The concentration on this new testing and that it will still be a while before up and running, suggests a lot about what the scientists think is the remaining time for covid to be a huge factor in our lives.
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?
He’s not a bad one. T May’s treaty was the Michael Collins’ option so to speak, but all those Labour MP’s from the Midlands and the North that were elected in 2017 on respecting the referendum, refused to actually vote for anything practical to enact the vote, to take that route, instead choosing the McCawber option of hoping something would turn up to make it go away without them having to do anything, and the result was - Boris with his 80 seat majority and the option of going down the harder more “ De Valera let’s do independence in one chunk” route.
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?
I think its also important to see what the difference is Trafalagar's polling to others. In Michigan they did a single poll right at the very end, they had a +2 Trump result. The rest of the pollsters were +4 to +6 Clinton, so between a 6 and 8 difference. Currently Trafalgar is showing a result in Michigan that is 8-10 points different, so either Trafalgar is repeating its 2016 results and the other pollsters are even further off or they are currently an outlier.
Personally I doubt the other pollsters have gotten worse, considering after changing methodology to weight by education they were very good with polling in 2018. Still proof is in the pudding and thats 2.5 weeks away.
Now that is good. Some continued signs of cases levelling off (although of course it's just one day and it could be 25,000 tomorrow).
Mission accomplished banner on standby.
Given how laggy the Cases by Specimen Date figures are (not close to complete for 5-6 days) , I have always wondered if the Reported Date stats are massaged, and by how much. But there is probably good reason for universities going back to cause a short-term spike.
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.
It's not whataboutism. Countries rescind, break, bend and generally make origami out of treaties. The real question is whether people care.
The EU is already in breach (arguably) of the Austrian State Treaty. Should we restart the occupation of Vienna?
Spain had a ridiculously strict lockdown, so how did they do so bad?
The lockdown was hard and it worked - the mistake was the ending was way too rapid and there was an attempt to rescue the Summer tourist season which has been a disaster - more especially from the movement of Spanish nationals to the costas in July and August.
I don't think the law says that. At least, I can't find it.
Page 10: Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1:
Participation in gatherings indoors
1.—(1) No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 2 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(2) No person living in the Tier 2 area may participate in a gathering outside that area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 4 apply.
The concentration on this new testing and that it will still be a while before up and running, suggests a lot about what the scientists think is the remaining time for covid to be a huge factor in our lives.
Anecdata... a new testing station set up near where I work this week. Up and running within a couple of days.
Doesn't help the lab capacity, which is the constraint, of course.
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.
It's not whataboutism. Countries rescind, break, bend and generally make origami out of treaties. The real question is whether people care.
The EU is already in breach (arguably) of the Austrian State Treaty. Should we restart the occupation of Vienna?
Precisely. Very well said.
International rules are more what you might call guidelines. National laws are far more important.
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.
Did it really? I thought it was regarded as having waged economic warfare, to some extent. At least over the promise to pay compensation to the landlords. Am I missing something?
Churchill was certainly not happy about not being able to use the Treaty Ports in WW2 - but they did allow a flight corridor for the Catalinas and Sunderlands flying off Lough Erne, as I recall.
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.
Or sit at adjacent tables in the pub and pretend not to know each other. Then strike u a conversation and discover that you have got lots in common. Such as your DNA.
Doubling times still going up, London now at 14 days, it looks like the levelling has continued for the third day in a row nationally as well. @Gallowgate the early data for the 14th doesn't looks great in the NE, but it could be due to a lower swab to processing delta.
It is terrible. There is huge research in colour coding / visualization over the years and a number of python packages which offer fantastically clear colour coding for different requirements.
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.
And yes there is a risk of over-correction from pollsters still fighting the last war. We've seen a lot of that in recent UK general elections. The mounting evidence that Democrats are very enthused to vote in 2020 is in stark contrast to their ambivalence in 2016, so assuming that the lessons of 2016 apply now may be overdoing it. It doesn't really matter that people may be voting against Trump rather than for Biden. What matters is that they're queuing at early in-person polling stations or posting votes back in record numbers.
Has BJ ever threatened something and not followed through?
After this presentation Greater Manchester will be in tier 3 very soon
If the situation is grave then the PM needs to act. Regardless of what the Mayor, all the MPs and all the councils think. That's what an 80 seat majority is for.
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.
What are you talking about??!
Yes it did. So what???
The Treaty contained a load of stuff.
We were promised a vote, mostly, as I understand it, because Cabinet members persuaded even Blair, it was so far reaching the electorate needed consulting directly.
All main parties promised a vote. We didn’t get it, did we? We didn’t get chance to say “no thanks, think again”.
I don't think the law says that. At least, I can't find it.
