Is this just a right wing commentator thing, or more widespread? I have already heard people myself saying that they are categorically not going to obey the rules at Xmas.
More widespread. In the following common sense group.
Two people I know in the high risk group have said they will be following the rules strictly, everyone else I have spoken to said they won't be.
If they were the actual rules I think that would be better!
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
That really doesn't make sense. People don't have full control over things like Vat. I have no control over it whatsoever whether in the EU or not. Should I be campaigning for independence for Surrey, or my road or even my house? No that still doesn't work as I don't even get my own way in my own house.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
We see that 11 EU members have higher PPP GDP per capita than the UK does, and several are much higher. Of those who have lower numbers, these are not that much lower. Several, such as the Baltics, are also growing a lot faster than the UK, and will overtake the UK in the foreseeable future.
Partly as a result, the bond markets rate Gilts at about the same level as Estonian sovereign paper, and a lot less than not just Germany, but Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Finland etc. (most of which still retain a AAA rating).
The most likely scenario is that the UK will continue to underperform, and with no deal, this will be a substantial underperformance. On current forecasts the UK economy will shrink c14% in 2020. By contrast the Estonian economy will grow c4%.
The UK does not have a major manufacturing base and its service sector is being undermined by new technology. School education performance as measured by the OECD Pisa rankings is c 18th. Pretty mediocre and with a worrying long term decline in science results.
Low "numerical literacy" is associated with belief in Covid conspiracy theories. It seems that it is also associated with spouting bollocks about the relative positions of the EU (total GDP $18.2 trillion) and the UK (total GDP $2.8 trillion).
But once we've taken back control, and become a buccaneering global trading nation, and what do you mean failing school system and clapped out infrastructure and everybody hates us as the moneylaunderers of the world and LOOOK! MIGRANTS! KILL!
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
I'm in Tier 2 Essex and supposed to be meeting someone from Tier 2 London, outside to collect a donated item for our Museum on Saturday am I going to be in trouble?
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
That really doesn't make sense. People don't have full control over things like Vat. I have no control over it whatsoever whether in the EU or not. Should I be campaigning for independence for Surrey, or my road or even my house? No that still doesn't work as I don't even get my own way in my own house.
Well I was talking about the British government having full control of these things, so we can vote for what we want together as a country.
This helps strengthen my theory that EU supporters don't have much of a connection with the country, just seeing it as an arbitrary strip of land, such as Surrey, your road or your house. It's quite depressing really.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
That really doesn't make sense. People don't have full control over things like Vat. I have no control over it whatsoever whether in the EU or not. Should I be campaigning for independence for Surrey, or my road or even my house? No that still doesn't work as I don't even get my own way in my own house.
Well I was talking about the British government having full control of these things, so we can vote for what we want together as a country.
This helps strengthen my theory that EU supporters don't have much of a connection with the country, just seeing it as an arbitrary strip of land, such as Surrey, your road or your house. It's quite depressing really.
Au contraire. "EU supporters" are perfectly at ease with and have confidence in the UK and aren't needy, insecure sovereignty-reclaimers who require a tangible, if spurious affirmation of the country's worth, as many if not most Brexiters are.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
As I now (a) have a proceedable buyer for my house here on Teesside and (b) an accepted offer for the place we want in Aberdeenshire, looks like our dream move north of the border is actually happening.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
One can simply apply the "rule of declarations", namely that anything whose name is a place name followed by the word "declaration" is simply an inconsequential plea for relevance by self-important political nobodies (cf the SDP).
Can someone confirm my understanding that I, as a plague-ridden zombie in Tier 2 London, cannot go a Kent country pub in the utopia of Tier 1 and meet my brother for lunch?
My reading of the BBC website says that is illegal. Is this valid? Am I now confined to the charnel pit that London is to become forced to decide in my last hours whether that doner was really such a good idea (we've all been there)?
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
That really doesn't make sense. People don't have full control over things like Vat. I have no control over it whatsoever whether in the EU or not. Should I be campaigning for independence for Surrey, or my road or even my house? No that still doesn't work as I don't even get my own way in my own house.
Well I was talking about the British government having full control of these things, so we can vote for what we want together as a country.
This helps strengthen my theory that EU supporters don't have much of a connection with the country, just seeing it as an arbitrary strip of land, such as Surrey, your road or your house. It's quite depressing really.
Au contraire. "EU supporters" are perfectly at ease with and have confidence in the UK and aren't needy, insecure sovereignty-reclaimers who require a tangible, if spurious affirmation of the country's worth, as many if not most Brexiters are.
The fact that you see wanting sovereignty and democratic accountability as needy and insecure says it all really.
"Do you (Italics) HONESTLY (end italics) think politicians enjoy locking people up?!", they said
" a memo seen by the BBC shows plans for additional money for local authorities. They would get £1 per head of population if placed into tier two, and £2 per head for tier three."
