"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes and because State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic, they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that, but otherwise EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk unless the UK does so. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
If the EU wanted us to have a LPF, they should have given a deal to Cameron that meant we stayed in. No LPF is a consequence of us leaving, although the EU have still barely woken up to this conseqence.
Muppets.
The UK doesn't have to align with the EU State Aid regime but the EU will ensure it will pay the highest possible price if it doesn't. My post aims to explain why State Aid is a key issue when other things aren't.
Sorry if I have missed this but does anyone know what are the State Aid terms in the EUs FTAs with Canada and others?
There is a chapter on it in CETA. I think it's a lot vaguer than the proposed UK deal
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
Channel Islands to France then?
Presumably Spain is giving up Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, Canada is getting Alaska, Corsica is going back to Italy, the French won’t mind either about Guadalupe, Martinique, their half of St Martin ( nor the Dutch their half, not Aruba for that matter), nor Reunion?
I suppose we’ll get the Faroes because the Danes will clearly see they’re an anomaly and hand them over no probs?
All ok?
Getting a bit carried away there.
Yes you were. But it’s ok.
I was wasn't I, but I am putting in a rear guard action to try and dig myself out of the hole.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
Channel Islands to France then?
Presumably Spain is giving up Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, Canada is getting Alaska, Corsica is going back to Italy, the French won’t mind either about Guadalupe, Martinique, their half of St Martin ( nor the Dutch their half, not Aruba for that matter), nor Reunion?
I suppose we’ll get the Faroes because the Danes will clearly see they’re an anomaly and hand them over no probs?
All ok?
Getting a bit carried away there.
Yes you were. But it’s ok.
I was wasn't I, but I am putting in a rear guard action to try and dig myself out of the hole.
Yet another anti Government commentator. Why not try a bit harder?
You want to ignore the points made because the commentator is 'anti-government'? I've never heard of him, is he 'anti-government', or did you mean that his views are so he can be ignored?
Anyway on the points raised:
Would 'No Deal' be a good outcome?
Were the 'A' Level results 'robust & dependable'?
Is our Track & Trace system 'world beating'?
Is our Covis response a 'massive success'?
Was the deal with the EU 'oven ready?
They seem valid questions, even though the answers are pretty obvious.
My point was what is the point in posting tweet after tweet from people opposed to the Government saying exactly the same thing. It is ruining this site.
To reply to your points:
I have no idea whether No Deal would be a good outome, but I am 98% certain there will be a deal
There were no exams so of course the A Level results were not robust and dependable. I can see why the Govt tried to calm down the teachers over optomistic expected results but it was never going to work. I have seen no alternative idea.
The Track & trace system seems pretty good. I have no idea if it is world beating but they are tracing thousands of people a week so it is working.
I am unsure if our early Covid response could have been much better. It was a new diesease and before they new what had hit them tens of thousands of people in this Country were infected. The best advice they have given was the wash your hands message. I really don't know about closing airports as the entire aviation industry would have collapsed. They managed to get the public to follow the lockdown which I didn't think would happen especially in inner cities. I don't agree with the wearing masks in shops idea, People feel invicible and there is no longer any social distancing which has led to the increase in cases. The Treasury's response has been world class. All the websites they have set up to help have been slick and easy to use. The protect the NHS message though understandable went too far. In reality most hospitals were under pressure for only 2-3 weeks (some had no pressure at all) and then the cases dropped off significantly and other illnesses have not been treated. The number of deaths from Covid is slightly more than a bad flu season. We have been honest with our statistics, other countries not so much so it is hard to know how we compare. I think the economy is recovering well.
The "oven ready" analogy was daft.
What I would say is I would hate to be a politician now. There seem to be sources realising/leaking info all day every day. Every move you make is torn apart daily. It just seems a awful workplace existence.