Page 10: Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1:
Participation in gatherings indoors
1.—(1) No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 2 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(2) No person living in the Tier 2 area may participate in a gathering outside that area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 4 apply.
It is terrible. There is huge research in colour coding / visualization over the years and a number of python packages which offer fantastically clear colour coding for different requirements.
Has BJ ever threatened something and not followed through?
After this presentation Greater Manchester will be in tier 3 very soon
If the situation is grave then the PM needs to act. Regardless of what the Mayor, all the MPs and all the councils think. That's what an 80 seat majority is for.
He should stop dicking around and put an 80% furlough and full business support in for Tier 3.
13% difference for mainly the lowest paid employees matters massively more for them but is a virtual rounding error for overall covid-costs . . . and a fully engaged local clampdown would be far, far, far cheaper than a national one.
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?
I think its also important to see what the difference is Trafalagar's polling to others. In Michigan they did a single poll right at the very end, they had a +2 Trump result. The rest of the pollsters were +4 to +6 Clinton, so between a 6 and 8 difference. Currently Trafalgar is showing a result in Michigan that is 8-10 points different, so either Trafalgar is repeating its 2016 results and the other pollsters are even further off or they are currently an outlier.
Personally I doubt the other pollsters have gotten worse, considering after changing methodology to weight by education they were very good with polling in 2018. Still proof is in the pudding and thats 2.5 weeks away.
I suspect most pollsters are going to be significantly out, one way or another, at the state level. A likely massively increased turnout, and differential switches across various demographic groups, is going to throw up surprises.
But my guess is that the national polling will hold up. FWIW, laid a slug more Trump under 3 on Betfair this afternoon (and partially hedged, this time on Biden EV 240-269 .. which gives me a bit of cover on the tie, which the Trump EV hedge doesn't).
I don't think the law says that. At least, I can't find it.
Page 10: Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1:
Participation in gatherings indoors
1.—(1) No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 2 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(2) No person living in the Tier 2 area may participate in a gathering outside that area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 4 apply.
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.
Did it really? I thought it was regarded as having waged economic warfare, to some extent. At least over the promise to pay compensation to the landlords. Am I missing something?
Churchill was certainly not happy about not being able to use the Treaty Ports in WW2 - but they did allow a flight corridor for the Catalinas and Sunderlands flying off Lough Erne, as I recall.
Ironically, Dev realised what Collins had said all along - get any kind of independence, you can change it from there - was right. 26/32 of a loaf and all that. The civil war had been completely pointless.
Ireland unilaterally converted itself from being a Commonwealth state, with deeper structural/legal ties than most, into a completely separate republic, by voting stuff through in the Dail, and essentially, looking at the UK and waiting for a reaction. Which never came.
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.
Survation's final 2015 poll was Tories plus 7% ie the most accurate, just it was unpublished as they did not believe it, Survation's final 2011 poll was Tories +11% ie almost spot on as they were in 2017 when they had Tories +1%
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.
What are you talking about??!
Yes it did. So what???
The Treaty contained a load of stuff.
We were promised a vote, mostly, as I understand it, because Cabinet members persuaded even Blair, it was so far reaching the electorate needed consulting directly.
All main parties promised a vote. We didn’t get it, did we? We didn’t get chance to say “no thanks, think again”.
Lisbon was less significant than Maastricht.
In any case your argument is still one against the British system rather than against the EU. Perhaps we need a constitution that requires a referendum for certain changes.
It is terrible. There is huge research in colour coding / visualization over the years and a number of python packages which offer fantastically clear colour coding for different requirements.
Seaborn ftw.
Seaborn certainly makes nice figures. i think palettable is a great library for a big collection of colormaps.
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.
Did it really? I thought it was regarded as having waged economic warfare, to some extent. At least over the promise to pay compensation to the landlords. Am I missing something?
Churchill was certainly not happy about not being able to use the Treaty Ports in WW2 - but they did allow a flight corridor for the Catalinas and Sunderlands flying off Lough Erne, as I recall.
Ironically, Dev realised what Collins had said all along - get any kind of independence, you can change it from there - was right. 26/32 of a loaf and all that. The civil war had been completely pointless.
Ireland unilaterally converted itself from being a Commonwealth state, with deeper structural/legal ties than most, into a completely separate republic, by voting stuff through in the Dail, and essentially, looking at the UK and waiting for a reaction. Which never came.
Which is what the UK is doing now too. Get independence with Boris's deal, then override the objectionable bits with the Internal Market Bill.
Has BJ ever threatened something and not followed through?
After this presentation Greater Manchester will be in tier 3 very soon
If the situation is grave then the PM needs to act. Regardless of what the Mayor, all the MPs and all the councils think. That's what an 80 seat majority is for.