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
That really doesn't make sense. People don't have full control over things like Vat. I have no control over it whatsoever whether in the EU or not. Should I be campaigning for independence for Surrey, or my road or even my house? No that still doesn't work as I don't even get my own way in my own house.
Well I was talking about the British government having full control of these things, so we can vote for what we want together as a country.
This helps strengthen my theory that EU supporters don't have much of a connection with the country, just seeing it as an arbitrary strip of land, such as Surrey, your road or your house. It's quite depressing really.
Au contraire. "EU supporters" are perfectly at ease with and have confidence in the UK and aren't needy, insecure sovereignty-reclaimers who require a tangible, if spurious affirmation of the country's worth, as many if not most Brexiters are.
The fact that you see wanting sovereignty and democratic accountability as needy and insecure says it all really.
We are and always were sovereign and have and always had* democratic accountability.
So the UK has done it, we're torpedoed trade negotiations.
Shorting the Pound seems sensible.
Very little movement so far today....
Most people in the markets see this as simply more empty posturing on Johnson's part. He's trying to pressure the EU side (as they were trying to pressure the UK yesterday) as well as showing a bit of leg to his core supporters at home, some of whom may be suddenly banned from attending car boot sales and need distracting with a bit of Brexit action.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
That really doesn't make sense. People don't have full control over things like Vat. I have no control over it whatsoever whether in the EU or not. Should I be campaigning for independence for Surrey, or my road or even my house? No that still doesn't work as I don't even get my own way in my own house.
Well I was talking about the British government having full control of these things, so we can vote for what we want together as a country.
This helps strengthen my theory that EU supporters don't have much of a connection with the country, just seeing it as an arbitrary strip of land, such as Surrey, your road or your house. It's quite depressing really.
I think Topping replied better than I can, but I refer you to the conversation I was involved in the other day on patriotism. As a default, all things being equal, I will support my country, but no more than that. When we do the right things I am proud of it. When we do the wrong things I am not. Similarly with other countries. We aren't special. Nobody is.
I equally find it quite depressing that someone would by default support their country regardless. This blind patriotism is dangerous and unpleasant. Why not treat everyone on their own merits.
As they are seeking investment would far rather the govt invested their billions in this kind of start up than paying BCG consultants £6k per day to advise them how to do their own jobs.
Can someone confirm my understanding that I, as a plague-ridden zombie in Tier 2 London, cannot go a Kent country pub in the utopia of Tier 1 and meet my brother for lunch?
My reading of the BBC website says that is illegal. Is this valid? Am I now confined to the charnel pit that London is to become forced to decide in my last hours whether that doner was really such a good idea (we've all been there)?
Yep the BBC is right as regards indoor meetings. You can meet your brother in a pub garden, though.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
This is the same 538 who had an appalling 2016 and forecast a Hillary near landslide with Hillary winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin while Trafalgar was the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania?
The EU are going to be very unhappy about this. Fine paying to take a gamble on a treatment (and indeed prudent) ... but after the developer knows it doesn't work ?
twitter.com/ABsteward/status/1317082341198696450
Isn't Gileads position that they contest the results of this study and point to others that show better outcomes?
It may well be - but did they share the draft with the EU before inking the deal ?
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It's interesting that there is very little evidence of a trade-off between saving lives and protecting the economy (Sweden excepted).
Indeed, there is a fairly clear negative correlation there, meaning the countries that have had proportionately more deaths have also had a bigger GDP hit. (reminder correlation not= causation).
Does anyone have perchance a link to see the data for all 28 countries?
Can someone confirm my understanding that I, as a plague-ridden zombie in Tier 2 London, cannot go a Kent country pub in the utopia of Tier 1 and meet my brother for lunch?
My reading of the BBC website says that is illegal. Is this valid?
Am I now confined to the charnel pit that London is to become forced to decide in my last hours whether that doner was really such a good idea (we've all been there)?
Depends - you can meet him there for lunch outdoors but not indoors. You could also sit indoors and have lunch separately from him, providing you don't socialise.
All the above is based on an interpreting "can" as what you are allowed to do within the law, rather than what you will very likely be able to get away with should you be inclined to spread the plague.
A wise man once said that traditionally African Americans prefer to vote early in person rather than by mail - especially in NC. I wonder if that sage's wisdom can be empirically tested.
Day prior to the opening of in person early voting in NC African American turnout lags their voter registration percentage
Day after the opening of in person early voting it shoots ahead
Truly the wisest of sages. If only he had any more cryptic advice...
Black voters will hopefully save the USA from a second Trump term.
I'm keeping a very close eye on Michigan. Things are not developing quite as I expect.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
But you have to admit life would be a lot simpler if Trafalgar were proved correct and everybody else wrong, so wrong indeed they could all eff off and in future all we need to do is ask Trafalgar what the result is going to be.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
They are far more of an outlier this time. But, yes, if it somehow happens they will be vindicated and delighted - a delight shared by all the bad people of this world.
