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.
Well yes and no. Yep its pretty sound that the economy is probably the most important issue, especially right now. I'd stake, however, that the US economic bounce is relative, like all bouncebacks of economies around the world. Come November its not going to be like it was November 2019 for the economy.
I also suspect that exhaustion is going to be a major factor in this election and at the centre of this is Trump himself. I see little evidence that independents in 2016 have stayed with him to the same level, i see some evidence that more republicans have peeled off. Its not going to take a lot of people who are just tired with Trump as a character, whatever they think of his lead on handling the economy.
This is the Democrats to lose, not Trump's to win right now.
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
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.
Apart from that, good point!
So what, obviously being a Rhodes scholar hasn’t stopped him being a homophobic, Misogynist, climate change denier. The kind of person who should be deported for holding such views but obviously acceptable to the Conservative party.
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.)
Abbott will have had a general sense of the work though I think, and anyway David Frost is heading out whitehall team. I think overseeing those deals is as good a qualification as any to be a "trade envoy".
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Philip, the EU is not going to give us a better deal after we've had No Deal. You're nuts.
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.
It really is hard to believe that after clusterfuck and omnishambles, then back to clusterfuck, that this government would suddenly discover a sweet spot of competence.
Far more likely to be a farce. Start buying pasta and bog roll again.
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Philip, the EU is not going to give us a better deal after we've had No Deal. You're nuts.
Yes they are.
The key for getting a deal is for all parties to think they're gaining. Currently the EU does not, they see no gain from Brexit. They see whatever we gain as their loss.
If we go to No Deal then there will be a new baseline to operate from. The EU will have zero access to our fishing waters for instance. At that point a deal would be pure gain from their perspective.
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.
If I'm reading it right I don't see why the compromise couldn't be for access for goods and agriculture under the FTA but exclusion for digital tech or services, or to make them subject to tariffs/extra NTBs.
I mean, state aid isn't an all or nothing affair: it could be restricted in some sectors (for the level playing field) and unrestricted in others but with the EU giving less free access in return.
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?
Because the UK will not be in the single And is therefor not entitled to any iof the benefits of being in it.
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
No particular reason to think it will, but it's human nature for someone who has walked out on their ex to shout "you'll miss me when I've gone". Especially when it looks like they're not that bothered.
(And for completeness, maybe we have walked out on a nagging partner and are about to go to a penthouse with lovely people of whatever gender floats your boat. But it increasingly looks like we will be checking into the nearest open Travel Inn and wondering how many ways round we can wear our pants before washing them, because we haven't planned any better.)
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.
Apart from that, good point!
So what, obviously being a Rhodes scholar hasn’t stopped him being a homophobic, Misogynist, climate change denier. The kind of person who should be deported for holding such views but obviously acceptable to the Conservative party.
Deported for his opinions? This must be that famed love of liberal values and diversity we hear so much about...
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?
Because the UK will not be in the single And is therefor not entitled to any iof the benefits of being in it.
Its not a benefit.
Norway is treated as a sovereign independent coastal state outside of the CFP, that's nothing to do with the Single Market. That is how the UK is seeking to be treated too, instead Barnier wants us to agree to be MORE integrated into the CFP than even Single Market member Norway is.
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Philip, the EU is not going to give us a better deal after we've had No Deal. You're nuts.
Yes they are.
The key for getting a deal is for all parties to think they're gaining. Currently the EU does not, they see no gain from Brexit. They see whatever we gain as their loss.
If we go to No Deal then there will be a new baseline to operate from. The EU will have zero access to our fishing waters for instance. At that point a deal would be pure gain from their perspective.
The EU thinks we'll shit the bed and come crawling back in the first few months of No Deal, when they can be even tougher.
We think we can come back at the end of 2021, when they'll have softened, and get a better deal.
In reality both sides need to grow up and compromise. Right now, both are doubling down and upping the threats in the belief that will work.
It won't. It will harden attitudes on both sides.
I can see an obvious compromise on State Aid and Fish, but the EU is too obstinate and isn't flexible/agile enough to do it.
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 thinks it has power because of the threat (real or imagined) of No Deal
That’s why they are not treating us like any other country
Once we have gone through No Deal then (perhaps after a year to calm down) they should be willing to treat us like anyone else*
Hence the calculation for us is whether the value of a better deal in perpetuity > temporary disruption caused by No Deal
* I am assuming that the UK is not a howling wasteland populated by despairing zombies by then
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.
Apart from that, good point!
So what, obviously being a Rhodes scholar hasn’t stopped him being a homophobic, Misogynist, climate change denier. The kind of person who should be deported for holding such views but obviously acceptable to the Conservative party.
Deported for his opinions? This must be that famed love of liberal values and diversity we hear so much about...
I wonder if other countries should be seeking to deport all the Lib Dem and Labour MPs who voted the same way he did when it came up in our Parliament?
it's human nature for someone who has walked out on their ex to shout "you'll miss me when I've gone".
