ARM being owned by NVIDIA is a complete conflict of interest.
I am interested to see what Apple do, as they moved away from NVIDIA several years ago and are now seemingly using their chip designs again.
Yes, it's why making ARM into Nvidia UK makes sense rather than completely absorbing it and having Apple decide to completely go it alone, though the latter would be tough in terms of IP licencing.
Can someone please explain why we should care about this?
ARM was already sold 4 years ago to Softbank, that was controversial at the time but happened. 4 years later its being re-sold. Given the original sale had already happened why should we be bothered now especially? What difference does it make if ARM is owned by Softbank or Nvidia?
Arm was run at "arms length". Softbank was simply a finance company that was looking to extract profit from them, at their core they were still fundamentally a British company.
Nvidia, on the other hand, will not have that relationship with ARM. They will be absorbed, the management will change, at a fundamental level Nvidia would benefit from ARM shutting down. They may well have paid all that cash to kill ARM.
It will also, as pointed out by Herman Hauser, become a US company (for now it remains headquartered in the UK). That will represent a massive transfer of regulatory sovereignty to the US.
Yep. Arm really matters. The US will really want it in US hands. Not least because it guarantees it can’t fall into Chinese hands. There will be a lot of pressure from the Trump Administration to allow the deal to happen. This is a big call for the government.
Can they stop it?
I assume they could put in a counter offer for ARM then float 49% of the company on the LSE?
I suspect we can block it - it would be interesting to see what the US approach would then be...
That Geoffrey Cox article exposes the depravity of the Braverman appointment.
The irony is that had Cox taken a Braverman approach (twisting legal advice to suit the Government) back in December 2018, the May deal could well have gone through without a hitch and things would be looking somewhat different today.
This is why the government are worried about losing the vote now, if core Brexit MPs like Cox are voting against it means he will bring a lot more with him. His opinion carries a lot of weight with leavers given it was his legal advice that doomed the May deal they hated so much.
Possibly, although on the other hand you have to ask the question about whether they would have found another excuse had Cox's published legal advice been different. After all, if, as appears to be the case, most seem to be arguing that the course of action should be to repudiate the WA in its totality (probably within the law if a complete breach of faith) then it's not clear why exactly the same option wasn't available to them under the May agreement.
Do 50 MPs really want to lose their careers so early in the Parliament? Press on!
You have clocked that it's legally experienced Leavers rebelling this time rather than obstructionist Remainers, right?
Doesn't make them right though. They're playing into the EU's hands if they do rebel.
They are playing into the hands of every global despot if they don’t. Putin, Xi and co will have their fingers crossed.
By doing the same as Justin Trudeau?
Don't be preposterous.
I keep asking you for quotes from Canada’s Justice Minister in which he states there are acceptable ways to break the rule of law. You keep on failing to provide them. Your spin on all this is heroic but rooted in deep partisanship and a profound lack of legal knowledge. In this way, you represent the precise demographic this bill is designed for.
Very stylish, @rcs1000. I suppose after nearly 16 years a freshen up was due.
But on point, he’s not really rebelling, is he? He’s abstaining. A rebellion will be when Johnson’s backbenchers combine with Labour to defeat the bill.
At the same time, amusing to think that Johnson has now got caught in the same trap as May.
I have to go and teach 150 children in five different rooms all with inadequate ventilation. Because obviously, seven people meeting in my own back garden is far riskier than that.
Meanwhile, if Truss becomes sec of state for education, I’m out of this. She’s a useless, dishonest, third rate, stuck up nobody whose sole claim to fame is that she’s more promiscuous than Alan Clark.
He's abstaining at second reading because that's the stage that considers the principle of the bill, and we absolutely need an Internal Market Act.
Why? what does it do apart from riding complete roughshod over the deal Boris agreed last year, fought an election on and then pushed into law in January this year?
Can someone please explain why we should care about this?
ARM was already sold 4 years ago to Softbank, that was controversial at the time but happened. 4 years later its being re-sold. Given the original sale had already happened why should we be bothered now especially? What difference does it make if ARM is owned by Softbank or Nvidia?
Arm was run at "arms length". Softbank was simply a finance company that was looking to extract profit from them, at their core they were still fundamentally a British company.
Nvidia, on the other hand, will not have that relationship with ARM. They will be absorbed, the management will change, at a fundamental level Nvidia would benefit from ARM shutting down. They may well have paid all that cash to kill ARM.
It will also, as pointed out by Herman Hauser, become a US company (for now it remains headquartered in the UK). That will represent a massive transfer of regulatory sovereignty to the US.
Yep. Arm really matters. The US will really want it in US hands. Not least because it guarantees it can’t fall into Chinese hands. There will be a lot of pressure from the Trump Administration to allow the deal to happen. This is a big call for the government.
Can they stop it?
They can deny regulatory approval, yes.
And is that an absolute ministerial power, or could it get challenged in the courts?
Maybe it will all rest on the passing of the Internal Market bill...
Cummings/Johnson are planning on getting rid of judicial review, so such decisions will become much harder to challenge.
Can someone please explain why we should care about this?
ARM was already sold 4 years ago to Softbank, that was controversial at the time but happened. 4 years later its being re-sold. Given the original sale had already happened why should we be bothered now especially? What difference does it make if ARM is owned by Softbank or Nvidia?
Arm was run at "arms length". Softbank was simply a finance company that was looking to extract profit from them, at their core they were still fundamentally a British company.
Nvidia, on the other hand, will not have that relationship with ARM. They will be absorbed, the management will change, at a fundamental level Nvidia would benefit from ARM shutting down. They may well have paid all that cash to kill ARM.
My mother's a GP. First email through this morning already from patient insisting must be offered a face to face appointment as soon as possible, no phone triaging in advance or anything, because "the Government says so" (as per Daily Telegraph.
Ignore fact that Government guidance to GPs (and all previous public pronouncements by Hancock on the subject, is for all patients to be triaged, in fact not just for Covid period but this will be the way of the future.
Personally, I feel the move to remote consultations has gone too far. Good medicine requires face to face care. Nonetheless the geography of waiting areas etc prevents a complete reversal, and patients should have the option of video consultation.
I haven't seen any analysis of the data from WBTAT* to say where transmission is occurring, but to the best of our knowledge we are not seeing either patients or staff infected under our current covid protocols.
*world beating test and trace.
My only experience of phone appointment with a GP has been very good, got a referral for the relevant hospital consultant/tests (Everything turned out to be fine). Online/phone can work well.
My mother's a GP. First email through this morning already from patient insisting must be offered a face to face appointment as soon as possible, no phone triaging in advance or anything, because "the Government says so" (as per Daily Telegraph.
Ignore fact that Government guidance to GPs (and all previous public pronouncements by Hancock on the subject, is for all patients to be triaged, in fact not just for Covid period but this will be the way of the future.
Personally, I feel the move to remote consultations has gone too far. Good medicine requires face to face care. Nonetheless the geography of waiting areas etc prevents a complete reversal, and patients should have the option of video consultation.
I haven't seen any analysis of the data from WBTAT* to say where transmission is occurring, but to the best of our knowledge we are not seeing either patients or staff infected under our current covid protocols.
*world beating test and trace.
Who briefed the Telegraph with this? Hancock? Can he simply not remember that two or three weeks ago he briefed them in a front page splash that from now on and after covid the default would be remote telephone/video appointments?
My mother's a GP. First email through this morning already from patient insisting must be offered a face to face appointment as soon as possible, no phone triaging in advance or anything, because "the Government says so" (as per Daily Telegraph.
Ignore fact that Government guidance to GPs (and all previous public pronouncements by Hancock on the subject, is for all patients to be triaged, in fact not just for Covid period but this will be the way of the future.