Can't access that (paywall) but I'm assuming it's an antigen test ? (Which is the type I very much favour for mass testing, as it's doable on a large scale in the near term.)
This looks very different - single viral particle imaging. As such, it's probably more usefully applicable to future virus threats.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
But you have to admit life would be a lot simpler if Trafalgar were proved correct and everybody else wrong, so wrong indeed they could all eff off and in future all we need to do is ask Trafalgar what the result is going to be.
We could even do away with the election itself!
Are Trafalgar the US Opinium? Cited knowingly as more in tune than the rest on the back of winning the game of musical chairs last time
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
That really doesn't make sense. People don't have full control over things like Vat. I have no control over it whatsoever whether in the EU or not. Should I be campaigning for independence for Surrey, or my road or even my house? No that still doesn't work as I don't even get my own way in my own house.
You make a good point. There are few leaders in the EU I have less respect for than Johnson. I have never voted for a government led by him or felt consulted on tax or vat or if I have i've never been taken notice of. I might not think every EU government is better than every British one but I liked the way their combined wisdom was able to limit the fascist tendencies of the Priti Patels
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
Didn't our democratically elected Prime Minister sign the Lisbon Treaty?
And with governments elected typically on sub 40% of the vote it is always the case that a majority will likely oppose their actions.
The GOP starts forging a new alliance with QAnon https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/15/qanon-trump-maga-movement-429739 ...As Trump has courted a wide range of supporters to expand his base, the beliefs of this mushrooming community are seeping into the Republican base. A recent Morning Consult poll found that 38 percent of Republicans believe that at least parts of the QAnon conspiracy are true, and 12 percent of all social media users who are familiar with QAnon have positively engaged with the theory on social media. A Pew Research survey last month found that 41 percent of Republicans believed that QAnon was “somewhat” or “very good” for the country.
Trump himself is at the center of the shift. ...
He was asked about it at the town hall. "Don't know them but I understand they fight very hard against pedophilia," he said.
Clearly wants the support of these people. I would not be surprised to see "Where we go one we go all" being sneaked into a tweet at some point.
Read the whole article - the GOP is welcoming them wholesale. The party is beyond redemption.
US conservatives need to tear it up and start again.
The core belief is a sign of mental illness. Astonishing and frightening that it could (i) spread so widely and (ii) be given houseroom by any US President or mainstream political party.
I think it's good that Andy Wigmore is on the vaccine trial. Could encourage uptake amongst a group that I'd say is more susceptible than most to antivax nonsense.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
This is the same 538 who had an appalling 2016 and forecast a Hillary near landslide with Hillary winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin while Trafalgar was the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania?
The truth I suspect is, Isam, that they are a British outfit with no kind of reputation earning decent money for producing some slightly iffy figures, the workings for which they are distinctly coy about. You'll forgive me if I put my hard-earned down on the basis on a different source of form.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
This is the same 538 who had an appalling 2016 and forecast a Hillary near landslide with Hillary winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin while Trafalgar was the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania?
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
How easy would it be to leave the WTO?
Why bother? Just ignore their rulings like everyone else does.
Can someone confirm my understanding that I, as a plague-ridden zombie in Tier 2 London, cannot go a Kent country pub in the utopia of Tier 1 and meet my brother for lunch?
My reading of the BBC website says that is illegal. Is this valid?
Am I now confined to the charnel pit that London is to become forced to decide in my last hours whether that doner was really such a good idea (we've all been there)?
Depends - you can meet him there for lunch outdoors but not indoors. You could also sit indoors and have lunch separately from him, providing you don't socialise.
All the above is based on an interpreting "can" as what you are allowed to do within the law, rather than what you will very likely be able to get away with should you be inclined to spread the plague.
Surely the rules are based on the location. So if you travel to a Tier 1 area you can indeed socialise indoors in a group up to six. However your brother can't visit you in London and do the same. There is some guidance about reducing your number of journeys but it's very wishy-washy https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-covid-alert-levels-what-you-need-to-know
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
Debts yes, treaties I feel Parliament should be able to abrogate.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
Debts yes, treaties I feel Parliament should be able to abrogate.
They both involve breaking promises so why are debts different?
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
Debts yes, treaties I feel Parliament should be able to abrogate.
They both involve breaking promises so why are debts different?
Debts the money has already been spent.
Future commitments should be able to be cancelled, but the past has already happened. You can change the future but you can't just write off the past.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
This is the same 538 who had an appalling 2016 and forecast a Hillary near landslide with Hillary winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin while Trafalgar was the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania?
Survation were the most accurate pollsters in GE 2017 and the most inaccurate in GE 2015.