As are the endless government supporting posts or those who feel the need to fight on every front with basically the same message in every post.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes. State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic. So they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that. In that case EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
The UK has showed willingness to sign up to minimum standards, it won't ever sign up to dynamic alignment across so many sectors. It's the only issue I think the UK will roll the dice on no deal for. The LPF gives the EU an effective veto on environmental, labour, taxation and financial regulations, the budget would need to be vetted by Brussels before it is presented to Parliament. No government, Labour or Conservative, will ever agree to those terms so the EU will have to drop the dynamic alignment part of it and negotiate a set of minimum standards and mutual recognition. The key there for both sides is what level those standards are negotiated to and I think the UK will be willing to accept pretty high standards given there is already 100% alignment.
Your scenario is a fair one, but the UK has already signed up to state aid rules in other non-EU trade deals that are subject to arbitration processes and it is also subject to anti-dumping rules via the WTO. The issue on state aid isn't coming from us, it is coming from the EU.
A more interesting survey than the one on courier services they sent me.
Here in northern France, outdoor mask wearing is close to 90% in the town centre, largely because it has been declared a mask required area and the square and pedestrianised area is dotted about with manned security/sanitation points. Has any UK town done the same?
I am not sure that mask wearing in France is working
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
It's been continually inhabited for almost two hundred years at this point. I think they have an established right to choose.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
The British have had settlers in the Falklands since 1840 and the islands were uninhabited before then, plenty of immigrants to Argentina, including from Spain, arrived later than that
Blimey this withdrawal agreement news means Britain is turning into a rogue state like Putin's Russia !!
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
The logic from PB Tories this morning is that China can do what it likes with HK by unilaterally amending the agreement
i think
It can.
It has.
It doesn't mean it is right though.
It's a terrible analogy but if we go with it - as regards balance of power - I'm afraid the EU is China and we are Hong Kong.
No it isn't, Hong Kong has less than a 100th the population of China, the UK has about a fifth the population of the EU.
The EU military is also nowhere near as strong as the Chinese army and Hong Kong only has a volunteer force and police no army, the British military is in the top 10 most powerful in the world and the British economy also in the global top 10
But in an all out military war between us and the continent of Europe we could not prevail. And in a trade war it would be hopeless for us.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes and because State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic, they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that, but otherwise EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk unless the UK does so. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
If the EU wanted us to have a LPF, they should have given a deal to Cameron that meant we stayed in. No LPF is a consequence of us leaving, although the EU have still barely woken up to this conseqence.
Muppets.
The UK doesn't have to align with the EU State Aid regime but the EU will ensure it will pay the highest possible price if it doesn't. My post aims to explain why State Aid is a key issue when other things aren't.
Sorry if I have missed this but does anyone know what are the State Aid terms in the EUs FTAs with Canada and others?
There is a chapter on it in CETA. I think it's a lot vaguer than the proposed UK deal
And it's a set of minimum standards, there is no dynamic alignment to EU standards. The EU is causing this issue, not the UK, they're asking for far, far too much expecting their poodle Olly Robbins on the other side of the table to agree to everything. They haven't yet realised that the government has changed.
The UK has showed willingness to sign up to minimum standards, it won't ever sign up to dynamic alignment across so many sectors. It's the only issue I think the UK will roll the dice on no deal for. The LPF gives the EU an effective veto on environmental, labour, taxation and financial regulations, the budget would need to be vetted by Brussels before it is presented to Parliament. No government, Labour or Conservative, will ever agree to those terms so the EU will have to drop the dynamic alignment part of it and negotiate a set of minimum standards and mutual recognition. The key there for both sides is what level those standards are negotiated to and I think the UK will be willing to accept pretty high standards given there is already 100% alignment.
Your scenario is a fair one, but the UK has already signed up to state aid rules in other non-EU trade deals that are subject to arbitration processes and it is also subject to anti-dumping rules via the WTO. The issue on state aid isn't coming from us, it is coming from the EU.
That's the wrong way around, though, in one important sense. We have already signed up to the EU's interpretation via the Withdrawal Agreement (thanks, Boris). If we crash out with No Deal that's what we get.