Personally, I feel the move to remote consultations has gone too far. Good medicine requires face to face care. Nonetheless the geography of waiting areas etc prevents a complete reversal, and patients should have the option of video consultation.
I haven't seen any analysis of the data from WBTAT* to say where transmission is occurring, but to the best of our knowledge we are not seeing either patients or staff infected under our current covid protocols.
*world beating test and trace.
The point is not whether the balance is or is not right - although there is little real reason against triaging prior to face to face appointment. The point is that the Government has briefed a big headline to the press, without warning to GPs (the vast majority of which are operating within and with the total encouragement of previous government guidance) something completely at odds with what they have been saying before, both in private and in public.
Who briefed the Telegraph with this? Hancock? Can he simply not remember that two or three weeks ago he briefed them in a front page splash that from now on and after covid the default would be remote telephone/video appointments?
Christ, who is this old skool MP? Has he not had the memos? Next he'll be saying that no gentleman would do such a thing. I suspect some of these people are actually conservatives.
My mother's a GP. First email through this morning already from patient insisting must be offered a face to face appointment as soon as possible, no phone triaging in advance or anything, because "the Government says so" (as per Daily Telegraph.
Ignore fact that Government guidance to GPs (and all previous public pronouncements by Hancock on the subject, is for all patients to be triaged, in fact not just for Covid period but this will be the way of the future.
Personally, I feel the move to remote consultations has gone too far. Good medicine requires face to face care. Nonetheless the geography of waiting areas etc prevents a complete reversal, and patients should have the option of video consultation.
I haven't seen any analysis of the data from WBTAT* to say where transmission is occurring, but to the best of our knowledge we are not seeing either patients or staff infected under our current covid protocols.
*world beating test and trace.
My only experience of phone appointment with a GP has been very good, got a referral for the relevant hospital consultant/tests (Everything turned out to be fine). Online/phone can work well.
Very stylish, @rcs1000. I suppose after nearly 16 years a freshen up was due.
But on point, he’s not really rebelling, is he? He’s abstaining. A rebellion will be when Johnson’s backbenchers combine with Labour to defeat the bill.
At the same time, amusing to think that Johnson has now got caught in the same trap as May.
I have to go and teach 150 children in five different rooms all with inadequate ventilation. Because obviously, seven people meeting in my own back garden is far riskier than that.
Meanwhile, if Truss becomes sec of state for education, I’m out of this. She’s a useless, dishonest, third rate, stuck up nobody whose sole claim to fame is that she’s more promiscuous than Alan Clark.
He's abstaining at second reading because that's the stage that considers the principle of the bill, and we absolutely need an Internal Market Act.
Why? what does it do apart from riding complete roughshod over the deal Boris agreed last year, fought an election on and then pushed into law in January this year?
According to others on here it gives the govt the ability to enhance their kleptocratic aims without the judiciary getting involved.
Who briefed the Telegraph with this? Hancock? Can he simply not remember that two or three weeks ago he briefed them in a front page splash that from now on and after covid the default would be remote telephone/video appointments?
Various bits: 1. Great new look for the site! 2. The new Rule of Six regulations are as piss funny as I imagined they were going to be. They're going to be largely ignored because there are so many exclusions and contradictions 3. My daughter has an intermittent cough/sniffles/sore throat and no other Covid conditions. Like various other kids at her school. We're sending her in. That kids are giving each other the usual bugs after 6 months away isn't a surprise 4. The ARM thing. Once upon a time the UK was world-leading in technology. ARM being a great example of that. We can't complain about one foreign owner passing it to another foreign owner...
In this case, we perhaps can. I believe that one if the conditions for the sale to Softbank was a legal commitment that it remain a UK company headquartered in the UK.
If this deal is waved through, that will no longer be the case. It will probably mean the loss of several thousand UK tech jobs over the next few years.
(And apart from anything else, it would give a US president the power to limit the export of any technology containing ARM IP.)
This Government are a shower! They act and behave like the moronic mindless lying gangsters that they are.
On COVID-19 testing, my best friend in South West London could not get a test for love or money for his two kids who are ill with suspected symptoms. Similarly my sister had to get a test privately done for her son. What the f*ck is going on with our world beating test, trace and isolate system?
Brexit is of course a calamity as I have said from day one and Brexiteers, as exhibited by their recent behaviour, are nothing more than village idiots!
Have a good day!
And there are reports coming in from all over the country about how the test centres are half empty and not coming close to testing the volumes of people that they are set up to do.
It was reported a few days back that the bottleneck is the labs; this would seem to confirm that. So it would seem that the claimed capacity of 250k tests a day is somewhat less than that.
I think it probably is about 250k but it's in the wrong part of the country. Where there is high incidence we don't have enough capacity but where there isn't a lot we've got spare. I'm sure Dido will fix it, I mean she's got what no experience in chemical logistics and diagnostics, who better?
I guess that may explain why my test went so smoothly and quickly, collected from my home Saturday lunchtime and a result emailed to me Monday lunchtime.
Meanwhile Prof Spector has emailed to participants of his monitoring App a copy of his advice to government based on his latest local data. Basically Wales, the South East (ex London) and South West aren’t looking too bad, everywhere else (Midlands, North, Scotland, NI, London) is seeing the start of what could be a marked uptick.
Anecdata from a couple of acquaintances suggests it might be a software design issue in the test-booking software only opening a few slots at a time. Or it may be they just got lucky retrying the same centres after a break.
Who briefed the Telegraph with this? Hancock? Can he simply not remember that two or three weeks ago he briefed them in a front page splash that from now on and after covid the default would be remote telephone/video appointments?
Remote by default and offering face to face are entirely compatible.
Yet the guidance seems to suggest otherwise:
"Additional guidance goes further, saying patients should be told that online and phone appointments "can be convenient and flexible... but if you would prefer to see a GP or healthcare professional in person then this will be arranged for you"." (Telegraph)
Faisal Islam's Twitter thread yesterday went a long way to explaining what is behind this Internal Market Bill - the line is that the EU are putting at risk the administrative registration of the UK as a food exporter, which could mean effectively that the UK is effectively barred from exporting food to NI come January 1st. Now, NI won't starve, but that would still clearly be an intolerable situation and, depending on the truth of all this, which I'm reserving judgement on as I simply don't know, it does describe a circumstance under which I could potentially back this approach.
That said, I know it is quite likely to be misunderstanding, concoction, or ineptitude on the part of the government. Perhaps the EU are giving friendly reminders to 'make sure you get your paperwork in' (like my boss and annual reviews!), perhaps the UKs paperwork leaves a lot to be desired (e.g. on border controls) and the EU are treating it equitably compared to other food trading partners.
Or perhaps the EU have indeed tied up something that should be administrative with a separate negotiation, like an official in some corrupt regime taking bribes with impunity. Even amongst 2016 remainers, I've been light on the EU - I don't think different sequencing would have been any magic bullet, for instance - but you would have to be hugely critical if the EU are playing games with this (Barnier has denied). Someone mentioned last week that Good Faith has a pretty narrow legal definition, but by any stretch of a layman's imagination such a move would be bad faith on the part of the EU and the UK would be entitled in those circumstances to take measures to guarantee GB/NI food trade.
Let's see, over the coming days, where the truth lies.
The government’s plan was to use the Internal Market Bill to galvanise its base and spark a culture war with Labour, the Lords and the judiciary. It may have miscalculated.