If Trafalgar's final polls are still out of line with just about everyone else on the eve of polling yet they prove to be most accurate then they will deserve the plaudits. If they are way out their 2016 success will become a distant memory.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
Debts yes, treaties I feel Parliament should be able to abrogate.
Even those treaties signed by the self-same government nine months earlier, e.g the WA?
The GOP starts forging a new alliance with QAnon https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/15/qanon-trump-maga-movement-429739 ...As Trump has courted a wide range of supporters to expand his base, the beliefs of this mushrooming community are seeping into the Republican base. A recent Morning Consult poll found that 38 percent of Republicans believe that at least parts of the QAnon conspiracy are true, and 12 percent of all social media users who are familiar with QAnon have positively engaged with the theory on social media. A Pew Research survey last month found that 41 percent of Republicans believed that QAnon was “somewhat” or “very good” for the country.
Trump himself is at the center of the shift. ...
He was asked about it at the town hall. "Don't know them but I understand they fight very hard against pedophilia," he said.
Clearly wants the support of these people. I would not be surprised to see "Where we go one we go all" being sneaked into a tweet at some point.
Read the whole article - the GOP is welcoming them wholesale. The party is beyond redemption.
US conservatives need to tear it up and start again.
The core belief is a sign of mental illness. Astonishing and frightening that it could (i) spread so widely and (ii) be given houseroom by any US President or mainstream political party.
It has the distinct whiff of support from criminal organisations.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
Didn't our democratically elected Prime Minister sign the Lisbon Treaty?
And with governments elected typically on sub 40% of the vote it is always the case that a majority will likely oppose their actions.
True. But the PM signed that despite his party reneging on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum first.
Now we all know the commitment was given in respect of the Constitution (a commitment I believe shared by the Tories and Lib Dem’s at the 2005 election thereby neutralising it as an issue) not the Lisbon Treaty. However, we also know that the Lisbon Treaty is pretty much the same thing with “Constitution” crossed out and “Lisbon Treaty” printed as the new title.
So I guess the thinking was akin to “Oh hey presto, it became a “treaty” so no need for a referendum, we’ll sign it anyway. Phew, that was close, we’d never have got them to vote for the Constitution, especially as it had gone down in flames at the ballot box elsewhere in Europe anyway. So onwards to ever closer union, Never mind if the voters actually want that, they’ll never be able to undo that one now. Why they’d have to actually leave the EU and that’s not going to happen is it?”
Can someone confirm my understanding that I, as a plague-ridden zombie in Tier 2 London, cannot go a Kent country pub in the utopia of Tier 1 and meet my brother for lunch?
My reading of the BBC website says that is illegal. Is this valid?
Am I now confined to the charnel pit that London is to become forced to decide in my last hours whether that doner was really such a good idea (we've all been there)?
Depends - you can meet him there for lunch outdoors but not indoors. You could also sit indoors and have lunch separately from him, providing you don't socialise.
All the above is based on an interpreting "can" as what you are allowed to do within the law, rather than what you will very likely be able to get away with should you be inclined to spread the plague.
Can you from Tier 2 go and meet your brother in Tier 1 at a pub for lunch? AFAICS the answer is Yes.
a) The Tier 2 rules apply to activity in the Tier 2 area (Tier 2 regulations Schedule 1).
b) I can find no legal ban on travel from Tier 2 to a Tier 1 place for the purpose of going to the pub
c) In Tier 1 it is legal to have lunch in the pub with you brother (rule of 6 applies).
Yes it's all barmy. That's what happens when you legislate for family and friendship.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
After Ireland left the UK, on a number of occasions they broke provisions of treaties, extending their independence in various ways. The UK mostly shrugged and said whatever.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
Didn't our democratically elected Prime Minister sign the Lisbon Treaty?
And with governments elected typically on sub 40% of the vote it is always the case that a majority will likely oppose their actions.
True. But the PM signed that despite his party reneging on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum first.
Now we all know the commitment was given in respect of the Constitution (a commitment I believe shared by the Tories and Lib Dem’s at the 2005 election thereby neutralising it as an issue) not the Lisbon Treaty. However, we also know that the Lisbon Treaty is pretty much the same thing with “Constitution” crossed out and “Lisbon Treaty” printed as the new title.
So I guess the thinking was akin to “Oh hey presto, it became a “treaty” so no need for a referendum, we’ll sign it anyway. Phew, that was close, we’d never have got them to vote for the Constitution, especially as it had gone down in flames at the ballot box elsewhere in Europe anyway. So onwards to ever closer union, Never mind if the voters actually want that, they’ll never be able to undo that one now. Why they’d have to actually leave the EU and that’s not going to happen is it?”
You can’t fool all the people all the time.
It was the Lisbon Treaty that created the Article 50 process, so this is a disingenuous narrative.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
But you have to admit life would be a lot simpler if Trafalgar were proved correct and everybody else wrong, so wrong indeed they could all eff off and in future all we need to do is ask Trafalgar what the result is going to be.