If we don't like it there is only way to improve it, which is to reach a trade deal with our EU ex-friends in which the definition of state aid and the enforcement mechanism is better defined. To be fair to the EU, they have already conceded that in such a deal they'd be happy for the ECJ not to be the final arbiter, provided the UK puts in place a sensible independent regulator with teeth to enforce the rules. They have been asking the UK to table such a proposal for months. It's hardly their fault that we haven't, and therefore risk falling back on the WA version with ECJ oversight (thanks a second time, Boris).
In a counter scenario, should we class countries that don't have a minimum wage as giving companies an illegal leg up on British companies, or ones that don't give maternity leave rights etc...?
Personally I don't think so, but under the terms of the LPF the EU could pass employment regulations that aren't compatible with the UK economy and we'd have no choice but to sign up to them via the dynamic alignment mechanism, there isn't even an arbitration process on that part. It's a complete disaster.
A more interesting survey than the one on courier services they sent me.
Here in northern France, outdoor mask wearing is close to 90% in the town centre, largely because it has been declared a mask required area and the square and pedestrianised area is dotted about with manned security/sanitation points. Has any UK town done the same?
I am not sure that mask wearing in France is working
One immediately noticeable difference about a mask-wearing town centre is that no-one makes much effort to step away from other people as they pass, like they do in my almost mask free home town. The behaviour experts surely have it right that it's balance of advantage.
The stats suggest that the French problem is mostly in Paris, Marseille and the South. Here is probably as safe as any typical UK town in our south.
The UK has showed willingness to sign up to minimum standards, it won't ever sign up to dynamic alignment across so many sectors. It's the only issue I think the UK will roll the dice on no deal for. The LPF gives the EU an effective veto on environmental, labour, taxation and financial regulations, the budget would need to be vetted by Brussels before it is presented to Parliament. No government, Labour or Conservative, will ever agree to those terms so the EU will have to drop the dynamic alignment part of it and negotiate a set of minimum standards and mutual recognition. The key there for both sides is what level those standards are negotiated to and I think the UK will be willing to accept pretty high standards given there is already 100% alignment.
Your scenario is a fair one, but the UK has already signed up to state aid rules in other non-EU trade deals that are subject to arbitration processes and it is also subject to anti-dumping rules via the WTO. The issue on state aid isn't coming from us, it is coming from the EU.
That's the wrong way around, though, in one important sense. We have already signed up to the EU's interpretation via the Withdrawal Agreement (thanks, Boris). If we crash out with No Deal that's what we get.
If we don't like it there is only way to improve it, which is to reach a trade deal with our EU ex-friends in which the definition of state aid and the enforcement mechanism is better defined. To be fair to the EU, they have already conceded that in such a deal they'd be happy for the ECJ not to be the final arbiter, provided the UK puts in place a sensible independent regulator with teeth to enforce the rules. They have been asking the UK to table such a proposal for months. It's hardly their fault that we haven't, and therefore risk falling back on the WA version with ECJ oversight (thanks a second time, Boris).
No, there's no LPF in the WA. Under no deal it's just no deal, the ECJ only rule on some NI stuff and citizens rights, the latter has an 8 year sunset clause too. The May WA included the backstop which would have played out in the way you describe which is why it was such a disaster, it locked the UK into EU regulations for all time with no pressure on the EU to come to terms for a trade deal. This way at least Britain isn't in that situation and eventually a UK - EU deal will replace whatever is left in the WA wrt NI.
Blimey this withdrawal agreement news means Britain is turning into a rogue state like Putin's Russia !!
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
The logic from PB Tories this morning is that China can do what it likes with HK by unilaterally amending the agreement
i think
It can.
It has.
It doesn't mean it is right though.
It's a terrible analogy but if we go with it - as regards balance of power - I'm afraid the EU is China and we are Hong Kong.
No it isn't, Hong Kong has less than a 100th the population of China, the UK has about a fifth the population of the EU.