I don't think it has miscalculated, except with Labour who it still seems to think is run by Corbyn
Various bits: 1. Great new look for the site! 2. The new Rule of Six regulations are as piss funny as I imagined they were going to be. They're going to be largely ignored because there are so many exclusions and contradictions 3. My daughter has an intermittent cough/sniffles/sore throat and no other Covid conditions. Like various other kids at her school. We're sending her in. That kids are giving each other the usual bugs after 6 months away isn't a surprise 4. The ARM thing. Once upon a time the UK was world-leading in technology. ARM being a great example of that. We can't complain about one foreign owner passing it to another foreign owner...
In this case, we perhaps can. I believe that one if the conditions for the sale to Softbank was a legal commitment that it remain a UK company headquartered in the UK.
If this deal is waved through, that will no longer be the case. It will probably mean the loss of several thousand UK tech jobs over the next few years.
(And apart from anything else, it would give a US president the power to limit the export of any technology containing ARM IP.)
From the BBC: ... Softbank made commitments to secure jobs and keep ARM's headquarters in the UK until September next year. "So far, when you read the announcement coming from Nvidia they said they will honour that Softbank has made at the time," said Sonja Laud, chief investment officer at Legal & General Investment Management...
So unless the government seeks further commitments in exchange for approving the deal, the Nvidia commitment is essentially meaningless. And unlike Softbank, it has significant incentives to destroy ARM’s current business model.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
I'm sure you're all dying to know the results of yesterday's Kommunalwahlen (local council elections) in Nordrhein-Westfalen, at least to distract from the B word.
So aggregated statewide the results were (changes since 2014 in brackets): CDU 34.3% (-3.2%) SPD 24.3% (-7.1%) Grüne 20% (+8.3%) FDP 5.6% (+0.9%) AfD 5.0% (+2.4%) Linke 3.8% (-0.9%) Others 7.0% (-0.4)
So on the one hand the Greens the big winners and the SPD losers compared to the last time these (district level) elections were held in 2014, but on the other hand looking at more recent results and polls not that surprising. NRW Ministerpräsident Laschet is spinning it as supporting his candidacy for the upcoming CDU leadership vacancy.
Here in Cologne the Greens are now easily the biggest party (for the first time), with the SPD just ahead of the CDU in 2nd place. New Europe-wide party Volt did pretty well with 5.0% of the vote just behind Linke and FDP, and ahead of the AfD who got 4.4%.
Apparently in Cologne Greens got 40% of the 16-24 vote and CDU 8% - even behind Volt who got 11%. SPD got 12% Over 60s went 18% Green and 30% CDU (Volt 2%, SPD 30%) Volt are quite an interesting new party, active in several EU countries. They have one German MEP since 2019, and elected officials in Germany, Italy and Bulgaria.
Who briefed the Telegraph with this? Hancock? Can he simply not remember that two or three weeks ago he briefed them in a front page splash that from now on and after covid the default would be remote telephone/video appointments?
Remote by default and offering face to face are entirely compatible.
Yet the guidance seems to suggest otherwise:
"Additional guidance goes further, saying patients should be told that online and phone appointments "can be convenient and flexible... but if you would prefer to see a GP or healthcare professional in person then this will be arranged for you"." (Telegraph)
Preference and default are not the same.
It is another comms shambles frankly.
I don't see a contradiction. As you say Default and Preference are not the same.
Default of remote but allowing a preference of face to face if someone doesn't want the default. What is the contradiction?
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
Faisal Islam's Twitter thread yesterday went a long way to explaining what is behind this Internal Market Bill - the line is that the EU are putting at risk the administrative registration of the UK as a food exporter, which could mean effectively that the UK is effectively barred from exporting food to NI come January 1st. Now, NI won't starve, but that would still clearly be an intolerable situation and, depending on the truth of all this, which I'm reserving judgement on as I simply don't know, it does describe a circumstance under which I could potentially back this approach.
That said, I know it is quite likely to be misunderstanding, concoction, or ineptitude on the part of the government. Perhaps the EU are giving friendly reminders to 'make sure you get your paperwork in' (like my boss and annual reviews!), perhaps the UKs paperwork leaves a lot to be desired (e.g. on border controls) and the EU are treating it equitably compared to other food trading partners.
Or perhaps the EU have indeed tied up something that should be administrative with a separate negotiation, like an official in some corrupt regime taking bribes with impunity. Even amongst 2016 remainers, I've been light on the EU - I don't think different sequencing would have been any magic bullet, for instance - but you would have to be hugely critical if the EU are playing games with this (Barnier has denied). Someone mentioned last week that Good Faith has a pretty narrow legal definition, but by any stretch of a layman's imagination such a move would be bad faith on the part of the EU and the UK would be entitled in those circumstances to take measures to guarantee GB/NI food trade.
Let's see, over the coming days, where the truth lies.
I believe this one is fairly simple. Food and Drink are in the first tier of products that require standards checks and tariffs - from 00:01 on 1st January. The system that will manage the 215m customs declaration that we will have to fill in is the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - a huge new smart platform which does not yet exist.
A letter from all of the leading logistics companies to the government on 3rd September (https://www.ft.com/content/49af99f3-4669-4654-a444-4e5e9635791c) pointed out that even if this thing is somehow delivered on time and works without a hitch industry still needs time to learn the process and embed it into their operations.
So it is not the EU to blame at all, nor are they threatening anything. The requirements to import products from a 3rd country into the EU are clear and unambiguous, and we've had years to prepare for the tsunami of red tape this fuck business government are going to tie industry up in. The issue is that they haven't done any prep. And so the EU patiently point to their long-standing regulations and enquire how we intent to comply with them.
It is not the EU demanding that these 215m customs declarations be filled out, nor the corresponding standards checks, it is the UK government. They have chosen to leave the EEA and CU as a political decision. They have also chosen not to prepare for anything. Yes there is a 6 month period where different tiers of products get tied up in this red tape. But the system has to work out of the box in 109 days time. Or we can't import or export food.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
It's interesting how you believe EU rumours when they're posted by the papers but Government rumours are only true if they come from a Government member directly
*sigh* To the people who started gloating about this deal did I not say "wait to see the detail"? Its a deal. It replicates what we have now albeit at greater cost. It ties us into the thing we are leaving the EU to untie ourselves from.
Let me guess. The government haven't read the details of the agreement. Getting an agreement to propagandise was more important than the detail.
I don't what is worse - this bunch of incompetent wazzocks. Or the people tugging the forelock insisting they are doing a good job.
The government’s plan was to use the Internal Market Bill to galvanise its base and spark a culture war with Labour, the Lords and the judiciary. It may have miscalculated.
I don't know why you keep going on about the Government wanting to start a culture war.
Faisal Islam's Twitter thread yesterday went a long way to explaining what is behind this Internal Market Bill - the line is that the EU are putting at risk the administrative registration of the UK as a food exporter, which could mean effectively that the UK is effectively barred from exporting food to NI come January 1st. Now, NI won't starve, but that would still clearly be an intolerable situation and, depending on the truth of all this, which I'm reserving judgement on as I simply don't know, it does describe a circumstance under which I could potentially back this approach.
That said, I know it is quite likely to be misunderstanding, concoction, or ineptitude on the part of the government. Perhaps the EU are giving friendly reminders to 'make sure you get your paperwork in' (like my boss and annual reviews!), perhaps the UKs paperwork leaves a lot to be desired (e.g. on border controls) and the EU are treating it equitably compared to other food trading partners.
Or perhaps the EU have indeed tied up something that should be administrative with a separate negotiation, like an official in some corrupt regime taking bribes with impunity. Even amongst 2016 remainers, I've been light on the EU - I don't think different sequencing would have been any magic bullet, for instance - but you would have to be hugely critical if the EU are playing games with this (Barnier has denied). Someone mentioned last week that Good Faith has a pretty narrow legal definition, but by any stretch of a layman's imagination such a move would be bad faith on the part of the EU and the UK would be entitled in those circumstances to take measures to guarantee GB/NI food trade.