Easiest deal in the World
We hold all the cards
No deal won't be catastrophic
They'll miss us when we're gone
Amazing how the dreams and ambitions of the Brexiteers have narrowed, while their enthusiasm for the impending clusterfuck seems to grow larger every day...
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Philip, the EU is not going to give us a better deal after we've had No Deal. You're nuts.
Yes they are.
The key for getting a deal is for all parties to think they're gaining. Currently the EU does not, they see no gain from Brexit. They see whatever we gain as their loss.
If we go to No Deal then there will be a new baseline to operate from. The EU will have zero access to our fishing waters for instance. At that point a deal would be pure gain from their perspective.
What's an example you can point to where the UK walked away and we got a better deal from the EU
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.]
It’s not State Aid (that’s what they are calling it). It’s a dynamic level playing field agreement - covering environment & social regulation
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Philip, the EU is not going to give us a better deal after we've had No Deal. You're nuts.
Yes they are.
The key for getting a deal is for all parties to think they're gaining. Currently the EU does not, they see no gain from Brexit. They see whatever we gain as their loss.
If we go to No Deal then there will be a new baseline to operate from. The EU will have zero access to our fishing waters for instance. At that point a deal would be pure gain from their perspective.
What's an example you can point to where the UK walked away and we got a better deal from the EU
Parliament rejected the EU's preferred deal last year, Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
So have we figured out which member of Bozo's or Cumstain's family didn't want to cut short their holiday in the Algarve?
There's no need for vulgarity. I have invented a portmanteau word for Boris and Dom - Doris. Which would be much less crude, and prolong the life of your keyboard.
It really is hard to believe that after clusterfuck and omnishambles, then back to clusterfuck, that this government would suddenly discover a sweet spot of competence.
Far more likely to be a farce. Start buying pasta and bog roll again.
Already am!! My Brexit supplies now taking up a lot of the hall and part of the dining room.
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 thinks it has power because of the threat (real or imagined) of No Deal
That’s why they are not treating us like any other country
Once we have gone through No Deal then (perhaps after a year to calm down) they should be willing to treat us like anyone else*
Hence the calculation for us is whether the value of a better deal in perpetuity > temporary disruption caused by No Deal
* I am assuming that the UK is not a howling wasteland populated by despairing zombies by then
100% agreed and that is why if they hold their nerve then so must we. If that means 12 months of disruption then sod it, lets get that over and done with.
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Philip, the EU is not going to give us a better deal after we've had No Deal. You're nuts.
Yes they are.
The key for getting a deal is for all parties to think they're gaining. Currently the EU does not, they see no gain from Brexit. They see whatever we gain as their loss.
If we go to No Deal then there will be a new baseline to operate from. The EU will have zero access to our fishing waters for instance. At that point a deal would be pure gain from their perspective.
What's an example you can point to where the UK walked away and we got a better deal from the EU
Parliament rejected the EU's preferred deal last year, Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
Boris Johnson capitulated and got the deal the EU originally offered May before the DUP shot it down. Not valid, try again
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Michael Gove has told the Danish fishing industry that boats from EU countries will still be able to operate in UK waters after Brexit, as the UK does not have enough capacity to catch and process all its fish alone.
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.
If I'm reading it right I don't see why the compromise couldn't be for access for goods and agriculture under the FTA but exclusion for digital tech or services, or to make them subject to tariffs/extra NTBs.
I mean, state aid isn't an all or nothing affair: it could be restricted in some sectors (for the level playing field) and unrestricted in others but with the EU giving less free access in return.
And, to give him his due, Dom is less Brexit-obsessed than many politicians. He's got a vision of what Britain ought to be, and it it could be done within the EU, I suspect he'd be cool with that. (I don't know if it's a sensible vision, and as a boffin of sorts, I object to working to support the rest of you who aren't as good at physics as I am, but it's a vision.)
The trouble is, if the ability to grow a state-subsidised tech sector is the key prize, how do you tell the fishermen, plumbers and those concerned about immigration that they're expendable? Especially with Nigel lurking in the shadows?
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 thinks it has power because of the threat (real or imagined) of No Deal
That’s why they are not treating us like any other country
Once we have gone through No Deal then (perhaps after a year to calm down) they should be willing to treat us like anyone else*
Hence the calculation for us is whether the value of a better deal in perpetuity > temporary disruption caused by No Deal
* I am assuming that the UK is not a howling wasteland populated by despairing zombies by then
Where "temporary disruption" means the dissolution of the UK?
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Philip, the EU is not going to give us a better deal after we've had No Deal. You're nuts.
Yes they are.
The key for getting a deal is for all parties to think they're gaining. Currently the EU does not, they see no gain from Brexit. They see whatever we gain as their loss.
If we go to No Deal then there will be a new baseline to operate from. The EU will have zero access to our fishing waters for instance. At that point a deal would be pure gain from their perspective.
The EU thinks we'll shit the bed and come crawling back in the first few months of No Deal, when they can be even tougher.
We think we can come back at the end of 2021, when they'll have softened, and get a better deal.