We could even do away with the election itself!
Are Trafalgar the US Opinium? Cited knowingly as more in tune than the rest on the back of winning the game of musical chairs last time
The problem is that no-one knows.
Trafalgar Group does not appear to be a legally incorporated entity. It's not an "Inc" or an "LLC" or an "LLP". No-one knows who owns it.
Unlike with YouGov, Ipsos Mori, Opinium, Survey Monkey, etc., they don't seem to have a business producing research for companies. (Most pollsters treat political opinion polls as advertising for their main business of seeing if people would be interested in buying Apple Cinammon flavoured bran flakes.)
And the Trafalgar polls are not commissioned by any newspapers, as far as I know.
So, who are Trafalgar's clients, and how do they make money?
Now, it's possible that they work on the side for the Republican Party (or the Democrats), and are just a secretive partnership.
But then comes the next issue: they give bugger all information about their polls. How many respondents are registered Democrats? How many are Republicans? They have an adjustment for "shy Trump supporters" apparently, but how much? Are they getting a lot of High School Educated respondents?
Ultimately, we just don't know.
Nate Silver is pretty clear that he thinks they are fake. He thinks they just take a state's average polling and move the needle six points towards the Republicans. That would have resulted - in 2016 - in you getting Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin right, and Nevada wrong. And that's what happened.
In 2018, at the midterms, they were pretty reliably six points more Republican than any pollster. And in 2020, they are (again) six points to the Right.
Indeed, the consistency of Trafalgar's six point shift is suspicious all of itself. There should be volatility in their polling, just as there is volatility in everyone else's.
We'll see if they're right this year. My guess, FWIW, is that other pollsters will have largely corrected (and maybe over-corrected) undersampling of HS educated voters, and therefore they won't be particularly accurate. But that's just a guess.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
After Ireland left the UK, on a number of occasions they broke provisions of treaties, extending their independence in various ways. The UK mostly shrugged and said whatever.
Can someone confirm my understanding that I, as a plague-ridden zombie in Tier 2 London, cannot go a Kent country pub in the utopia of Tier 1 and meet my brother for lunch?
My reading of the BBC website says that is illegal. Is this valid?
Am I now confined to the charnel pit that London is to become forced to decide in my last hours whether that doner was really such a good idea (we've all been there)?
Depends - you can meet him there for lunch outdoors but not indoors. You could also sit indoors and have lunch separately from him, providing you don't socialise.
All the above is based on an interpreting "can" as what you are allowed to do within the law, rather than what you will very likely be able to get away with should you be inclined to spread the plague.
Can you from Tier 2 go and meet your brother in Tier 1 at a pub for lunch? AFAICS the answer is Yes.
a) The Tier 2 rules apply to activity in the Tier 2 area (Tier 2 regulations Schedule 1).
b) I can find no legal ban on travel from Tier2 to a Tier 1 place area for the purpose of going to the pub
c) In Tier 1 it is legal to have lunch in the pub with you brother (rule of 6 applies).
Yes it's all barmy. That's what happens when you legislate for family and friendship.
Anyone agree?
I would have thought that people in Tier 2 have to abide by Tier 2 regs. So, if they go to a pub in Tier 1, they have to be alone or with people they live with, if they want to drink inside, or otherwise have to drink outside in a group of 6 or less
Can someone confirm my understanding that I, as a plague-ridden zombie in Tier 2 London, cannot go a Kent country pub in the utopia of Tier 1 and meet my brother for lunch?
My reading of the BBC website says that is illegal. Is this valid?
Am I now confined to the charnel pit that London is to become forced to decide in my last hours whether that doner was really such a good idea (we've all been there)?
Depends - you can meet him there for lunch outdoors but not indoors. You could also sit indoors and have lunch separately from him, providing you don't socialise.
All the above is based on an interpreting "can" as what you are allowed to do within the law, rather than what you will very likely be able to get away with should you be inclined to spread the plague.
Can you from Tier 2 go and meet your brother in Tier 1 at a pub for lunch? AFAICS the answer is Yes.
a) The Tier 2 rules apply to activity in the Tier 2 area (Tier 2 regulations Schedule 1).
b) I can find no legal ban on travel from Tier2 to a Tier 1 place area for the purpose of going to the pub
c) In Tier 1 it is legal to have lunch in the pub with you brother (rule of 6 applies).
Yes it's all barmy. That's what happens when you legislate for family and friendship.
Anyone agree?
I would have thought that people in Tier 2 have to abide by Tier 2 regs. So, if they go to a pub in Tier 1, they have to be alone or with people they live with, if they want to drink inside, or otherwise have to drink outside
I don't think the law says that. At least, I can't find it.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
Debts yes, treaties I feel Parliament should be able to abrogate.