Let's see, over the coming days, where the truth lies.
That sounds like a reasonable interpretation, of something that quickly descended into two sides screaming past each other for a week.
It sounds as if the proposed legislation is an insurance policy, a backstop if you will, against an over-literal interpretation by the EU of the existing treaty to mean that the UK can’t export food to NI without their approval.
The EU are saying A=B, the UK are saying A=C, and this legislation is saying that we don’t care about A, B or C if it gets in the way of the UK feeding its own population with UK-produced food.
As Shagger thinks the Japan trade deal is marvellous can I propose a way forward to break the impasse over state aid? Simple copy the state aid agreement just reached with the Japanese and paste it into the document for the EU.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
So why don't the EU take food off the table, so to speak?
*sigh* To the people who started gloating about this deal did I not say "wait to see the detail"? Its a deal. It replicates what we have now albeit at greater cost. It ties us into the thing we are leaving the EU to untie ourselves from.
Let me guess. The government haven't read the details of the agreement. Getting an agreement to propagandise was more important than the detail.
I don't what is worse - this bunch of incompetent wazzocks. Or the people tugging the forelock insisting they are doing a good job.
They knew exactly what they signed, the intention was never to stick to it and to undermine and destroy it afterwards.
The WA was a tool to win the election as No Deal would not have created - in my view - an 80 seat majority.
Now the majority is secured, the WA will be thrown away.
Do 50 MPs really want to lose their careers so early in the Parliament? Press on!
You have clocked that it's legally experienced Leavers rebelling this time rather than obstructionist Remainers, right?
Doesn't make them right though. They're playing into the EU's hands if they do rebel.
I'm afraid they are right.
If you read Geoffrey Cox's article you'll see he addresses the point of dealing with the EU:
"But the duty of good faith is a two-way street. The EU faces a precisely equal obligation and if, as reported, it has sought to use the Northern Ireland protocol as a lever in the trade negotiations, for example by suggesting that it might decline to extend to our farmers the same recognition for the purpose of imports of animal products that it has in place with Africa and Central Asia, thus marooning Northern Ireland from its main market in Great Britain, then its behaviour is open to very severe criticism. I well recall the careful protestations made by Michel Barnier about “dedramatising” the border he advocated in the Irish Sea, and the solemn undertaking in the protocol to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and the UK and to avoid controls.
The UK might understandably feel that such an approach from the EU should not simply be accepted without challenge. There are clear and lawful responses available to Her Majesty’s government, but both the spirit and the letter of the law require that these should be undertaken solely to accelerate progress in negotiations not as a means to force their abandonment.
These include triggering the agreed independent arbitration procedure set out in the withdrawal agreement and, in extremis, these might legitimately extend to taking temporary and proportionate measures, where they are urgently necessary to protect the fundamental interests of the UK (in my view if, and only if, specifically approved at the time by the House of Commons,) for the period until that arbitration has concluded.
What ministers should not do, however provoked or frustrated they may feel, is to take or use powers permanently and unilaterally to rewrite portions of an agreement into which this country freely entered just a few months ago."
Can someone please explain why we should care about this?
ARM was already sold 4 years ago to Softbank, that was controversial at the time but happened. 4 years later its being re-sold. Given the original sale had already happened why should we be bothered now especially? What difference does it make if ARM is owned by Softbank or Nvidia?
I suspect Nvidia will be a better owner than Softbank, but that's just my gut.
The risk is (long term) that Nvidia gives itself "premium" access to ARM, so that Qualcomm and Samsung and the like are all playing catchup. If that happens, it's possible they *might* move away from ARM in the long term.
Nvidia want to offer Neoverse CPUs integrated with Nvidia GPUs and sold in systems that use Mellanox switches. They want the server market to move from x86 to ARM, in particular the future ARMv9-A ISA. That's the prize for Nvidia, not destroying the current business.
Assuming regulators get them to keep the HQ and jobs in the UK, and require them to license IP on broadly the same terms this could work quite well for all involved. The ARM market is simply too big for Nvidia alone to even think of taking it all over, so licensing is likely to remain key to the business. The largest server buyers are likely to want to build their own designs or work with other companies that are licensing the IP for semi-custom designs, so again licensing remains important.
If Nvidia screws up licensing then MIPS, RISC-V, and probably some new architecture kept on stand-by at Intel will more than happy to fill any gaps created.
The government’s plan was to use the Internal Market Bill to galvanise its base and spark a culture war with Labour, the Lords and the judiciary. It may have miscalculated.
I don't know why you keep going on about the Government wanting to start a culture war.
I don't see evidence of that.
The whole “the right want a culture war” discussion was started a few months ago by the likes of Antifa and the Twitter mobs in the States.
It’s always been the left who want a culture war, and they now seem rather upset that, having started it, they’re being outplayed at their own game. There’s not as many left wing culture warriors as Twitter led them to believe.
The government’s plan was to use the Internal Market Bill to galvanise its base and spark a culture war with Labour, the Lords and the judiciary. It may have miscalculated.
I don't know why you keep going on about the Government wanting to start a culture war.
I don't see evidence of that.
What was the Rule Britannia bollocks all about? That was pure Kulturkrieg? Gets the slack jawed Purple Wall orcs fired up. The Woke Brigade are in retreat. They fucking loved it.
Faisal Islam's Twitter thread yesterday went a long way to explaining what is behind this Internal Market Bill - the line is that the EU are putting at risk the administrative registration of the UK as a food exporter, which could mean effectively that the UK is effectively barred from exporting food to NI come January 1st. Now, NI won't starve, but that would still clearly be an intolerable situation and, depending on the truth of all this, which I'm reserving judgement on as I simply don't know, it does describe a circumstance under which I could potentially back this approach.
That said, I know it is quite likely to be misunderstanding, concoction, or ineptitude on the part of the government. Perhaps the EU are giving friendly reminders to 'make sure you get your paperwork in' (like my boss and annual reviews!), perhaps the UKs paperwork leaves a lot to be desired (e.g. on border controls) and the EU are treating it equitably compared to other food trading partners.
Or perhaps the EU have indeed tied up something that should be administrative with a separate negotiation, like an official in some corrupt regime taking bribes with impunity. Even amongst 2016 remainers, I've been light on the EU - I don't think different sequencing would have been any magic bullet, for instance - but you would have to be hugely critical if the EU are playing games with this (Barnier has denied). Someone mentioned last week that Good Faith has a pretty narrow legal definition, but by any stretch of a layman's imagination such a move would be bad faith on the part of the EU and the UK would be entitled in those circumstances to take measures to guarantee GB/NI food trade.
Let's see, over the coming days, where the truth lies.
I believe this one is fairly simple. Food and Drink are in the first tier of products that require standards checks and tariffs - from 00:01 on 1st January. The system that will manage the 215m customs declaration that we will have to fill in is the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - a huge new smart platform which does not yet exist.
A letter from all of the leading logistics companies to the government on 3rd September (https://www.ft.com/content/49af99f3-4669-4654-a444-4e5e9635791c) pointed out that even if this thing is somehow delivered on time and works without a hitch industry still needs time to learn the process and embed it into their operations.
So it is not the EU to blame at all, nor are they threatening anything. The requirements to import products from a 3rd country into the EU are clear and unambiguous, and we've had years to prepare for the tsunami of red tape this fuck business government are going to tie industry up in. The issue is that they haven't done any prep. And so the EU patiently point to their long-standing regulations and enquire how we intent to comply with them.