In reality both sides need to grow up and compromise. Right now, both are doubling down and upping the threats in the belief that will work.
It won't. It will harden attitudes on both sides.
I can see an obvious compromise on State Aid and Fish, but the EU is too obstinate and isn't flexible/agile enough to do it.
We've already compromised. We've already said we're willing to go down the Canada route (which Barnier himself said years ago was on offer) and to have all the same LPF terms as them. What more should we compromise on in your eyes?
We've even said they can continue to access our waters on the same terms as Single Market member Norway. What more should we do?
Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
Oh, Phil.
That's nearly as good as "He didn't hide in a fridge", but BoZo's deal is much, much worse than May's
If Boris's deal is worse, from a Brexiteers perspective, then please tell me how many Brexiteer MPs voted against May's deal - and how many Brexiteer MPs voted against Boris's?
If you're a Remainer I can understand why you think Boris's deal is worse - its the same reason we think its better.
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/
Quite possible...
However.
Remember that polls in the US, like in the UK, have tended to follow a pendulum. So, they underestimated the Republicans in 2016, overestimated them in 2012 and underestimated them in 2008. (Just as in the UK the Conservatives were underestimated in 2019, overestimated in 2017, underestimated in 2015 and overestimated in 2010.)
This means we would be unwise to completely discount the tail scenario that Biden gets a seven point (or more) victory. In which case, you could see the Midwest fall to Biden, likewise Florida, Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina and maybe even Texas.
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
No particular reason to think it will, but it's human nature for someone who has walked out on their ex to shout "you'll miss me when I've gone". Especially when it looks like they're not that bothered.
(And for completeness, maybe we have walked out on a nagging partner and are about to go to a penthouse with lovely people of whatever gender floats your boat. But it increasingly looks like we will be checking into the nearest open Travel Inn and wondering how many ways round we can wear our pants before washing them, because we haven't planned any better.)
I can just see Dominic Raab shouting when stoming out of a Brexit/EU meeting: "And I had to fake all of my orgasms".
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 thinks it has power because of the threat (real or imagined) of No Deal
That’s why they are not treating us like any other country
Once we have gone through No Deal then (perhaps after a year to calm down) they should be willing to treat us like anyone else*
Hence the calculation for us is whether the value of a better deal in perpetuity > temporary disruption caused by No Deal
* I am assuming that the UK is not a howling wasteland populated by despairing zombies by then
Where "temporary disruption" means the dissolution of the UK?
The UK is probably dissolving either way and bring it on. But the "temporary disruption" possibly makes a dissolution less likely.
The SNP need minimal disruption to ensure that Scotland can have a friction-free trade with England. If there's friction between the UK and the EU then Scotland would be forced to choose between the EU and England - with England being the bulk of its trade. They may choose independence this time around, or they may vote No for a second time.
The SNP want to be able to have their cake and eat it - if the UK can't that means they can't either.
it's human nature for someone who has walked out on their ex to shout "you'll miss me when I've gone".
Easiest deal in the World
We hold all the cards
No deal won't be catastrophic
They'll miss us when we're gone
Amazing how the dreams and ambitions of the Brexiteers have narrowed, while their enthusiasm for the impending clusterfuck seems to grow larger every day...
What's amazing to me is how bought in to the play acting you are. The negotiations may result in a trade deal, or they may not, but they won't really start - in terms of the two partners getting any closer to each other's positions, until Boris is negotiating with the leaders of the 27. That's not a criticism of Barnier, but he doesn't have the authority to do anything else.
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.
If I'm reading it right I don't see why the compromise couldn't be for access for goods and agriculture under the FTA but exclusion for digital tech or services, or to make them subject to tariffs/extra NTBs.
I mean, state aid isn't an all or nothing affair: it could be restricted in some sectors (for the level playing field) and unrestricted in others but with the EU giving less free access in return.
And, to give him his due, Dom is less Brexit-obsessed than many politicians. He's got a vision of what Britain ought to be, and it it could be done within the EU, I suspect he'd be cool with that. (I don't know if it's a sensible vision, and as a boffin of sorts, I object to working to support the rest of you who aren't as good at physics as I am, but it's a vision.)
The trouble is, if the ability to grow a state-subsidised tech sector is the key prize, how do you tell the fishermen, plumbers and those concerned about immigration that they're expendable? Especially with Nigel lurking in the shadows?
Precisely, its the politcs of it which make it hard, no one sold Dom's big plan to the car workers of Sunderland on the idea of "Take back control so we can wipe your livelihood out", but that is exaclty the tack now being taken by the Brexiters.
If they want a technocratic, low manual worker economy and society then they can want it but they shouldn't lie about wanting it and that is what wrankles most. Brexit is disliked by pro-Europeans for obvious reasons, it is an act of deceit on a huge proportion of the people who actually voted for it though; its not an act of preservation its an act of destruction.
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.
I think it’s because Jesus Christ is a poor rendering of the Greek Christos.
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
They will not vote for a 20pp increase in capital gains tax. Not a chance.
Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
Oh, Phil.
