felt they had other positive qualities to overcome that, and why for a lesser role I'd probably be even more willing to forgive defects of character.
Thoufh as far I could tell people are saying about Abbott that he is an expert, not that expertise doesn't matter, though I have no idea if he is an expert or not. Since people are focusing on his personal character I assume that issue is less clear cut that his general offensiveness.
Given the nature of the government it seems pretty likely his Brexit credentials were at the forefront of any decision rather than any merit, but I think it is a bit silly to suggest that the role is irrelevant when determining whether expertise (real or imagined in this case) trumps personal failings.
Trade is a fiendishly difficult subject - I'll be honest, I find it difficult to follow some of the discussions on here - but gay marriage, and whether it's acceptable to oppose it, is a very simple thing to have an opinion on so that's what gets the attention.
Sure, but while I am sure there is hypocrisy in play here, I find it difficult to accept the premise that it is unreasonable to look beyond personal morals for every role that exists as if they are equal. An MP, PM, President, Bishop or whatever, we probably are willing to put up with different standards for them.
It's not going to happen, but if Rod Crosby popped up on here with a new account (before being banned again) and gave a view on the US Presidential Election (especially if he thinks Biden is going to win), then I'd listen to him irrespective of his opinions regarding a certain subject.
If it's No Deal, there seems to be this odd idea from the UK that the EU will come back with a deal then which undermines the SM and gives the UK everything it wants.
Considering this hasn't happened in any of the negotiations we've had with the EU, it seems to odd to think it will happen this time.
Doubly odd that the EU would now give us a better deal when we've just damaged ourselves but there you go, British exceptionalism and arrogance
What the UK is asking for doesn't undermine the Single Market.
For instance: on fishing the UK is asking to be treated the same as Norway which is a member of the Single Market.
How does the UK having the same sea arrangements as a member of the Single Market undermine the Single Market?
It doesn't matter if you or I think it does; what matters is whether the EU thinks it does. Free market prices aren't about what is externally "true", they're about what the two parties mutually agree to.
In related news, tomorrow's TImes has this piece by James Forsyth. TLDR: There's probably a deal to be done on fish, but the UK's wants on state aid (basically Dom's dream of a British DARPA so that the country is so rich that non-boffins need never work again) is really hard to match with anything that the EU can sign up for.
In which case, I'd rather the government were honest about their plan, and which industries were going to be thrown under the bus.
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
If that is the position people are taking sure, but personally I do think not all positions or character are the same, so it is not inherently unreasonable to say character x matters more in role y than character y would matter in role x. It's a spectrum, and surely we might expect more or less from people in specific roles as compared to other roles?
It's why I don't have an issue, in itself, with a political leader not being the most moral if it was felt they had other positive qualities to overcome that, and why for a lesser role I'd probably be even more willing to forgive defects of character.
Thoufh as far I could tell people are saying about Abbott that he is an expert, not that expertise doesn't matter, though I have no idea if he is an expert or not. Since people are focusing on his personal character I assume that issue is less clear cut that his general offensiveness.
Given the nature of the government it seems pretty likely his Brexit credentials were at the forefront of any decision rather than any merit, but I think it is a bit silly to suggest that the role is irrelevant when determining whether expertise (real or imagined in this case) trumps personal failings.
Trade is a fiendishly difficult subject - I'll be honest, I find it difficult to follow some of the discussions on here - but gay marriage, and whether it's acceptable to oppose it, is a very simple thing to have an opinion on so that's what gets the attention.
Sure, but while I am sure there is hypocrisy in play here, I find it difficult to accept the premise that it is unreasonable to look beyond personal morals for every role that exists as if they are equal. An MP, PM, President, Bishop or whatever, we probably are willing to put up with different standards for them.
It's not going to happen, but if Rod Crosby popped up on here with a new account (before being banned again) and gave a view on the US Presidential Election (especially if he thinks Biden is going to win), then I'd listen to him irrespective of his opinions regarding a certain subject.
Quite amusing watching all those who spent the last 4 years stating that character and expertise absolutely do matter in public life (when it comes to an opponent like, say, ooh, I don’t know, J Corbyn) now saying that they don’t matter at all when it relates to one of your mates who believes in Brexit.
Abbott was the elected leader of a major Western democracy and a Rhodes Scholar; Corbyn was a delusional, barely-educated crank.
Comments
If the EU were being effective we would have signed the deal. That would have showed the EU has power. If we walk away, then the EU has no power and has been totally ineffective.
I'm not saying its unfair, I'm saying unless Barnier changes we happily walk away - and that the British public would be OK with that.
That's the EU's sovereign choice. Even if they're not rationally right, it's still their sovereign choice. So saying "But you gave Canada that deal" is whining that "It's not fair".
And again. Who, among the 700 million people living in EU countries, is telling Barnier to change course? Maybe they're all wrong. But that's democracy, and blaming one individual for doing the job that they've been given will get nobody anywhere.
Are all of them to be disqualified from public office under your criteria?