It is not the EU demanding that these 215m customs declarations be filled out, nor the corresponding standards checks, it is the UK government. They have chosen to leave the EEA and CU as a political decision. They have also chosen not to prepare for anything. Yes there is a 6 month period where different tiers of products get tied up in this red tape. But the system has to work out of the box in 109 days time. Or we can't import or export food.
I did heavily suspect that. What prevents us from importing food in this? - obviously with no systems in place it would be a food safety time bomb waiting to happen and would keep exports stone dead as no one else would want to touch our food, but would doing that actually be sanctionable?
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
So why don't the EU take food off the table, so to speak?
They haven't put food on the table - we have. We've told the EU that there will be no extension. Fine says the EU, so have you put into place your ability to complete all of the 3rd country processes that you signed up to in the WA? No says the UK.
The rules on importing foodstuffs into the EU from a 3rd country are clear and transparent and long standing. It is we who have done fuck all to prepare for them. The only reason that the EU are threatening to block us shipping food into NI is that Shagger signed a deal putting a customs border down the Irish Sea.
The EU simply want us to complete customs paperwork and standards checks. As we agreed to. They haven't forced us.
*sigh* To the people who started gloating about this deal did I not say "wait to see the detail"? Its a deal. It replicates what we have now albeit at greater cost. It ties us into the thing we are leaving the EU to untie ourselves from.
Let me guess. The government haven't read the details of the agreement. Getting an agreement to propagandise was more important than the detail.
I don't what is worse - this bunch of incompetent wazzocks. Or the people tugging the forelock insisting they are doing a good job.
They knew exactly what they signed, the intention was never to stick to it and to undermine and destroy it afterwards.
The WA was a tool to win the election as No Deal would not have created - in my view - an 80 seat majority.
Now the majority is secured, the WA will be thrown away.
I think that is probably broadly correct. My guess is that, as with many legal documents, the WA is open to interpretation in some areas. Johnson made it clear that he wasn`t threatening the Union. The EU (so says the government) are interpreting the wording in a way which would threaten the Union. The government would have war-gamed this scenario I`m sure.
Breaking the agreement, and hence international law in a "limited way" as they say, to help secure the government`s interpretation is the current game, I suggest. As this may end in a better trade agreement with the EU I am holding back from being too critical of the government at this point. We have to remember that this is a hard-ball negotiation with a competitor now.
The government’s plan was to use the Internal Market Bill to galvanise its base and spark a culture war with Labour, the Lords and the judiciary. It may have miscalculated.
I don't know why you keep going on about the Government wanting to start a culture war.
I don't see evidence of that.
What was the Rule Britannia bollocks all about? That was pure Kulturkrieg? Gets the slack jawed Purple Wall orcs fired up. The Woke Brigade are in retreat. They fucking loved it.
Yes but to be fair though it was the "Woke Brigade" that started it.
ARM being owned by NVIDIA is a complete conflict of interest.
I am interested to see what Apple do, as they moved away from NVIDIA several years ago and are now seemingly using their chip designs again.
Apple designs almost all of the different ARM CPUs they use, they use the ARM ISA but the microarchitecture is Apple's own. I think that only some Cortex-M series microcontrollers are used by Apple. Apple could easily switch from ARM to RISC-V for microcontrollers — like Nvidia itself has done in switching from their Falcon architecture to RISC-V — as they operate as a black-box and have no real software compatibility issues. For the application processors in the A series SoCs that power iPads, iPhones and soon Macs, they use the ARMv8 ISA today, with some Apple extensions, there's no reason why that should remain the case indefinitely. In fact I would expect Apple to switch to their own ISA at some point in the future, they are already doing the hardest bit of producing CPUs, the ISA is a much simpler issue and they probably have their own view on what they want in future.
Very stylish, @rcs1000. I suppose after nearly 16 years a freshen up was due.
But on point, he’s not really rebelling, is he? He’s abstaining. A rebellion will be when Johnson’s backbenchers combine with Labour to defeat the bill.
At the same time, amusing to think that Johnson has now got caught in the same trap as May.
I have to go and teach 150 children in five different rooms all with inadequate ventilation. Because obviously, seven people meeting in my own back garden is far riskier than that.
Meanwhile, if Truss becomes sec of state for education, I’m out of this. She’s a useless, dishonest, third rate, stuck up nobody whose sole claim to fame is that she’s more promiscuous than Alan Clark.
He's abstaining at second reading because that's the stage that considers the principle of the bill, and we absolutely need an Internal Market Act.
Why? what does it do apart from riding complete roughshod over the deal Boris agreed last year, fought an election on and then pushed into law in January this year?
I'm not sure you understand what a 2nd reading of a bill means.
The UK absolutely needs such a bill because we fully leave the EU single market on 1st January 2021 and we need legal clarity on regulation of the new UK-only market. Doing nothing isn't an option as we'd have chaos.
The bit that's under dispute is the clause relating to GB-NI intra UK trade that's at odds with the WA as signed in international law.
So the logical thing to do is to abstain at 2nd reading (we need the legislation) but oppose the clause at committee and report stage and try to amend it.
If it goes vote it through at 3rd reading. If not then you can still oppose at 3rd reading (stopping it going into law) for the reasons outlined above.
Faisal Islam's Twitter thread yesterday went a long way to explaining what is behind this Internal Market Bill - the line is that the EU are putting at risk the administrative registration of the UK as a food exporter, which could mean effectively that the UK is effectively barred from exporting food to NI come January 1st. Now, NI won't starve, but that would still clearly be an intolerable situation and, depending on the truth of all this, which I'm reserving judgement on as I simply don't know, it does describe a circumstance under which I could potentially back this approach.
That said, I know it is quite likely to be misunderstanding, concoction, or ineptitude on the part of the government. Perhaps the EU are giving friendly reminders to 'make sure you get your paperwork in' (like my boss and annual reviews!), perhaps the UKs paperwork leaves a lot to be desired (e.g. on border controls) and the EU are treating it equitably compared to other food trading partners.
Or perhaps the EU have indeed tied up something that should be administrative with a separate negotiation, like an official in some corrupt regime taking bribes with impunity. Even amongst 2016 remainers, I've been light on the EU - I don't think different sequencing would have been any magic bullet, for instance - but you would have to be hugely critical if the EU are playing games with this (Barnier has denied). Someone mentioned last week that Good Faith has a pretty narrow legal definition, but by any stretch of a layman's imagination such a move would be bad faith on the part of the EU and the UK would be entitled in those circumstances to take measures to guarantee GB/NI food trade.
Let's see, over the coming days, where the truth lies.
I believe this one is fairly simple. Food and Drink are in the first tier of products that require standards checks and tariffs - from 00:01 on 1st January. The system that will manage the 215m customs declaration that we will have to fill in is the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - a huge new smart platform which does not yet exist.
A letter from all of the leading logistics companies to the government on 3rd September (https://www.ft.com/content/49af99f3-4669-4654-a444-4e5e9635791c) pointed out that even if this thing is somehow delivered on time and works without a hitch industry still needs time to learn the process and embed it into their operations.
So it is not the EU to blame at all, nor are they threatening anything. The requirements to import products from a 3rd country into the EU are clear and unambiguous, and we've had years to prepare for the tsunami of red tape this fuck business government are going to tie industry up in. The issue is that they haven't done any prep. And so the EU patiently point to their long-standing regulations and enquire how we intent to comply with them.
It is not the EU demanding that these 215m customs declarations be filled out, nor the corresponding standards checks, it is the UK government. They have chosen to leave the EEA and CU as a political decision. They have also chosen not to prepare for anything. Yes there is a 6 month period where different tiers of products get tied up in this red tape. But the system has to work out of the box in 109 days time. Or we can't import or export food.