The EU military is also nowhere near as strong as the Chinese army and Hong Kong only has a volunteer force and police no army, the British military is in the top 10 most powerful in the world and the British economy also in the global top 10
But in an all out military war between us and the continent of Europe we could not prevail. And in a trade war it would be hopeless for us.
Not necessarily, we are an island nation and a global seafaring nation not successfully invaded since 1066 and with trading links with nations across the globe and well beyond Europe.
We could hold off the EU and govern ourselves for ever if needed
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Either Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, in which case it becomes another tiny independent country that somehow has to get along with a much bigger neighbour that could shut it down on a day's notice. Or it is decided by treaty, in which case what Gibraltarians think is irrelevant.
Thing is, Gibraltar aims both to do whatever it wants and be under the protection of the British state. In my view, Gibraltar should have the right to self-determination. It clearly isn't Spain. The UK guarantees to protect Gibraltar from invasion and life-threatening blockade, and that's it. For the rest, Gibraltar will need to make the best accommodation with Spain that it can.
The UK has showed willingness to sign up to minimum standards, it won't ever sign up to dynamic alignment across so many sectors. It's the only issue I think the UK will roll the dice on no deal for. The LPF gives the EU an effective veto on environmental, labour, taxation and financial regulations, the budget would need to be vetted by Brussels before it is presented to Parliament. No government, Labour or Conservative, will ever agree to those terms so the EU will have to drop the dynamic alignment part of it and negotiate a set of minimum standards and mutual recognition. The key there for both sides is what level those standards are negotiated to and I think the UK will be willing to accept pretty high standards given there is already 100% alignment.
Your scenario is a fair one, but the UK has already signed up to state aid rules in other non-EU trade deals that are subject to arbitration processes and it is also subject to anti-dumping rules via the WTO. The issue on state aid isn't coming from us, it is coming from the EU.
That's the wrong way around, though, in one important sense. We have already signed up to the EU's interpretation via the Withdrawal Agreement (thanks, Boris). If we crash out with No Deal that's what we get.
If we don't like it there is only way to improve it, which is to reach a trade deal with our EU ex-friends in which the definition of state aid and the enforcement mechanism is better defined. To be fair to the EU, they have already conceded that in such a deal they'd be happy for the ECJ not to be the final arbiter, provided the UK puts in place a sensible independent regulator with teeth to enforce the rules. They have been asking the UK to table such a proposal for months. It's hardly their fault that we haven't, and therefore risk falling back on the WA version with ECJ oversight (thanks a second time, Boris).
This is incorrect. The only commitments made concerning State Aid in the Withdrawal Agreement relate to Northern Ireland where we have a requirement to inform Brussels of any changes to State Aid which might affect the NI goods market. Apart from that there is no requirement to maintain any parity with the EU on that issue.
Blimey this withdrawal agreement news means Britain is turning into a rogue state like Putin's Russia !!
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
The logic from PB Tories this morning is that China can do what it likes with HK by unilaterally amending the agreement
i think
It can.
It has.
It doesn't mean it is right though.
It's a terrible analogy but if we go with it - as regards balance of power - I'm afraid the EU is China and we are Hong Kong.
No it isn't, Hong Kong has less than a 100th the population of China, the UK has about a fifth the population of the EU.
The EU military is also nowhere near as strong as the Chinese army and Hong Kong only has a volunteer force and police no army, the British military is in the top 10 most powerful in the world and the British economy also in the global top 10
But in an all out military war between us and the continent of Europe we could not prevail. And in a trade war it would be hopeless for us.
Not necessarily, we are an island nation and a global seafaring nation not successfully invaded since 1066 and with trading links with nations across the globe and well beyond Europe.
We could hold off the EU and govern ourselves for ever if needed
But we couldn't occupy and settle them - so an expensive impasse at best.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
I suppose under your interpretation Argentina should be returned to Spain.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
In both instances what matters is the wishes of the current inhabitants. As with NI, if and when that changes then the status of those territories should change. Until then it is not up to outside parties either in the UK, Argentina or Spain to force them to do something they don't want to do.