That's nearly as good as "He didn't hide in a fridge", but BoZo's deal is much, much worse than May's
Boris took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too", it was also the only one available which I suppose does make it better though.
He took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too" then changed it thus making it far better, then agreed to it.
If you make a deal better you can make it acceptable.
Which bit is better? Just having a majority of Tory MPs who will vote for it doesn't actually make it better it just makes the required audience more pliable.
On the LPF, the argument is being mischaracterised as state aid. It isn't, as it is written the EU LPF has a much wider remit than that. It could conceivably be used against the UK if we decided to do something like abolishing corporate tax (not that we would) but under the EU terms that would not constitute a LPF with the EU and they would take it to arbitration by the ECJ and we'd lose. It's not about state aid, no one actually gives a shit about that, it's about the power for the UK government to set competitive tax rates and favourable regulatory environments for business that the EU feel would undercut them.
The government will never accept it and aiui the standard minimum commitment to state aid has been offered to the EU but was rejected for this "enhanced alignment" as they call it.
Agreeing to the LPF will hobble the UK economy for decades, no deal will be handled within a year or two and businesses will adjust to the new reality and the EU will have to come back for a deal on standard terms.
"Economically and socially it is infinitely better to temporarily worsen the pubic finances to invest, re-arm the economy and move forward than to sink into austerity and let unemployment and human drama explode," Mr Castex told a media briefing.
Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
Oh, Phil.
That's nearly as good as "He didn't hide in a fridge", but BoZo's deal is much, much worse than May's
Boris took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too", it was also the only one available which I suppose does make it better though.
He took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too" then changed it thus making it far better, then agreed to it.
If you make a deal better you can make it acceptable.
Which bit is better? Just having a majority of Tory MPs who will vote for it doesn't actually make it better it just makes the required audience more pliable.
The hated backstop was eliminated - better. The NI arrangements didn't apply to GB - better. The NI arrangements can be stopped if Stormont votes to stop them - better.
Random question, not being an expert in US politics (or even vaguely knowledgeable).
In practical terms is there much difference between a wafer-thin Electoral College win and a thumping landslide? In terms of optics I'm sure there is, but does it manifest in the ability of the President to do presidenty things?
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
They will not vote for a 20pp increase in capital gains tax. Not a chance.
Indeed.
A 1p increase in income tax (not that I want to see that) would be far more acceptable than a 20pp increase in CGT.
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.
Whom?
He was an excellent analyst who made people here a lot of money. But he had some very unpleasant other views (holocaust denial) which he insisted on posting about despite being asked not to. So ultimately the decision was taken to an him permanently.
Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
Oh, Phil.
That's nearly as good as "He didn't hide in a fridge", but BoZo's deal is much, much worse than May's
Boris took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too", it was also the only one available which I suppose does make it better though.
He took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too" then changed it thus making it far better, then agreed to it.
If you make a deal better you can make it acceptable.
Which bit is better? Just having a majority of Tory MPs who will vote for it doesn't actually make it better it just makes the required audience more pliable.
The hated backstop was eliminated - better. The NI arrangements didn't apply to GB - better. The NI arrangements can be stopped if Stormont votes to stop them - better.
Clear?
That was May's original deal, the one with Northern Ireland in a customs union with the EU which the DUP rejected, with the addition of votes for Stormont after four years. So its a better deal for Northern Ireland the same deal for GB.
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.
Whom?
He was an excellent analyst who made people here a lot of money. But he had some very unpleasant other views (holocaust denial) which he insisted on posting about despite being asked not to. So ultimately the decision was taken to an him permanently.
its not an act of preservation its an act of destruction.
That's the truly depressing thing
When BoZo finally gets his jotters (maybe sooner than he thinks) and Brexiteers are recanting their folly, what will be left is a trail of destruction.
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.
Random question, not being an expert in US politics (or even vaguely knowledgeable).
In practical terms is there much difference between a wafer-thin Electoral College win and a thumping landslide? In terms of optics I'm sure there is, but does it manifest in the ability of the President to do presidenty things?
No but it leaves the possibility of legal challenges much greater if the margin is small.
Random question, not being an expert in US politics (or even vaguely knowledgeable).
In practical terms is there much difference between a wafer-thin Electoral College win and a thumping landslide? In terms of optics I'm sure there is, but does it manifest in the ability of the President to do presidenty things?
No. Its sole purpose is to determine who enters the Oval Office. After that it doesn't exist. Being inaugurated by 1 vote is sufficient.
See for instance George W. Bush in 2000 which was the closest result excluding Rutherford B. Hayes (which is very dubious) and Thomas Jefferson (which was a tie with his running mate, constitution was immediately amended to prevent that). Once Bush was inaugurated that was it.
Random question, not being an expert in US politics (or even vaguely knowledgeable).
In practical terms is there much difference between a wafer-thin Electoral College win and a thumping landslide? In terms of optics I'm sure there is, but does it manifest in the ability of the President to do presidenty things?
Nope.