They don’t want facts they want someone to blame for their lack of action. I bet your account gets little response from the EU are evil brigade.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
It's interesting how you believe EU rumours when they're posted by the papers but Government rumours are only true if they come from a Government member directly
Read between the lines from what Barnier wrote himself and it's clear they made that threat.
ARM being owned by NVIDIA is a complete conflict of interest.
I am interested to see what Apple do, as they moved away from NVIDIA several years ago and are now seemingly using their chip designs again.
Apple designs almost all of the different ARM CPUs they use, they use the ARM ISA but the microarchitecture is Apple's own. I think that only some Cortex-M series microcontrollers are used by Apple. Apple could easily switch from ARM to RISC-V for microcontrollers — like Nvidia itself has done in switching from their Falcon architecture to RISC-V — as they operate as a black-box and have no real software compatibility issues. For the application processors in the A series SoCs that power iPads, iPhones and soon Macs, they use the ARMv8 ISA today, with some Apple extensions, there's no reason why that should remain the case indefinitely. In fact I would expect Apple to switch to their own ISA at some point in the future, they are already doing the hardest bit of producing CPUs, the ISA is a much simpler issue and they probably have their own view on what they want in future.
Thanks - I am not surprised Apple has thought ahead. I suspect they would like to be far away from NVIDIA who I understand they do not get on with.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
It's interesting how you believe EU rumours when they're posted by the papers but Government rumours are only true if they come from a Government member directly
Read between the lines from what Barnier wrote himself and it's clear they made that threat.
Yet you won't do the same from UK Gov, your bias is showing through again
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
The point being that the non existent threat is deliberately intended to imply that the EU is using the threat of Northern Ireland starving to get their way.
Faisal Islam's Twitter thread yesterday went a long way to explaining what is behind this Internal Market Bill - the line is that the EU are putting at risk the administrative registration of the UK as a food exporter, which could mean effectively that the UK is effectively barred from exporting food to NI come January 1st. Now, NI won't starve, but that would still clearly be an intolerable situation and, depending on the truth of all this, which I'm reserving judgement on as I simply don't know, it does describe a circumstance under which I could potentially back this approach.
That said, I know it is quite likely to be misunderstanding, concoction, or ineptitude on the part of the government. Perhaps the EU are giving friendly reminders to 'make sure you get your paperwork in' (like my boss and annual reviews!), perhaps the UKs paperwork leaves a lot to be desired (e.g. on border controls) and the EU are treating it equitably compared to other food trading partners.
Or perhaps the EU have indeed tied up something that should be administrative with a separate negotiation, like an official in some corrupt regime taking bribes with impunity. Even amongst 2016 remainers, I've been light on the EU - I don't think different sequencing would have been any magic bullet, for instance - but you would have to be hugely critical if the EU are playing games with this (Barnier has denied). Someone mentioned last week that Good Faith has a pretty narrow legal definition, but by any stretch of a layman's imagination such a move would be bad faith on the part of the EU and the UK would be entitled in those circumstances to take measures to guarantee GB/NI food trade.
Let's see, over the coming days, where the truth lies.
I believe this one is fairly simple. Food and Drink are in the first tier of products that require standards checks and tariffs - from 00:01 on 1st January. The system that will manage the 215m customs declaration that we will have to fill in is the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - a huge new smart platform which does not yet exist.
A letter from all of the leading logistics companies to the government on 3rd September (https://www.ft.com/content/49af99f3-4669-4654-a444-4e5e9635791c) pointed out that even if this thing is somehow delivered on time and works without a hitch industry still needs time to learn the process and embed it into their operations.
So it is not the EU to blame at all, nor are they threatening anything. The requirements to import products from a 3rd country into the EU are clear and unambiguous, and we've had years to prepare for the tsunami of red tape this fuck business government are going to tie industry up in. The issue is that they haven't done any prep. And so the EU patiently point to their long-standing regulations and enquire how we intent to comply with them.
It is not the EU demanding that these 215m customs declarations be filled out, nor the corresponding standards checks, it is the UK government. They have chosen to leave the EEA and CU as a political decision. They have also chosen not to prepare for anything. Yes there is a 6 month period where different tiers of products get tied up in this red tape. But the system has to work out of the box in 109 days time. Or we can't import or export food.
I did heavily suspect that. What prevents us from importing food in this? - obviously with no systems in place it would be a food safety time bomb waiting to happen and would keep exports stone dead as no one else would want to touch our food, but would doing that actually be sanctionable?
What prevents us from importing? Chaos. Logistics is a fabulous piece of planning artistry. Vehicles operate as few miles as possible empty, so loads cross the channel one way, tip, collect a new load and then come back. We are going to find it very difficult to export - indeed our new regulations make it illegal for a Channel-bound truck to enter Kent without a completed Kent Access Permit issued via the GVMS that doesn't exist.
Trucks can't cross into the EU without difficulty means they can't cross back with the stuff we're importing. The NI logistics industry have said that the load disruption alone will imperil their financial viability - trucks need to be loaded. Same with UK > Continent only on a much larger scale.
Very stylish, @rcs1000. I suppose after nearly 16 years a freshen up was due.
But on point, he’s not really rebelling, is he? He’s abstaining. A rebellion will be when Johnson’s backbenchers combine with Labour to defeat the bill.
At the same time, amusing to think that Johnson has now got caught in the same trap as May.
I have to go and teach 150 children in five different rooms all with inadequate ventilation. Because obviously, seven people meeting in my own back garden is far riskier than that.
Meanwhile, if Truss becomes sec of state for education, I’m out of this. She’s a useless, dishonest, third rate, stuck up nobody whose sole claim to fame is that she’s more promiscuous than Alan Clark.
He's abstaining at second reading because that's the stage that considers the principle of the bill, and we absolutely need an Internal Market Act.
Why? what does it do apart from riding complete roughshod over the deal Boris agreed last year, fought an election on and then pushed into law in January this year?
I'm not sure you understand what a 2nd reading of a bill means.
The UK absolutely needs such a bill because we fully leave the EU single market on 1st January 2021 and we need legal clarity on regulation of the new UK-only market. Doing nothing isn't an option as we'd have chaos.
The bit that's under dispute is the clause relating to GB-NI intra UK trade that's at odds with the WA as signed in international law.
So the logical thing to do is to abstain at 2nd reading (we need the legislation) but oppose the clause at committee and report stage and try to amend it.
If it goes vote it through at 3rd reading. If not then you can still oppose at 3rd reading (stopping it going into law) for the reasons outlined above.
I think that's right, and pretty much what will happen. My guess is that they'll end up with the Bob Neill amendment, giving Parliament a veto on law-breaking. The problem will be that this may still not be acceptable to the EU, as it says "We reserve the right to break the law". But they could probably live with it on the basis that "If you ever do it, then the whole trade deal will instantly cease to be valid", which would pretty much guarantee that it doesn't happen.
*sigh* To the people who started gloating about this deal did I not say "wait to see the detail"? Its a deal. It replicates what we have now albeit at greater cost. It ties us into the thing we are leaving the EU to untie ourselves from.
Let me guess. The government haven't read the details of the agreement. Getting an agreement to propagandise was more important than the detail.
I don't what is worse - this bunch of incompetent wazzocks. Or the people tugging the forelock insisting they are doing a good job.
If the UK doesn't get a deal the UK will be criticised as will Brexit more broadly.
If the UK does get a deal the UK will be criticised for not getting a deal "as good" as it would have done through the EU as will Brexit more broadly.
See the common theme?
There's actually quite a few extra benefits in this deal - particularly on services and GIs, see politico article here - so one shouldn't be too churlish about it:
I did heavily suspect that. What prevents us from importing food in this? - obviously with no systems in place it would be a food safety time bomb waiting to happen and would keep exports stone dead as no one else would want to touch our food, but would doing that actually be sanctionable?