Even those treaties signed by the self-same government nine months earlier, e.g the WA?
Yes.
Even those treaties signed by the self-same government 15 days earlier, e.g. the Geneva Convention on the Seas.
Boris will intervene in Greater Manchester if agreement cannot be reached and implement tier 3
How does he intervene with his own decision.
"Boris" has a duty and responsibility for the decision and needs to decide what to do. Others dont agree with him. Boris complains that others dont agree with him and says please agree with me. Boris threatens unless you agree to do what I want, I'll do what I want. All the time he dithers the restrictions are not in place, nor is the economic support package.
I can see why we are making such great progress with the Brexit negotiations.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
This is the same 538 who had an appalling 2016 and forecast a Hillary near landslide with Hillary winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin while Trafalgar was the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania?
Like other forecasters they gave appropriate weight to state polling which turned out to be systemically wrong in the mid-Western states considered to be Clinton's firewall.
Yet unlike other forecasters which had written off Trump they had him with a 1 in 3 chance just a couple of days prior to election day, because they refused to rule out the possibility of systemic polling error. 538 came in for a lot of stick for rating Trump's chances as high as they did.
You might have missed the fairly obvious fact that polling companies will have changed their methodologies since 2016, as confirmed here:
"Nearly every pollster we talked to has made some kind of modification since the last general election. Some changes were precipitated by what happened in 2016, while others were driven by the challenges facing the polling industry, such as low response rates to phone calls and the greater cost of high-quality polling. But one thing came up again and again in our interviews: Pollsters told us they were now weighting their samples by education, because one key takeaway from 2016 was just how important someone’s level of educational attainment was in predicting their vote."
Meanwhile, a broken clock is still right every 12 hours. Trafalgar might have got lucky in 2016, but their C- rating reflects the fact that in general they have been wrong more often than most over several election cycles. Your attempts to talk them up are getting a bit wearing to be honest.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
It's a question of the bigger picture. We as a sovereign and independent nation, governed by a democratically-elected government decided to join an organisation which required some compromise and agreed rules. One of those rules concerned VAT but VAT is part of a package of measures which we believed (and some of us still believe) benefited us greatly.
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
I would say if we were still completely sovereign and independent then leaving the EU would be a lot easier than it has proven to be.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
We could leave tomorrow morning and say fuck it. But the politicians have for some reason I assure you unconnected with sovereignty decided against that.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
Perhaps this opt out should have been negotiated before the Lisbon Treaty was signed which the majority opposed.
It was ratified by the sovereign UK parliament, so if you think that process lacked democratic legitimacy, it is the UK system you ought to be questioning.
Yes I think the UK Parliament ratifying treaties the government pledged not to ratify without a referendum lacks legitimacy.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
So for example you don't feel bound by the Good Friday Agreement? Or by debts incurred by previous governments?
After Ireland left the UK, on a number of occasions they broke provisions of treaties, extending their independence in various ways. The UK mostly shrugged and said whatever.
That's whataboutism. Is De Valera your model?
One man's whataboutism is another man's precedent.
The GOP starts forging a new alliance with QAnon https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/15/qanon-trump-maga-movement-429739 ...As Trump has courted a wide range of supporters to expand his base, the beliefs of this mushrooming community are seeping into the Republican base. A recent Morning Consult poll found that 38 percent of Republicans believe that at least parts of the QAnon conspiracy are true, and 12 percent of all social media users who are familiar with QAnon have positively engaged with the theory on social media. A Pew Research survey last month found that 41 percent of Republicans believed that QAnon was “somewhat” or “very good” for the country.
Trump himself is at the center of the shift. ...
He was asked about it at the town hall. "Don't know them but I understand they fight very hard against pedophilia," he said.
Clearly wants the support of these people. I would not be surprised to see "Where we go one we go all" being sneaked into a tweet at some point.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
This is the same 538 who had an appalling 2016 and forecast a Hillary near landslide with Hillary winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin while Trafalgar was the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania?
As I now (a) have a proceedable buyer for my house here on Teesside and (b) an accepted offer for the place we want in Aberdeenshire, looks like our dream move north of the border is actually happening.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
Fine, ignore Trafalgar but if they are right as they were in 2016 against the herd then Trump will be calling it 'the greatest comeback in history', the rest of the polling industry and Nate Silver would be humiliated and Trump will be re elected (though I suspect Biden will at least win the popular vote again).
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
538 give a rating to all pollsters, based on how accurate their results are historically, not just cherry picking 2016.
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
But you have to admit life would be a lot simpler if Trafalgar were proved correct and everybody else wrong, so wrong indeed they could all eff off and in future all we need to do is ask Trafalgar what the result is going to be.
We could even do away with the election itself!
Are Trafalgar the US Opinium? Cited knowingly as more in tune than the rest on the back of winning the game of musical chairs last time
The problem is that no-one knows.