But a landslide is probably more likely to be joined by big wins for the party down ticket e.g. Senate races. Both Houses majority and President from one party gives the new president a lot of space to actually do something.
Random question, not being an expert in US politics (or even vaguely knowledgeable).
In practical terms is there much difference between a wafer-thin Electoral College win and a thumping landslide? In terms of optics I'm sure there is, but does it manifest in the ability of the President to do presidenty things?
its not an act of preservation its an act of destruction.
That's the truly depressing thing
When BoZo finally gets his jotters (maybe sooner than he thinks) and Brexiteers are recanting their folly, what will be left is a trail of destruction.
To no end other than the ego of one man.
Who is a twat.
It’s not worth arguing the toss with an extreme brexit supporter, sit back and let it develop, let them argue amongst themselves about what they are trying to achieve. They are unwilling to see any problems in either the outcome or the process, let them get on with it.
Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
Oh, Phil.
That's nearly as good as "He didn't hide in a fridge", but BoZo's deal is much, much worse than May's
Boris took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too", it was also the only one available which I suppose does make it better though.
He took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too" then changed it thus making it far better, then agreed to it.
If you make a deal better you can make it acceptable.
Which bit is better? Just having a majority of Tory MPs who will vote for it doesn't actually make it better it just makes the required audience more pliable.
The hated backstop was eliminated - better. The NI arrangements didn't apply to GB - better. The NI arrangements can be stopped if Stormont votes to stop them - better.
Clear?
That was May's original deal, the one with Northern Ireland in a customs union with the EU which the DUP rejected, with the addition of votes for Stormont after four years. So its a better deal for Northern Ireland the same deal for GB.
No it isn't.
May's original deal had NI legally in a customs union with the EU. Boris's deal has NI legally in a customs union with the rest of the UK, but with special arrangements agreed with the EU for NI - Better.
May's original deal had no way for NI to leave the customs union without the EU's agreement. Boris's deal has NI able to quit the special arrangements unilaterally if Stormont votes to do so - Better.
Boris's deal basically borrowed the same principles as the Good Friday Agreement itself.
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
Because the EU wants a deal and while they may want a full sugar deal and we're saying no thanks to that, a Diet Coke deal is still better for them than than nothing at all.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
Michael Gove has told the Danish fishing industry that boats from EU countries will still be able to operate in UK waters after Brexit, as the UK does not have enough capacity to catch and process all its fish alone.
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 thinks it has power because of the threat (real or imagined) of No Deal
That’s why they are not treating us like any other country
Once we have gone through No Deal then (perhaps after a year to calm down) they should be willing to treat us like anyone else*
Hence the calculation for us is whether the value of a better deal in perpetuity > temporary disruption caused by No Deal
* I am assuming that the UK is not a howling wasteland populated by despairing zombies by then
Where "temporary disruption" means the dissolution of the UK?
its not an act of preservation its an act of destruction.
That's the truly depressing thing
When BoZo finally gets his jotters (maybe sooner than he thinks) and Brexiteers are recanting their folly, what will be left is a trail of destruction.
To no end other than the ego of one man.
Who is a twat.
It’s not worth arguing the toss with an extreme brexit supporter, sit back and let it develop, let them argue amongst themselves about what they are trying to achieve. They are unwilling to see any problems in either the outcome or the process, let them get on with it.
Absolutely, it is an act of cosmic justice that Boris Johnson is piloting the Hindenburg just as the landing ropes go down to make contact with the ground.
I see Leicestershire features, that will be quite some traffic jam...
Not to mention Warrington and Somerset.
There are about 38 million vehicles in Britain of which about 32 million are cars. At 10 feet per vehicle that would make a queue about 70,000 miles long. Of course we knew that in our bones: all a town dweller needs to do is look out the front window.
Vaccine or no vaccine, shouldn't the "new normal" include ceasing to regard a (smelly polluting) car as a birth-right, badge of normalcy, manliness, adequacy, and material success? Or the motorised wheelchair that 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.
Abbott was the elected leader of a major Western democracy and a Rhodes Scholar; Corbyn was a delusional, barely-educated crank.
Apart from that, good point!
Your point is a fatuous one. Character is important regardless of educational qualifications. Corbyn was the twice-elected Leader of the Opposition. That is why his character mattered - and it is also why Abbott’s character matters, if he is going to represent Britain on the world stage.
Still, Tories have rather sold the pass on that one having no problem with the manifold deficiencies in their leader’s character, which are daily revealed to us.
Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
Oh, Phil.
That's nearly as good as "He didn't hide in a fridge", but BoZo's deal is much, much worse than May's
Boris took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too", it was also the only one available which I suppose does make it better though.
He took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too" then changed it thus making it far better, then agreed to it.
If you make a deal better you can make it acceptable.
Which bit is better? Just having a majority of Tory MPs who will vote for it doesn't actually make it better it just makes the required audience more pliable.
The hated backstop was eliminated - better. The NI arrangements didn't apply to GB - better. The NI arrangements can be stopped if Stormont votes to stop them - better.
Clear?