I agree and hope Boris will enforce tier 3 on Greater Manchester, especially since Vallance clearly endorsing the local tiering as the way to reduce R below 1
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.
Did it really? I thought it was regarded as having waged economic warfare, to some extent. At least over the promise to pay compensation to the landlords. Am I missing something?
Churchill was certainly not happy about not being able to use the Treaty Ports in WW2 - but they did allow a flight corridor for the Catalinas and Sunderlands flying off Lough Erne, as I recall.
Ironically, Dev realised what Collins had said all along - get any kind of independence, you can change it from there - was right. 26/32 of a loaf and all that. The civil war had been completely pointless.
Ireland unilaterally converted itself from being a Commonwealth state, with deeper structural/legal ties than most, into a completely separate republic, by voting stuff through in the Dail, and essentially, looking at the UK and waiting for a reaction. Which never came.
Has BJ ever threatened something and not followed through?
After this presentation Greater Manchester will be in tier 3 very soon
If the situation is grave then the PM needs to act. Regardless of what the Mayor, all the MPs and all the councils think. That's what an 80 seat majority is for.
He should stop dicking around and put an 80% furlough and full business support in for Tier 3.
13% difference for mainly the lowest paid employees matters massively more for them but is a virtual rounding error for overall covid-costs . . . and a fully engaged local clampdown would be far, far, far cheaper than a national one.
Agreed. That would be my preferred route. Waiting for Bunham to give him cover is irresponsibility. If the picture is as bad as painted he should bite the bullet now. Either stump up the money or don't. But do it now. Do or do not do. There is no 3rd option.
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.
What are you talking about??!
Yes it did. So what???
The Treaty contained a load of stuff.
We were promised a vote, mostly, as I understand it, because Cabinet members persuaded even Blair, it was so far reaching the electorate needed consulting directly.
All main parties promised a vote. We didn’t get it, did we? We didn’t get chance to say “no thanks, think again”.
Lisbon was less significant than Maastricht.
In any case your argument is still one against the British system rather than against the EU. Perhaps we need a constitution that requires a referendum for certain changes.
Under the UK system if the Government passes a bad law a future Government can reverse it.
Under the EU we could not, there was a ratchet effect that meant changes could only go in one direction.
That ratchett has been broken now. Brexit has achieved that, so any future laws can be reversed.
Schwarzenegger: California Republicans 'off the rails' with 'fake' ballot boxes https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/10/15/schwarzenegger-california-republicans-off-the-rails-with-fake-ballot-boxes-9424470 ..."It's a stupid thing that they're doing right now with those ballot boxes," Schwarzenegger said. "I think it's just Mickey Mouse stuff that, you know, has serious kind of effects. And I think that what they should do, really, is offer people hope and make everyone participate and make everyone be able to vote and those kind of things rather than make those fake ballot boxes."...
Has BJ ever threatened something and not followed through?
After this presentation Greater Manchester will be in tier 3 very soon
If the situation is grave then the PM needs to act. Regardless of what the Mayor, all the MPs and all the councils think. That's what an 80 seat majority is for.
I agree and hope Boris will enforce tier 3 on Greater Manchester, especially since Vallance clearly endorsing the local tiering as the way to reduce R below 1
Baseline tier 3 might not be enough to bring the R rate to below 1, according to Vallance. So "clearly endorsing", hmm?
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.
Do not go upsetting them with the truth. You know they hate that...
Has BJ ever threatened something and not followed through?
After this presentation Greater Manchester will be in tier 3 very soon
If the situation is grave then the PM needs to act. Regardless of what the Mayor, all the MPs and all the councils think. That's what an 80 seat majority is for.
He should stop dicking around and put an 80% furlough and full business support in for Tier 3.
13% difference for mainly the lowest paid employees matters massively more for them but is a virtual rounding error for overall covid-costs . . . and a fully engaged local clampdown would be far, far, far cheaper than a national one.
Agreed. That would be my preferred route. Waiting for Bunham to give him cover is irresponsibility. If the picture is as bad as painted he should bite the bullet now. Either stump up the money or don't. But do it now. Do or do not do. There is no 3rd option.
Trafalgar who reckon they can detect the Republican vote that tends to be quiet and which keeps its head down. They were very accurate in 2016 and today have Trump leading in Michigan 49 - 48. This could be the most significant development, as I keep saying put you money on Trump. If Michigan stays Republican then he is surely home, guess he would take Pennsylvania as well. It was really is a daft electoral system, far from Democratic.
I don't think the law says that. At least, I can't find it.
Page 10: Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1:
Participation in gatherings indoors
1.—(1) No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 2 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(2) No person living in the Tier 2 area may participate in a gathering outside that area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 4 apply.