Numbers during Trump acceptance speech
PA Trump 2900785 (48.9%) / Clinton 2825767 (47.6%)
Fl Trump 49.1% 4591156/ Clinton 47.7% 4462338
NC Trump 2339603 50.5% / Clinton 46.7% 2162074
9:07:17
MI Trump 2195893 48.1% Clinton 2134946 46.8% (Uncalled)
9:08:25
WI Trump 1391329 48.6% Clinton 1320460 46.1% (Called)
9:18:06
GA Trump 2055982 51.4% Clinton 1823141 45.5% (Called)
9:18:37
MI Trump 2206152 47.9% Clinton 2159794 46.9%
9:18:55
MN Trump 1229128 45.4% Clinton 1265748 46.8%
9:19:35 in
WI Trump 1394986 48.6% Clinton 46.1% 1324447
https://twitter.com/pupadhyaya_/status/1301544819731451904?s=19
If the deal doesn't work out for us or the EU in years to come (because our economics or politics change) we can simply announce our termination or renegotiate it.
For now, we need a deal. So I'd take it.
[Having said that given State Aid is such a massive deal on both sides there must be more to it than meets the eye, which I find interesting.]
Let's call this out for what it is: it's Lefties who don't like this Government or Brexit trying to find a line of attack.
Far too many now assume (a) must mean (b) whereas in the real world many (most) normal people are able to keep their personal private views separate from their professional work.
There's plenty of EU based companies that might be exposed if that happens, Deutsche Telekom at the BT Group, EDF with Hinckley Point as examples.
There's a new national security law coming this autumn.
I mean say Hutchinson decides to buy the BT Group I can see the UK government putting the kibosh on that, and that will cost Deutsche Telekom.
Edit - I mean the banning of Huawei is going to cost the BT Group lots of money, which will cost DT a lot of money. I think that's where we are headed.
Owt Chinese is going to be viewed as very bad.
Cue pompous pearl-clutching from rightwing snowflakes.
Trump wants government funded till just after the election in November. The Dems want it funded till March because they aren't stupid.
They look at how he has tried to resile from the withdrawal agreement, things such as the Northern Ireland protocol where Boris Johnson has repeatedly said the opposite will happen to what is in the agreement.
MI Trump 2206152 47.9% Clinton 2159794 46.9%
Final Trump 2279543 47.5% Clinton 2268839 47.27%
Trump + 73391 Clinton + 109045 Net + 35654
PA
Final
Popular vote 2,970,733 (+69948) 2,926,441 (+100674) Net + 30726
Percentage 48.17% 47.46%
WI (Final vs 9:19)
Popular vote 1,405,284 (+10298) 1,382,536 (+58089) Net + 47791
Percentage 47.22% 46.45%
Ultimately everything the UK thinks it holds as leverage on the EU the EU has as leverage on the UK and to a greater extent. The UK can't even manage full import substitution if the UK tried to shut out EU food imports.
Pragmatism will prevail and that will result in less SM access for the UK and tarrifs pushing up UK food prices, friction at the borders contracting UK industry and making the UK less attractive for foreign investment. Its not a disaster but is it what was advertised? No.
What I hear from a lot of Brexiter arguments and I do listen to them, is that all this is predacated on the idea of some kind of British Exceptionalism. As a conservative I really want to embrace that but I just know its a fantasy and what is really happening is that an average European country is fooling itself into thinking it is something it isn't, selling itself on a dream that simply isn't sustainable. The bump when it comes will be painful and will bring a whole host of other problems with it. The probable break-up of the union and the end of the country I was born in being the first.
https://twitter.com/adambarnett13/status/1301332645088026625?s=21
The curiosity is the sell on Trump winning. If you think the polls will stick its a bet of interest.
https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/1301525754921000960?s=19
Oh.
Headline is deceptive, it wasn't a house party, it was a commercial event.
If the view is no different to the views of many MPs in Parliament I don't see how it makes a difference?
If it was eg antisemitism or homophobia in general etc then absolutely it makes a difference.
All I've seen here is that he voted on a controversial subject the same as many MPs for the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems did at the time!
I think bigotted homophobes, antisemites etc should be expelled from parties but that doesn't go as far as everyone who voted against at the time it wasn't yet legal which included MPs of every single major party at the time.
I've said I'm in favour of a Scottish Referendum with a Yes vote for instance.
I called for a change in the exam results before it happened.
https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1298618221667524609?s=19
If we were talking about Abbott becoming Tory Party leader the comparison would be relevant.
MY current take on the polls is a BUY of Biden at 281 looks a reasonable bet. I can get him to 351 by winning all of the target states.
I think @rcs1000 made an interesting point about Republican strength in FL and I can foresee Trump winning Minnesota. The problem is you are punting on 118 EC votes. If Trump wins or holds all the key states you will be looking at a 59-point loss but if Biden scoops the lot it's a 70-point win.
As someone said, it's one for the big boys or girls.
I would expect that we'll see agreement between Christmas and New Year that will also contain a one page "three month standstill" treaty that will result in us leaving the transition period but nothing really changing until the full treaty is agreed and implemented in mid 2021.