That was May's original deal, the one with Northern Ireland in a customs union with the EU which the DUP rejected, with the addition of votes for Stormont after four years. So its a better deal for Northern Ireland the same deal for GB.
No it isn't.
May's original deal had NI legally in a customs union with the EU. Boris's deal has NI legally in a customs union with the rest of the UK, but with special arrangements agreed with the EU for NI - Better.
May's original deal had no way for NI to leave the customs union without the EU's agreement. Boris's deal has NI able to quit the special arrangements unilaterally if Stormont votes to do so - Better.
Boris's deal basically borrowed the same principles as the Good Friday Agreement itself.
You can call it a customs union or you can call it a customs territory either way goods going from GB to NI have to go through customs checks and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is overseeing the implimentation of those now. All despite Johnson's claim that they would never happen.
The point about Stormont is of course correct and Johnson was only able to offer this when didn't require DUP support any further, I agree its a better deal for NI and eventually a united Ireland, its the same deal for GB.
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.
Whom?
He was an excellent analyst who made people here a lot of money. But he had some very unpleasant other views (holocaust denial) which he insisted on posting about despite being asked not to. So ultimately the decision was taken to an him permanently.
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.
Apart from that, good point!
Your point is a fatuous one. Character is important regardless of educational qualifications. Corbyn was the twice-elected Leader of the Opposition. That is why his character mattered - and it is also why Abbott’s character matters, if he is going to represent Britain on the world stage.
Still, Tories have rather sold the pass on that one having no problem with the manifold deficiencies in their leader’s character, which are daily revealed to us.
I still don't buy your seeming assertion that all roles require the same level of concern about character. Someone seeking to be PM or President will rightly face a lot more scrutiny in terms of character than more minor functionaries. Their character might still be lacking sufficiently that they should not get the job, but the role does matter to a degree - obviously people who are fundamentally dishonest or corrupt it matters regardless of the role, but if it is more about specific views they hold which may not be relevant to the post, and they are not in some role of leadership or governance, then if they are sufficiently qualified it may be worth not minding overmuch. In respect of Abbott you've said he is not suitably qualified and I can easily believe that, but it doesn't seem to the main reason people are objecting.
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.
Whom?
He was an excellent analyst who made people here a lot of money. But he had some very unpleasant other views (holocaust denial) which he insisted on posting about despite being asked not to. So ultimately the decision was taken to an him permanently.
It is all so confusing. Pretty sure that free market loving Thatcherites didn't vote in Johnson as leader so that he can splurge billions on state aid and industrial interventions.
Looks like UK will No Deal so that we can public fund spin outs in the Silicon Fen.
Perhaps instead of twatting around with DARPA Mk II they should work out how to keep ARM as a UK based company.
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.
Along the lines of what was suggested on R4 at the weekend. Extending, whilst being able to deny that we are extending.
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.
Apart from that, good point!
Your point is a fatuous one. Character is important regardless of educational qualifications. Corbyn was the twice-elected Leader of the Opposition. That is why his character mattered - and it is also why Abbott’s character matters, if he is going to represent Britain on the world stage.
Still, Tories have rather sold the pass on that one having no problem with the manifold deficiencies in their leader’s character, which are daily revealed to us.
I still don't buy your seeming assertion that all roles require the same level of concern about character. Someone seeking to be PM or President will rightly face a lot more scrutiny in terms of character than more minor functionaries. Their character might still be lacking sufficiently that they should not get the job, but the role does matter to a degree - obviously people who are fundamentally dishonest or corrupt it matters regardless of the role, but if it is more about specific views they hold which may not be relevant to the post, and they are not in some role of leadership or governance, then if they are sufficiently qualified it may be worth not minding overmuch. In respect of Abbott you've said he is not suitably qualified and I can easily believe that, but it doesn't seem to the main reason people are objecting.
We hold football players to higher standards of behavior and morals than we do the government and it’s representatives.
Boris took over and got a better deal from our perspective.
Oh, Phil.
That's nearly as good as "He didn't hide in a fridge", but BoZo's deal is much, much worse than May's
Boris took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too", it was also the only one available which I suppose does make it better though.
He took the deal "No British Prime Minister could ever agree too" then changed it thus making it far better, then agreed to it.
If you make a deal better you can make it acceptable.
Which bit is better? Just having a majority of Tory MPs who will vote for it doesn't actually make it better it just makes the required audience more pliable.
The hated backstop was eliminated - better. The NI arrangements didn't apply to GB - better. The NI arrangements can be stopped if Stormont votes to stop them - better.
Clear?
That was May's original deal, the one with Northern Ireland in a customs union with the EU which the DUP rejected, with the addition of votes for Stormont after four years. So its a better deal for Northern Ireland the same deal for GB.
No it isn't.
May's original deal had NI legally in a customs union with the EU. Boris's deal has NI legally in a customs union with the rest of the UK, but with special arrangements agreed with the EU for NI - Better.
May's original deal had no way for NI to leave the customs union without the EU's agreement. Boris's deal has NI able to quit the special arrangements unilaterally if Stormont votes to do so - Better.