I think I might like to go back and delete that original post. I have dug myself into a bit of a hole here.
Very good point made and as made elsewhere. I don't disagree. Argument clearly lost by me.
However some thoughts:
Our respect for the wishes of the inhabitants however isn't exactly pristine and a bit selective eg Diego Garcia, but that is a failure by us and not an argument in my favour.
I do also wonder though at what point you draw the line. 2 Brits settling on a desert island just off Australia, 10 yeas ago. How about 20 people, 50 years ago, .........
Just because you conquer a piece of land and put people on it who say they want you to govern it I think is a bit dodgy. Don't the previous people have a claim also or is it only the last victors?
Yet another anti Government commentator. Why not try a bit harder?
You want to ignore the points made because the commentator is 'anti-government'? I've never heard of him, is he 'anti-government', or did you mean that his views are so he can be ignored?
Anyway on the points raised:
Would 'No Deal' be a good outcome?
Were the 'A' Level results 'robust & dependable'?
Is our Track & Trace system 'world beating'?
Is our Covis response a 'massive success'?
Was the deal with the EU 'oven ready?
They seem valid questions, even though the answers are pretty obvious.
My point was what is the point in posting tweet after tweet from people opposed to the Government saying exactly the same thing. It is ruining this site.
To reply to your points:
I have no idea whether No Deal would be a good outome, but I am 98% certain there will be a deal
There were no exams so of course the A Level results were not robust and dependable. I can see why the Govt tried to calm down the teachers over optomistic expected results but it was never going to work. I have seen no alternative idea.
The Track & trace system seems pretty good. I have no idea if it is world beating but they are tracing thousands of people a week so it is working.
I am unsure if our early Covid response could have been much better. It was a new diesease and before they new what had hit them tens of thousands of people in this Country were infected. The best advice they have given was the wash your hands message. I really don't know about closing airports as the entire aviation industry would have collapsed. They managed to get the public to follow the lockdown which I didn't think would happen especially in inner cities. I don't agree with the wearing masks in shops idea, People feel invicible and there is no longer any social distancing which has led to the increase in cases. The Treasury's response has been world class. All the websites they have set up to help have been slick and easy to use. The protect the NHS message though understandable went too far. In reality most hospitals were under pressure for only 2-3 weeks (some had no pressure at all) and then the cases dropped off significantly and other illnesses have not been treated. The number of deaths from Covid is slightly more than a bad flu season. We have been honest with our statistics, other countries not so much so it is hard to know how we compare. I think the economy is recovering well.
The "oven ready" analogy was daft.
What I would say is I would hate to be a politician now. There seem to be sources realising/leaking info all day every day. Every move you make is torn apart daily. It just seems a awful workplace existence.
As are the endless government supporting posts or those who feel the need to fight on every front with basically the same message in every post.
To get the best of pb, sign in before 9am, to get the worst sign in after 9pm.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes and because State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic, they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that, but otherwise EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk unless the UK does so. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
If the EU wanted us to have a LPF, they should have given a deal to Cameron that meant we stayed in. No LPF is a consequence of us leaving, although the EU have still barely woken up to this conseqence.
Muppets.
The UK doesn't have to align with the EU State Aid regime but the EU will ensure it will pay the highest possible price if it doesn't. My post aims to explain why State Aid is a key issue when other things aren't.
Sorry if I have missed this but does anyone know what are the State Aid terms in the EUs FTAs with Canada and others?
There is a chapter on it in CETA. I think it's a lot vaguer than the proposed UK deal
Indeed. Which the UK has entirely reasonably said we are prepared to adopt.
As soon as the EU sees sense we can agree this and move on.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
It's been continually inhabited for almost two hundred years at this point. I think they have an established right to choose.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
It's been continually inhabited for almost two hundred years at this point. I think they have an established right to choose.