Trafalgar Group does not appear to be a legally incorporated entity. It's not an "Inc" or an "LLC" or an "LLP". No-one knows who owns it.
Unlike with YouGov, Ipsos Mori, Opinium, Survey Monkey, etc., they don't seem to have a business producing research for companies. (Most pollsters treat political opinion polls as advertising for their main business of seeing if people would be interested in buying Apple Cinammon flavoured bran flakes.)
And the Trafalgar polls are not commissioned by any newspapers, as far as I know.
So, who are Trafalgar's clients, and how do they make money?
Now, it's possible that they work on the side for the Republican Party (or the Democrats), and are just a secretive partnership.
But then comes the next issue: they give bugger all information about their polls. How many respondents are registered Democrats? How many are Republicans? They have an adjustment for "shy Trump supporters" apparently, but how much? Are they getting a lot of High School Educated respondents?
Ultimately, we just don't know.
Nate Silver is pretty clear that he thinks they are fake. He thinks they just take a state's average polling and move the needle six points towards the Republicans. That would have resulted - in 2016 - in you getting Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin right, and Nevada wrong. And that's what happened.
In 2018, at the midterms, they were pretty reliably six points more Republican than any pollster. And in 2020, they are (again) six points to the Right.
Indeed, the consistency of Trafalgar's six point shift is suspicious all of itself. There should be volatility in their polling, just as there is volatility in everyone else's.
We'll see if they're right this year. My guess, FWIW, is that other pollsters will have largely corrected (and maybe over-corrected) undersampling of HS educated voters, and therefore they won't be particularly accurate. But that's just a guess.
What state are they based in? Do they have an actual office with actual employees? Why don't they have any polls in between elections in the US?
They claim to use both an online panel and telephone interviews, yet there's no way to join their panel from their website, so how do they get people to quiz?
Comments
If they were the actual rules I think that would be better!
I asked the question and you answered it which is fair enough but to single out one element of a gigantic raft of measures which overall benefited the United Kingdom is not logical.
We were and are perfectly sovereign. And as a sovereign nation willingly agreed to those compromises. Just like people and countries do if they want to co-exist with others.
Boris would of course be on the phone straight away to Trump to congratulate him, '...well done Donald, fabulous result, always knew you would do it, now about that trade deal....'
This helps strengthen my theory that EU supporters don't have much of a connection with the country, just seeing it as an arbitrary strip of land, such as Surrey, your road or your house. It's quite depressing really.
Shorting the Pound seems sensible.
The EU is gradually moving towards full unification, they don't really make a secret of it.
Can someone confirm my understanding that I, as a plague-ridden zombie in Tier 2 London, cannot go a Kent country pub in the utopia of Tier 1 and meet my brother for lunch?
My reading of the BBC website says that is illegal. Is this valid? Am I now confined to the charnel pit that London is to become forced to decide in my last hours whether that doner was really such a good idea (we've all been there)?
In Michigan the latest polls all have Biden with a lead of between 6 and 11 points, except for Trafalgar, who have the lowest rating a C- gives Trump a 1 point lead.
You can put your eggs into one Trafalgar basket. I'm not going to.
As for the "ever closer union" - damn right, it's on the front page of their glossy brochure. What a shame, then, that we didn't manage to negotiate some kind of opt-out.
" a memo seen by the BBC shows plans for additional money for local authorities. They would get £1 per head of population if placed into tier two, and £2 per head for tier three."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54463081
*Edit: well, for the past few centuries at least.
I equally find it quite depressing that someone would by default support their country regardless. This blind patriotism is dangerous and unpleasant. Why not treat everyone on their own merits.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
https://twitter.com/andywigmore/status/1316703721607307265?s=20
Does anyone have perchance a link to see the data for all 28 countries?
All the above is based on an interpreting "can" as what you are allowed to do within the law, rather than what you will very likely be able to get away with should you be inclined to spread the plague.
What's your concern with Michigan ?
We could even do away with the election itself!
(Which is the type I very much favour for mass testing, as it's doable on a large scale in the near term.)
This looks very different - single viral particle imaging.
As such, it's probably more usefully applicable to future virus threats.
Have you got a new script?
And with governments elected typically on sub 40% of the vote it is always the case that a majority will likely oppose their actions.
I also think the concept that no Parliament can bind its successors is very valuable.
That is nowhere near predicting a landslide.
In one of those four elections a 28.6% chance came in.
HYUFD thinks this shows 538 are flawed.
I think this shows HYUFD doesn't understand probabilities.
Future commitments should be able to be cancelled, but the past has already happened. You can change the future but you can't just write off the past.
If Trafalgar's final polls are still out of line with just about everyone else on the eve of polling yet they prove to be most accurate then they will deserve the plaudits. If they are way out their 2016 success will become a distant memory.