Boris's deal basically borrowed the same principles as the Good Friday Agreement itself.
You can call it a customs union or you can call it a customs territory either way goods going from GB to NI have to go through customs checks and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is overseeing the implimentation of those now. All despite Johnson's claim that they would never happen.
The point about Stormont is of course correct and Johnson was only able to offer this when didn't require DUP support any further, I agree its a better deal for NI and eventually a united Ireland, its the same deal for GB.
It was NI that had a problem with May's original deal. GB had a bigger problem with May's final deal.
Rolling back the NI arrangements to just cover NI and not GB was better for GB - and since you accept it was better for NI too, then it is a better deal. We can agree.
Random question, not being an expert in US politics (or even vaguely knowledgeable).
In practical terms is there much difference between a wafer-thin Electoral College win and a thumping landslide? In terms of optics I'm sure there is, but does it manifest in the ability of the President to do presidenty things?
In practical terms absolutely none, the only function of the electoral college is to choose a president + VP, and you get the same number of presidents with a 51% win as with a 100% win.
The House and Senate tend to correlate with the presidential race though, and they dictate whether you can pass any laws or spend any money. The margin in the Senate is particularly important, because Senators can be quite independent-minded and prone to rebellion, and there are other thresholds (60/100 to defeat a filibuster, 67/100 to impeach a president etc) than a pure majority.
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.
Apart from that, good point!
Your point is a fatuous one. Character is important regardless of educational qualifications. Corbyn was the twice-elected Leader of the Opposition. That is why his character mattered - and it is also why Abbott’s character matters, if he is going to represent Britain on the world stage.
Still, Tories have rather sold the pass on that one having no problem with the manifold deficiencies in their leader’s character, which are daily revealed to us.
What issue do you have with Abbott's character?
All that's been said on this thread so far that I've seen substantiated is that he was against gay marriage. As were lots of people in this country and worldwide at the time. Hundreds of MPs voted against gay marriage including MPs from all the then major parties.
Comments
I also suspect that exhaustion is going to be a major factor in this election and at the centre of this is Trump himself. I see little evidence that independents in 2016 have stayed with him to the same level, i see some evidence that more republicans have peeled off. Its not going to take a lot of people who are just tired with Trump as a character, whatever they think of his lead on handling the economy.
This is the Democrats to lose, not Trump's to win right now.
Take fish for instance, they are holding out for everything they can possibly get, but without a deal they get nothing at all. They're worried about telling fishermen they're losing some stocks from British waters - but if there's no deal they lose ALL stocks from British waters.
Once we've left and they've seen all their stocks vanish overnight then getting something back is better than nothing.
He made me a lot of money.
Far more likely to be a farce. Start buying pasta and bog roll again.
The key for getting a deal is for all parties to think they're gaining. Currently the EU does not, they see no gain from Brexit. They see whatever we gain as their loss.
If we go to No Deal then there will be a new baseline to operate from. The EU will have zero access to our fishing waters for instance. At that point a deal would be pure gain from their perspective.
I mean, state aid isn't an all or nothing affair: it could be restricted in some sectors (for the level playing field) and unrestricted in others but with the EU giving less free access in return.
(And for completeness, maybe we have walked out on a nagging partner and are about to go to a penthouse with lovely people of whatever gender floats your boat. But it increasingly looks like we will be checking into the nearest open Travel Inn and wondering how many ways round we can wear our pants before washing them, because we haven't planned any better.)
Having a base in Warrington doesn't wreck the UK's trade.
Warrington is a town perfectly situated for a base like this. It is in a prime location in fact.
Norway is treated as a sovereign independent coastal state outside of the CFP, that's nothing to do with the Single Market. That is how the UK is seeking to be treated too, instead Barnier wants us to agree to be MORE integrated into the CFP than even Single Market member Norway is.
We think we can come back at the end of 2021, when they'll have softened, and get a better deal.
In reality both sides need to grow up and compromise. Right now, both are doubling down and upping the threats in the belief that will work.
It won't. It will harden attitudes on both sides.
I can see an obvious compromise on State Aid and Fish, but the EU is too obstinate and isn't flexible/agile enough to do it.
That’s why they are not treating us like any other country
Once we have gone through No Deal then (perhaps after a year to calm down) they should be willing to treat us like anyone else*
Hence the calculation for us is whether the value of a better deal in perpetuity > temporary disruption caused by No Deal
* I am assuming that the UK is not a howling wasteland populated by despairing zombies by then
We hold all the cards
No deal won't be catastrophic
They'll miss us when we're gone
Amazing how the dreams and ambitions of the Brexiteers have narrowed, while their enthusiasm for the impending clusterfuck seems to grow larger every day...
So have we figured out which member of Bozo's or Cumstain's family didn't want to cut short their holiday in the Algarve?
Wish I owned a garage.
Michael Gove has told the Danish fishing industry that boats from EU countries will still be able to operate in UK waters after Brexit, as the UK does not have enough capacity to catch and process all its fish alone.