But subject to costs surely. And it is a bit odd - a pocket of Britain just off the coast of Argentina. That's not a forever and in all circumstances situation that prevails if the islanders want it.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes. State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic. So they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that. In that case EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
The UK has showed willingness to sign up to minimum standards, it won't ever sign up to dynamic alignment across so many sectors. It's the only issue I think the UK will roll the dice on no deal for. The LPF gives the EU an effective veto on environmental, labour, taxation and financial regulations, the budget would need to be vetted by Brussels before it is presented to Parliament. No government, Labour or Conservative, will ever agree to those terms so the EU will have to drop the dynamic alignment part of it and negotiate a set of minimum standards and mutual recognition. The key there for both sides is what level those standards are negotiated to and I think the UK will be willing to accept pretty high standards given there is already 100% alignment.
Your scenario is a fair one, but the UK has already signed up to state aid rules in other non-EU trade deals that are subject to arbitration processes and it is also subject to anti-dumping rules via the WTO. The issue on state aid isn't coming from us, it is coming from the EU.
From my understanding, state aid is the hold-up issue (taxation exemptions are potentially a form of state aid). Environment, labour and other taxation LPF issues can be closed off with non-regression clauses. WTO is better than nothing, but it's a weak enforcement mechanism. It's reactive, clunky and has to go through adjudication and appeal processes (not helped by Trump shutting down the tribunals) lasting years, by which time the businesses in my scenario will have gone bust.
Edit on your other point. The issue isn't that the UK doesn't have high standards now. It does. The issue in the first instance is that the UK government is unwilling to make any commitments. Once it does, those commitments might not satisfy the EU, but that discussion hasn't happened yet.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
It's been continually inhabited for almost two hundred years at this point. I think they have an established right to choose.
But subject to costs surely. And it is a bit odd - a pocket of Britain just off the coast of Argentina. That's not a forever and in all circumstances situation that prevails if the islanders want it.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
It's been continually inhabited for almost two hundred years at this point. I think they have an established right to choose.
But subject to costs surely. And it is a bit odd - a pocket of Britain just off the coast of Argentina. That's not a forever and in all circumstances situation that prevails if the islanders want it.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
It's been continually inhabited for almost two hundred years at this point. I think they have an established right to choose.
I grudgingly concede (I think).
Argentina's claim to the Falklands is based on its claim at independence in 1816 of all the lands under the jurisdiction of the Spanish viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. However, the British disputed Spanish jurisdiction of the islands in the 18th century and never recognized Argentina's post-independence claims to them.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
It's been continually inhabited for almost two hundred years at this point. I think they have an established right to choose.
But subject to costs surely. And it is a bit odd - a pocket of Britain just off the coast of Argentina. That's not a forever and in all circumstances situation that prevails if the islanders want it.
You call 311 miles 'just off the coast'?
Well in ocean terms.
Compare with Channel Islands to France or Greek islands to Turkey.
No, this is excellent news! Didn't one of Boris's cheerleaders assure us just the other day that cases were actually running steady at about 2,000 per day and that the fact that we were seeing numbers of around 1,600 meant that our world-beating system was picking up about 80% of them. Well now it's picking up about 150% of them! How world-beating is that?!
No, this is excellent news! Didn't one of Boris's cheerleaders assure us just the other day that cases were actually running steady at about 2,000 per day and that the fact that we were seeing numbers of around 1,600 meant that our world-beating system was picking up about 80% of them. Well now it's picking up about 150% of them! How world-beating is that?!
That's a totally misleading graph, though, isn't it? The peak should be at least 50k.
The ONS weekly survey hasn't shown any blips yet. I imagine it will do this week but it will be interesting to see how large.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
It depends, doesn't it? The Falklanders were dumped there in comparatively recent history, precisely to fortify a claim to the territory. Everyone happy if Russia puts a settlement on Rockall and holds a sovereignty ref?
It's been continually inhabited for almost two hundred years at this point. I think they have an established right to choose.
But subject to costs surely. And it is a bit odd - a pocket of Britain just off the coast of Argentina. That's not a forever and in all circumstances situation that prevails if the islanders want it.
Blimey this withdrawal agreement news means Britain is turning into a rogue state like Putin's Russia !!