Now we all know the commitment was given in respect of the Constitution (a commitment I believe shared by the Tories and Lib Dem’s at the 2005 election thereby neutralising it as an issue) not the Lisbon Treaty. However, we also know that the Lisbon Treaty is pretty much the same thing with “Constitution” crossed out and “Lisbon Treaty” printed as the new title.
So I guess the thinking was akin to “Oh hey presto, it became a “treaty” so no need for a referendum, we’ll sign it anyway. Phew, that was close, we’d never have got them to vote for the Constitution, especially as it had gone down in flames at the ballot box elsewhere in Europe anyway. So onwards to ever closer union, Never mind if the voters actually want that, they’ll never be able to undo that one now. Why they’d have to actually leave the EU and that’s not going to happen is it?”
You can’t fool all the people all the time.
AFAICS the answer is Yes.
a) The Tier 2 rules apply to activity in the Tier 2 area (Tier 2 regulations Schedule 1).
b) I can find no legal ban on travel from Tier 2 to a Tier 1 place for the purpose of going to the pub
c) In Tier 1 it is legal to have lunch in the pub with you brother (rule of 6 applies).
Yes it's all barmy. That's what happens when you legislate for family and friendship.
Anyone agree?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1104/pdfs/uksi_20201104_en.pdf
Keep up.
"Strugeon condemns Johnson's handling of Brexit"
He said he wanted to resolve the issue but said he will implement tier 3 if not
Trafalgar Group does not appear to be a legally incorporated entity. It's not an "Inc" or an "LLC" or an "LLP". No-one knows who owns it.
Unlike with YouGov, Ipsos Mori, Opinium, Survey Monkey, etc., they don't seem to have a business producing research for companies. (Most pollsters treat political opinion polls as advertising for their main business of seeing if people would be interested in buying Apple Cinammon flavoured bran flakes.)
And the Trafalgar polls are not commissioned by any newspapers, as far as I know.
So, who are Trafalgar's clients, and how do they make money?
Now, it's possible that they work on the side for the Republican Party (or the Democrats), and are just a secretive partnership.
But then comes the next issue: they give bugger all information about their polls. How many respondents are registered Democrats? How many are Republicans? They have an adjustment for "shy Trump supporters" apparently, but how much? Are they getting a lot of High School Educated respondents?
Ultimately, we just don't know.
Nate Silver is pretty clear that he thinks they are fake. He thinks they just take a state's average polling and move the needle six points towards the Republicans. That would have resulted - in 2016 - in you getting Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin right, and Nevada wrong. And that's what happened.
In 2018, at the midterms, they were pretty reliably six points more Republican than any pollster. And in 2020, they are (again) six points to the Right.
Indeed, the consistency of Trafalgar's six point shift is suspicious all of itself. There should be volatility in their polling, just as there is volatility in everyone else's.
We'll see if they're right this year. My guess, FWIW, is that other pollsters will have largely corrected (and maybe over-corrected) undersampling of HS educated voters, and therefore they won't be particularly accurate. But that's just a guess.
https://twitter.com/tracyweber/status/1316805642854821889
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1317120455577391104
Even those treaties signed by the self-same government 15 days earlier, e.g. the Geneva Convention on the Seas.
"Boris" has a duty and responsibility for the decision and needs to decide what to do.
Others dont agree with him.
Boris complains that others dont agree with him and says please agree with me.
Boris threatens unless you agree to do what I want, I'll do what I want.
All the time he dithers the restrictions are not in place, nor is the economic support package.
I can see why we are making such great progress with the Brexit negotiations.
Like other forecasters they gave appropriate weight to state polling which turned out to be systemically wrong in the mid-Western states considered to be Clinton's firewall.
Yet unlike other forecasters which had written off Trump they had him with a 1 in 3 chance just a couple of days prior to election day, because they refused to rule out the possibility of systemic polling error. 538 came in for a lot of stick for rating Trump's chances as high as they did.
You might have missed the fairly obvious fact that polling companies will have changed their methodologies since 2016, as confirmed here:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-pollsters-have-changed-since-2016-and-what-still-worries-them-about-2020/
"Nearly every pollster we talked to has made some kind of modification since the last general election. Some changes were precipitated by what happened in 2016, while others were driven by the challenges facing the polling industry, such as low response rates to phone calls and the greater cost of high-quality polling. But one thing came up again and again in our interviews: Pollsters told us they were now weighting their samples by education, because one key takeaway from 2016 was just how important someone’s level of educational attainment was in predicting their vote."
Meanwhile, a broken clock is still right every 12 hours. Trafalgar might have got lucky in 2016, but their C- rating reflects the fact that in general they have been wrong more often than most over several election cycles. Your attempts to talk them up are getting a bit wearing to be honest.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1316836239564304388?s=09
Why not use much more contrasting colours
They claim to use both an online panel and telephone interviews, yet there's no way to join their panel from their website, so how do they get people to quiz?