That's nearly as good as "He didn't hide in a fridge", but BoZo's deal is much, much worse than May's
The trouble is, if the ability to grow a state-subsidised tech sector is the key prize, how do you tell the fishermen, plumbers and those concerned about immigration that they're expendable? Especially with Nigel lurking in the shadows?
We've even said they can continue to access our waters on the same terms as Single Market member Norway. What more should we do?
If you're a Remainer I can understand why you think Boris's deal is worse - its the same reason we think its better.
However.
Remember that polls in the US, like in the UK, have tended to follow a pendulum. So, they underestimated the Republicans in 2016, overestimated them in 2012 and underestimated them in 2008. (Just as in the UK the Conservatives were underestimated in 2019, overestimated in 2017, underestimated in 2015 and overestimated in 2010.)
This means we would be unwise to completely discount the tail scenario that Biden gets a seven point (or more) victory. In which case, you could see the Midwest fall to Biden, likewise Florida, Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina and maybe even Texas.
The SNP need minimal disruption to ensure that Scotland can have a friction-free trade with England. If there's friction between the UK and the EU then Scotland would be forced to choose between the EU and England - with England being the bulk of its trade. They may choose independence this time around, or they may vote No for a second time.
The SNP want to be able to have their cake and eat it - if the UK can't that means they can't either.
If you make a deal better you can make it acceptable.
If they want a technocratic, low manual worker economy and society then they can want it but they shouldn't lie about wanting it and that is what wrankles most. Brexit is disliked by pro-Europeans for obvious reasons, it is an act of deceit on a huge proportion of the people who actually voted for it though; its not an act of preservation its an act of destruction.
It should more properly be Christ Jesus
This is what we should be doing
The government will never accept it and aiui the standard minimum commitment to state aid has been offered to the EU but was rejected for this "enhanced alignment" as they call it.
Agreeing to the LPF will hobble the UK economy for decades, no deal will be handled within a year or two and businesses will adjust to the new reality and the EU will have to come back for a deal on standard terms.
The NI arrangements didn't apply to GB - better.
The NI arrangements can be stopped if Stormont votes to stop them - better.
Clear?
In practical terms is there much difference between a wafer-thin Electoral College win and a thumping landslide? In terms of optics I'm sure there is, but does it manifest in the ability of the President to do presidenty things?
A 1p increase in income tax (not that I want to see that) would be far more acceptable than a 20pp increase in CGT.
When BoZo finally gets his jotters (maybe sooner than he thinks) and Brexiteers are recanting their folly, what will be left is a trail of destruction.
To no end other than the ego of one man.
Who is a twat.
How nice he got his wish!
See for instance George W. Bush in 2000 which was the closest result excluding Rutherford B. Hayes (which is very dubious) and Thomas Jefferson (which was a tie with his running mate, constitution was immediately amended to prevent that). Once Bush was inaugurated that was it.
But a landslide is probably more likely to be joined by big wins for the party down ticket e.g. Senate races. Both Houses majority and President from one party gives the new president a lot of space to actually do something.
May's original deal had NI legally in a customs union with the EU. Boris's deal has NI legally in a customs union with the rest of the UK, but with special arrangements agreed with the EU for NI - Better.
May's original deal had no way for NI to leave the customs union without the EU's agreement. Boris's deal has NI able to quit the special arrangements unilaterally if Stormont votes to do so - Better.
Boris's deal basically borrowed the same principles as the Good Friday Agreement itself.
That’s the critical difference
These issues are just going to keep piling higher and higher as the deadline approaches, aren't they?
Its just the passangers I feel sorry for.
Vaccine or no vaccine, shouldn't the "new normal" include ceasing to regard a (smelly polluting) car as a birth-right, badge of normalcy, manliness, adequacy, and material success?
Or the motorised wheelchair that it is?
Still, Tories have rather sold the pass on that one having no problem with the manifold deficiencies in their leader’s character, which are daily revealed to us.
The point about Stormont is of course correct and Johnson was only able to offer this when didn't require DUP support any further, I agree its a better deal for NI and eventually a united Ireland, its the same deal for GB.
Way to go Johnson/Cummings.
Looks like UK will No Deal so that we can public fund spin outs in the Silicon Fen.
Perhaps instead of twatting around with DARPA Mk II they should work out how to keep ARM as a UK based company.
GB had a bigger problem with May's final deal.
Rolling back the NI arrangements to just cover NI and not GB was better for GB - and since you accept it was better for NI too, then it is a better deal. We can agree.
The House and Senate tend to correlate with the presidential race though, and they dictate whether you can pass any laws or spend any money. The margin in the Senate is particularly important, because Senators can be quite independent-minded and prone to rebellion, and there are other thresholds (60/100 to defeat a filibuster, 67/100 to impeach a president etc) than a pure majority.
All that's been said on this thread so far that I've seen substantiated is that he was against gay marriage. As were lots of people in this country and worldwide at the time. Hundreds of MPs voted against gay marriage including MPs from all the then major parties.