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
The logic from PB Tories this morning is that China can do what it likes with HK by unilaterally amending the agreement
i think
It can.
It has.
It doesn't mean it is right though.
It's a terrible analogy but if we go with it - as regards balance of power - I'm afraid the EU is China and we are Hong Kong.
No it isn't, Hong Kong has less than a 100th the population of China, the UK has about a fifth the population of the EU.
The EU military is also nowhere near as strong as the Chinese army and Hong Kong only has a volunteer force and police no army, the British military is in the top 10 most powerful in the world and the British economy also in the global top 10
But in an all out military war between us and the continent of Europe we could not prevail. And in a trade war it would be hopeless for us.
Not necessarily, we are an island nation and a global seafaring nation not successfully invaded since 1066
A more interesting survey than the one on courier services they sent me.
Here in northern France, outdoor mask wearing is close to 90% in the town centre, largely because it has been declared a mask required area and the square and pedestrianised area is dotted about with manned security/sanitation points. Has any UK town done the same?
I am not sure that mask wearing in France is working
All I can say as a totally floating voter is currently our two main parties are authoritarian left and right....currently the tories seem left and labour seems right. Wont vote vor either but shit do they confuse me
Comments
Your scenario is a fair one, but the UK has already signed up to state aid rules in other non-EU trade deals that are subject to arbitration processes and it is also subject to anti-dumping rules via the WTO. The issue on state aid isn't coming from us, it is coming from the EU.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12591241/france-europe-covid-hotspot-icu-two-weeks/
If we don't like it there is only way to improve it, which is to reach a trade deal with our EU ex-friends in which the definition of state aid and the enforcement mechanism is better defined. To be fair to the EU, they have already conceded that in such a deal they'd be happy for the ECJ not to be the final arbiter, provided the UK puts in place a sensible independent regulator with teeth to enforce the rules. They have been asking the UK to table such a proposal for months. It's hardly their fault that we haven't, and therefore risk falling back on the WA version with ECJ oversight (thanks a second time, Boris).
Personally I don't think so, but under the terms of the LPF the EU could pass employment regulations that aren't compatible with the UK economy and we'd have no choice but to sign up to them via the dynamic alignment mechanism, there isn't even an arbitration process on that part. It's a complete disaster.
The stats suggest that the French problem is mostly in Paris, Marseille and the South. Here is probably as safe as any typical UK town in our south.
Meanwhile the sun is so much hotter.
We could hold off the EU and govern ourselves for ever if needed
Thing is, Gibraltar aims both to do whatever it wants and be under the protection of the British state. In my view, Gibraltar should have the right to self-determination. It clearly isn't Spain. The UK guarantees to protect Gibraltar from invasion and life-threatening blockade, and that's it. For the rest, Gibraltar will need to make the best accommodation with Spain that it can.
And in a TRADE war we're toast.
Very good point made and as made elsewhere. I don't disagree. Argument clearly lost by me.
However some thoughts:
Our respect for the wishes of the inhabitants however isn't exactly pristine and a bit selective eg Diego Garcia, but that is a failure by us and not an argument in my favour.
I do also wonder though at what point you draw the line. 2 Brits settling on a desert island just off Australia, 10 yeas ago. How about 20 people, 50 years ago, .........
Just because you conquer a piece of land and put people on it who say they want you to govern it I think is a bit dodgy. Don't the previous people have a claim also or is it only the last victors?
I know - it is usually the last victors!
As soon as the EU sees sense we can agree this and move on.
Edit on your other point. The issue isn't that the UK doesn't have high standards now. It does. The issue in the first instance is that the UK government is unwilling to make any commitments. Once it does, those commitments might not satisfy the EU, but that discussion hasn't happened yet.
Huh, I guess Boris Johnson isn't talking for the country
The ONS weekly survey hasn't shown any blips yet. I imagine it will do this week but it will be interesting to see how large.
Honestly, going below the line on Wings Over Scotland. Let it never be said you don't plough straight in there HY