No problem in importing food or anything else, though it will suddenly become more expensive because we're imposing lots of tariffs that didn't exist in EU trade.
As Shagger thinks the Japan trade deal is marvellous can I propose a way forward to break the impasse over state aid? Simple copy the state aid agreement just reached with the Japanese and paste it into the document for the EU.
Simples!
I think the UK negotiators will be very, very happy to do that. As the FT says in the article, the Japan provisions are much closer to what the UK is asking for than what the EU is.
The UK as an opening gambit offering less than what they're prepared to is sound negotiations when the opposition are being maximalist in their demands.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
It's interesting how you believe EU rumours when they're posted by the papers but Government rumours are only true if they come from a Government member directly
Read between the lines from what Barnier wrote himself and it's clear they made that threat.
What do you mean 'read between the lines'?
It means your wilful misinterpretation is that the EU will threaten to starve the island of Ireland in a futile attempt to force the hand of the plucky Cummings.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
The point being that the non existent threat is deliberately intended to imply that the EU is using the threat of Northern Ireland starving to get their way.
I think that our government are being cute. But the EU has used Northern Ireland from the very start as a wedge to make life difficult. Are people really going to import goods into Britain, send it to Northern Ireland just to get it into the sacred single market? For sale in the RoI, I can just about see, but beyond that it's bonkers. So sorry for not shedding too many tears for the EU who are now being played at their own game.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
It's interesting how you believe EU rumours when they're posted by the papers but Government rumours are only true if they come from a Government member directly
Read between the lines from what Barnier wrote himself and it's clear they made that threat.
What do you mean 'read between the lines'?
It means your wilful misinterpretation is that the EU will threaten to starve the island of Ireland in a futile attempt to force the hand of the plucky Cummings.
Rubbish!
Blockading British exports isn't starving Ireland. You're wilfully misrepresenting the issue.
The government’s plan was to use the Internal Market Bill to galvanise its base and spark a culture war with Labour, the Lords and the judiciary. It may have miscalculated.
I don't know why you keep going on about the Government wanting to start a culture war.
I don't see evidence of that.
What was the Rule Britannia bollocks all about? That was pure Kulturkrieg? Gets the slack jawed Purple Wall orcs fired up. The Woke Brigade are in retreat. They fucking loved it.
The row that was started by the BBC wanting to remove it, as reported by the Sunday Times, not the Government, and corroborated by a number of private BBC Exec twitter feeds and off-the-record briefings?
That one??
Like I said: give me evidence the Government is looking to start a culture war.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
The point being that the non existent threat is deliberately intended to imply that the EU is using the threat of Northern Ireland starving to get their way.
I think that our government are being cute. But the EU has used Northern Ireland from the very start as a wedge to make life difficult. Are people really going to import goods into Britain, send it to Northern Ireland just to get it into the sacred single market? For sale in the RoI, I can just about see, but beyond that it's bonkers. So sorry for not shedding too many tears for the EU who are now being played at their own game.
The only way to stand up to a bully is to be a bully. The UK reputation in the wider context does concern me though. I suspect the government thinks that other nations will cut us a break in the knowledge of what we are going through.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
The point being that the non existent threat is deliberately intended to imply that the EU is using the threat of Northern Ireland starving to get their way.
I think that our government are being cute. But the EU has used Northern Ireland from the very start as a wedge to make life difficult. Are people really going to import goods into Britain, send it to Northern Ireland just to get it into the sacred single market? For sale in the RoI, I can just about see, but beyond that it's bonkers. So sorry for not shedding too many tears for the EU who are now being played at their own game.
It might be difficult to get such an interview (given we expect British politicians to be accountable to British media here in the UK) but both the BBC, ITV and Sky have all secured interviews with contentious foreign politicians and negotiators before.
To people parroting the Govt line on this - they do, I presume, realise that the claimed EU “threat” to blockade food imports to Northern Ireland is, in effect, a threat to blockade food imports to the Republic?
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
Blockade British food and yes that is exactly the threat. That they would cut out our food exports to them (which would be abusive and start a trade war but within their rights) but also to NI.
The point being that the non existent threat is deliberately intended to imply that the EU is using the threat of Northern Ireland starving to get their way.
I think that our government are being cute. But the EU has used Northern Ireland from the very start as a wedge to make life difficult. Are people really going to import goods into Britain, send it to Northern Ireland just to get it into the sacred single market? For sale in the RoI, I can just about see, but beyond that it's bonkers. So sorry for not shedding too many tears for the EU who are now being played at their own game.
The only way to stand up to a bully is to be a bully. The UK reputation in the wider context does concern me though. I suspect the government thinks that other nations will cut us a break in the knowledge of what we are going through.
Wouldn't treat what comes out of the Brussels as gospel but "deceit, lie, obfuscation and matter for ridicule" is a demonstrably accurate description of the UK government.
As Shagger thinks the Japan trade deal is marvellous can I propose a way forward to break the impasse over state aid? Simple copy the state aid agreement just reached with the Japanese and paste it into the document for the EU.
Simples!
You fool, the government has proposed exactly that but the EU are insisting on dynamic alignment with the UK. It's the EU that are at fault here, whether or not you want to see it.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1305403528475795457
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1305403529692090375
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1305403530946244608
Everything has changed, or is it just me? Redesign?
Cummings says take the whip away immediately.
Whether we are at the last resort is surely a matter of politics not law?
Remote by default and offering face to face are entirely compatible.
I believe that one if the conditions for the sale to Softbank was a legal commitment that it remain a UK company headquartered in the UK.
If this deal is waved through, that will no longer be the case. It will probably mean the loss of several thousand UK tech jobs over the next few years.
(And apart from anything else, it would give a US president the power to limit the export of any technology containing ARM IP.)
"Additional guidance goes further, saying patients should be told that online and phone appointments "can be convenient and flexible... but if you would prefer to see a GP or healthcare professional in person then this will be arranged for you"." (Telegraph)
Preference and default are not the same.
It is another comms shambles frankly.
England’s medical personnel forced to self-isolate due to logistic problems besetting Covid-19 tests
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/utter-shambles-gps-and-medics-decry-nhs-test-and-trace-system
That said, I know it is quite likely to be misunderstanding, concoction, or ineptitude on the part of the government. Perhaps the EU are giving friendly reminders to 'make sure you get your paperwork in' (like my boss and annual reviews!), perhaps the UKs paperwork leaves a lot to be desired (e.g. on border controls) and the EU are treating it equitably compared to other food trading partners.
Or perhaps the EU have indeed tied up something that should be administrative with a separate negotiation, like an official in some corrupt regime taking bribes with impunity. Even amongst 2016 remainers, I've been light on the EU - I don't think different sequencing would have been any magic bullet, for instance - but you would have to be hugely critical if the EU are playing games with this (Barnier has denied). Someone mentioned last week that Good Faith has a pretty narrow legal definition, but by any stretch of a layman's imagination such a move would be bad faith on the part of the EU and the UK would be entitled in those circumstances to take measures to guarantee GB/NI food trade.
Let's see, over the coming days, where the truth lies.
... Softbank made commitments to secure jobs and keep ARM's headquarters in the UK until September next year.
"So far, when you read the announcement coming from Nvidia they said they will honour that Softbank has made at the time," said Sonja Laud, chief investment officer at Legal & General Investment Management...
So unless the government seeks further commitments in exchange for approving the deal, the Nvidia commitment is essentially meaningless.
And unlike Softbank, it has significant incentives to destroy ARM’s current business model.
Probably not something they are really interested in doing...?