No idea what all this is about but Jesus' given name is Jesus, remarkably enough; if he has a surname it would be Bar Joseph, or 'Son of Joseph' like the Icelanders do, but in the circumstances Jesus will do, as there is legitimate doubt about his paternity. Anyway we don't call St John 'Bar Zebedee'. To call Jesus 'Christ' as if it's a name is less good but very common, and at least is respectful. To complicate things Jesus favourite self appellation appears to be 'The son of man' (though like everything else this is disputed) but no-one else in the New Testament ever calls him that for reasons which are the cause of sackfuls of books and articles.
I'm not sure any of this is going to help.
They may not vote to increase fuel tax but are less likely to oppose a small rise in fuel duties.
They will vote to equate CGT with income tax rates and for a small increase in corporation tax which will not really have much effect in the red wall and in terms of CGT is simply a matter of ensuring it is brought into line with income tax
Can Trump win? Yes. But if he does, it will probably be with a small EC lead. The chances of him getting 330+ are very small.
Can Biden win? Yes - but there's also the possibility he does achieve a ten point popular vote lead, and then there are a raft of states (like Texas) that are in reach.
The right strategy is probably to buy Biden in the spreads, and then cover it with a small bet on Trump with Betfair. If Trump wins, you're flat because Betfair has paid off your small losses in the spreads. You're only real losing scenario is a small Biden win. Which is far from impossible.
We have already left !!
The thickest and most strident remainers and leavers don't seem to have grasped this point
Secondly the UK can't "shut out" food exports that has never been on the table for one second.
You're completely tilting at windmills.
No wonder you're so extremely against this, your idea of what's on the table is simply not.
(1) The EU has competence to agree certain things without the ratification of all the states.
(2) There are provisions under existing EU law to enable unratified trade treaties to be in effect. And there provisions are enshrined at the WTO, to allow free trade areas to exist during the finalisation of agreements.
Considering this hasn't happened in any of the negotiations we've had with the EU, it seems to odd to think it will happen this time.
Doubly odd that the EU would now give us a better deal when we've just damaged ourselves but there you go, British exceptionalism and arrogance
It's why I don't have an issue, in itself, with a political leader not being the most moral if it was felt they had other positive qualities to overcome that, and why for a lesser role I'd probably be even more willing to forgive defects of character.
Thoufh as far I could tell people are saying about Abbott that he is an expert, not that expertise doesn't matter, though I have no idea if he is an expert or not. Since people are focusing on his personal character I assume that issue is less clear cut that his general offensiveness.
Given the nature of the government it seems pretty likely his Brexit credentials were at the forefront of any decision rather than any merit, but I think it is a bit silly to suggest that the role is irrelevant when determining whether expertise (real or imagined in this case) trumps personal failings.
Never, an eternity, the end of time respectively.
Biden picks up Arizona and Pennsylvania and NE02, Trump holds Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and North Carolina (alternatively Trump loses Wisconsin and picks up Minnesota gives the same result).
https://www.270towin.com/
Not whether the need for them is a good or bad thing, but if there is a need for them is it a good thing that they take action to deliver on that need?
In both Florida and Penn the voters say both that the economy is the most important issue and that Trump has a clear lead on who would be best to handle the economy.
For instance: on fishing the UK is asking to be treated the same as Norway which is a member of the Single Market.
How does the UK having the same sea arrangements as a member of the Single Market undermine the Single Market?
1. if you live near one
2. If you are an MP with one in your constituency
Trump before Trump
- Abbott was Australian PM between Sept 2013 - Sept 2015
- The Australia-China trade deal was announced November 2014 - after a decade of talks. It was signed signed in June 2015, coming into force in December 2015.
- The Australia - Korea FTA was signed in 2014 coming into force in December 2014.
- The Australia - Japan Economic Partnership: negotiations concluded in April 2014, the agreement signed in July and came into force in January 2015.
Abbott signed 3 FTA’s during his time as Premier. But if you look at the dates and what the Australians themselves have said about how long it took to get those deals agreed, a fact which is well-known to anyone who has even the most cursory understanding of how lengthy and complicated such negotiations are, the likelihood that Abbott himself played any sort of significant role let enough to make him an expert, is unlikely. The detailed hard work will have been done by others - and it is these people we need - not the politician who swans in at the end.
There is another aspect which is relevant: Abbott is on record saying that you can get deals done quickly if you ignore environmental and labour standards. Lovely. But this goes against the British government’s express statements that these will not be traded away.
So the case against Abbott is that he is not frankly much of an expert, if at all, and his approach seems to be quite contrary to the government’s stated aims - that is, if you believe the government is sincere in stating that they don’t want to lower environmental and labour standards. (And I don’t.)
No
But gay marriage is a much easier target, so culture war it is.
In related news, tomorrow's TImes has this piece by James Forsyth. TLDR: There's probably a deal to be done on fish, but the UK's wants on state aid (basically Dom's dream of a British DARPA so that the country is so rich that non-boffins need never work again) is really hard to match with anything that the EU can sign up for.
In which case, I'd rather the government were honest about their plan, and which industries were going to be thrown under the bus.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/johnson-sees-no-deal-as-better-than-surrender-t5sf30chw
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/
But he was rather too keen to share his views on events between 1941 and 1945.
Apart from that, good point!