So aggregated statewide the results were (changes since 2014 in brackets):
CDU 34.3% (-3.2%)
SPD 24.3% (-7.1%)
Grüne 20% (+8.3%)
FDP 5.6% (+0.9%)
AfD 5.0% (+2.4%)
Linke 3.8% (-0.9%)
Others 7.0% (-0.4)
So on the one hand the Greens the big winners and the SPD losers compared to the last time these (district level) elections were held in 2014, but on the other hand looking at more recent results and polls not that surprising. NRW Ministerpräsident Laschet is spinning it as supporting his candidacy for the upcoming CDU leadership vacancy.
Here in Cologne the Greens are now easily the biggest party (for the first time), with the SPD just ahead of the CDU in 2nd place. New Europe-wide party Volt did pretty well with 5.0% of the vote just behind Linke and FDP, and ahead of the AfD who got 4.4%.
Apparently in Cologne Greens got 40% of the 16-24 vote and CDU 8% - even behind Volt who got 11%. SPD got 12%
Over 60s went 18% Green and 30% CDU (Volt 2%, SPD 30%)
Volt are quite an interesting new party, active in several EU countries. They have one German MEP since 2019, and elected officials in Germany, Italy and Bulgaria.
Default of remote but allowing a preference of face to face if someone doesn't want the default. What is the contradiction?
A letter from all of the leading logistics companies to the government on 3rd September (https://www.ft.com/content/49af99f3-4669-4654-a444-4e5e9635791c) pointed out that even if this thing is somehow delivered on time and works without a hitch industry still needs time to learn the process and embed it into their operations.
So it is not the EU to blame at all, nor are they threatening anything. The requirements to import products from a 3rd country into the EU are clear and unambiguous, and we've had years to prepare for the tsunami of red tape this fuck business government are going to tie industry up in. The issue is that they haven't done any prep. And so the EU patiently point to their long-standing regulations and enquire how we intent to comply with them.
It is not the EU demanding that these 215m customs declarations be filled out, nor the corresponding standards checks, it is the UK government. They have chosen to leave the EEA and CU as a political decision. They have also chosen not to prepare for anything. Yes there is a 6 month period where different tiers of products get tied up in this red tape. But the system has to work out of the box in 109 days time. Or we can't import or export food.
David doesn't look or sound great
Let me guess. The government haven't read the details of the agreement. Getting an agreement to propagandise was more important than the detail.
I don't what is worse - this bunch of incompetent wazzocks. Or the people tugging the forelock insisting they are doing a good job.
I don't see evidence of that.
It sounds as if the proposed legislation is an insurance policy, a backstop if you will, against an over-literal interpretation by the EU of the existing treaty to mean that the UK can’t export food to NI without their approval.
The EU are saying A=B, the UK are saying A=C, and this legislation is saying that we don’t care about A, B or C if it gets in the way of the UK feeding its own population with UK-produced food.
Simples!
The WA was a tool to win the election as No Deal would not have created - in my view - an 80 seat majority.
Now the majority is secured, the WA will be thrown away.
If you read Geoffrey Cox's article you'll see he addresses the point of dealing with the EU:
"But the duty of good faith is a two-way street. The EU faces a precisely equal obligation and if, as reported, it has sought to use the Northern Ireland protocol as a lever in the trade negotiations, for example by suggesting that it might decline to extend to our farmers the same recognition for the purpose of imports of animal products that it has in place with Africa and Central Asia, thus marooning Northern Ireland from its main market in Great Britain, then its behaviour is open to very severe criticism. I well recall the careful protestations made by Michel Barnier about “dedramatising” the border he advocated in the Irish Sea, and the solemn undertaking in the protocol to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and the UK and to avoid controls.
The UK might understandably feel that such an approach from the EU should not simply be accepted without challenge. There are clear and lawful responses available to Her Majesty’s government, but both the spirit and the letter of the law require that these should be undertaken solely to accelerate progress in negotiations not as a means to force their abandonment.
These include triggering the agreed independent arbitration procedure set out in the withdrawal agreement and, in extremis, these might legitimately extend to taking temporary and proportionate measures, where they are urgently necessary to protect the fundamental interests of the UK (in my view if, and only if, specifically approved at the time by the House of Commons,) for the period until that arbitration has concluded.
What ministers should not do, however provoked or frustrated they may feel, is to take or use powers permanently and unilaterally to rewrite portions of an agreement into which this country freely entered just a few months ago."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/geoffrey-cox-honour-rests-on-keeping-our-word-qx36n6hwk
Assuming regulators get them to keep the HQ and jobs in the UK, and require them to license IP on broadly the same terms this could work quite well for all involved. The ARM market is simply too big for Nvidia alone to even think of taking it all over, so licensing is likely to remain key to the business. The largest server buyers are likely to want to build their own designs or work with other companies that are licensing the IP for semi-custom designs, so again licensing remains important.
If Nvidia screws up licensing then MIPS, RISC-V, and probably some new architecture kept on stand-by at Intel will more than happy to fill any gaps created.
It’s always been the left who want a culture war, and they now seem rather upset that, having started it, they’re being outplayed at their own game. There’s not as many left wing culture warriors as Twitter led them to believe.
What an absolute load of drivel from Neil
The rules on importing foodstuffs into the EU from a 3rd country are clear and transparent and long standing. It is we who have done fuck all to prepare for them. The only reason that the EU are threatening to block us shipping food into NI is that Shagger signed a deal putting a customs border down the Irish Sea.
The EU simply want us to complete customs paperwork and standards checks. As we agreed to. They haven't forced us.
Breaking the agreement, and hence international law in a "limited way" as they say, to help secure the government`s interpretation is the current game, I suggest. As this may end in a better trade agreement with the EU I am holding back from being too critical of the government at this point. We have to remember that this is a hard-ball negotiation with a competitor now.
The UK absolutely needs such a bill because we fully leave the EU single market on 1st January 2021 and we need legal clarity on regulation of the new UK-only market. Doing nothing isn't an option as we'd have chaos.
The bit that's under dispute is the clause relating to GB-NI intra UK trade that's at odds with the WA as signed in international law.
So the logical thing to do is to abstain at 2nd reading (we need the legislation) but oppose the clause at committee and report stage and try to amend it.
If it goes vote it through at 3rd reading. If not then you can still oppose at 3rd reading (stopping it going into law) for the reasons outlined above.
Trucks can't cross into the EU without difficulty means they can't cross back with the stuff we're importing. The NI logistics industry have said that the load disruption alone will imperil their financial viability - trucks need to be loaded. Same with UK > Continent only on a much larger scale.
Again, its not the EU doing this. Its the UK.
Interesting new and rather attractive PB layout.
If the UK does get a deal the UK will be criticised for not getting a deal "as good" as it would have done through the EU as will Brexit more broadly.
See the common theme?
There's actually quite a few extra benefits in this deal - particularly on services and GIs, see politico article here - so one shouldn't be too churlish about it:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/five-things-from-the-uks-trade-deal-with-japan/amp/
The UK as an opening gambit offering less than what they're prepared to is sound negotiations when the opposition are being maximalist in their demands.
Dave was a class act.
It means your wilful misinterpretation is that the EU will threaten to starve the island of Ireland in a futile attempt to force the hand of the plucky Cummings.
Rubbish!
That one??
Like I said: give me evidence the Government is looking to start a culture war.
Although as I come in through vanilla I am largely untouched.
Wanting to read the latest comment at the top is as egregious a sin as liking p*n**ppl* on pizza and putting OK Computer on loop.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1305165678983380994
It might be difficult to get such an interview (given we expect British politicians to be accountable to British media here in the UK) but both the BBC, ITV and Sky have all secured interviews with contentious foreign politicians and negotiators before.