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.
What are you talking about??!
Yes it did. So what???
The Treaty contained a load of stuff.
We were promised a vote, mostly, as I understand it, because Cabinet members persuaded even Blair, it was so far reaching the electorate needed consulting directly.
All main parties promised a vote. We didn’t get it, did we? We didn’t get chance to say “no thanks, think again”.
Lisbon was less significant than Maastricht.
In any case your argument is still one against the British system rather than against the EU. Perhaps we need a constitution that requires a referendum for certain changes.
Under the UK system if the Government passes a bad law a future Government can reverse it.
Under the EU we could not, there was a ratchet effect that meant changes could only go in one direction.
That ratchett has been broken now. Brexit has achieved that, so any future laws can be reversed.
The EU can repeal an EU law too. Your argument hinges only on the definition of 'we'.
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
Methinks PT was being sarcastic (like Lindsay Graham, kind of).
Sadly also think that HYUFD is dead serious re: his Shy Trumpsky vote = 5%
Perhaps we should calling this massive bloc the "Not-So-Proud Boy" vote?
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.
What are you talking about??!
Yes it did. So what???
The Treaty contained a load of stuff.
We were promised a vote, mostly, as I understand it, because Cabinet members persuaded even Blair, it was so far reaching the electorate needed consulting directly.
All main parties promised a vote. We didn’t get it, did we? We didn’t get chance to say “no thanks, think again”.
Lisbon was less significant than Maastricht.
In any case your argument is still one against the British system rather than against the EU. Perhaps we need a constitution that requires a referendum for certain changes.
Maybe we do. Not a bad idea to enshrine when to have votes.
The Irish have had votes on all the EU treaties I believe. Very wise. At least there’s been regular consultations with the people over the years as to whether they agreed with the direction of travel from EEC, EC, EU, Maastricht Nice Lisbon etc etc, and with a bit of arm twisting (poor in my view but that’s not the point here) the Irish have indicated they’re ok with the “mission creep” from 1973 to now. Fine. Good for them.
We had one “gerrymandered” vote in 1975 and nothing till 2016. No wonder the establishment got out of touch!
The ramp of UK hospitalisations is getting rather steep.
Yes, corresponds to the data from a 7-10 days ago which had a steep rise in cases.
I think the evidence points to R rapidly heading down towards 1, and perhaps now being under it. The problem is that the numbers (as always) are capturing the situation a couple of weeks ago.
Our government's habit of staring hard into the rear view mirror is deeply disturbing.
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.
Did it really? I thought it was regarded as having waged economic warfare, to some extent. At least over the promise to pay compensation to the landlords. Am I missing something?
Churchill was certainly not happy about not being able to use the Treaty Ports in WW2 - but they did allow a flight corridor for the Catalinas and Sunderlands flying off Lough Erne, as I recall.
Ironically, Dev realised what Collins had said all along - get any kind of independence, you can change it from there - was right. 26/32 of a loaf and all that. The civil war had been completely pointless.
Ireland unilaterally converted itself from being a Commonwealth state, with deeper structural/legal ties than most, into a completely separate republic, by voting stuff through in the Dail, and essentially, looking at the UK and waiting for a reaction. Which never came.
Ah, thank you!
I am a remainer - Small r deliberate.
I always said, sign whatever the EU wants.
Then the UK Supreme Court can rule it illegal, on constitutional grounds later. "Sorry, but you know these judges, bit like the ECJ, eh?"
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.
What are you talking about??!
Yes it did. So what???
The Treaty contained a load of stuff.
We were promised a vote, mostly, as I understand it, because Cabinet members persuaded even Blair, it was so far reaching the electorate needed consulting directly.
All main parties promised a vote. We didn’t get it, did we? We didn’t get chance to say “no thanks, think again”.
Lisbon was less significant than Maastricht.
In any case your argument is still one against the British system rather than against the EU. Perhaps we need a constitution that requires a referendum for certain changes.
Maybe we do. Not a bad idea to enshrine when to have votes.
The Irish have had votes on all the EU treaties I believe. Very wise. At least there’s been regular consultations with the people over the years as to whether they agreed with the direction of travel from EEC, EC, EU, Maastricht Nice Lisbon etc etc, and with a bit of arm twisting (poor in my view but that’s not the point here) the Irish have indicated they’re ok with the “mission creep” from 1973 to now. Fine. Good for them.
We had one “gerrymandered” vote in 1975 and nothing till 2016. No wonder the establishment got out of touch!
I don't think the law says that. At least, I can't find it.
Page 10: Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1:
Participation in gatherings indoors
1.—(1) No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 2 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(2) No person living in the Tier 2 area may participate in a gathering outside that area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 4 apply.
The ramp of UK hospitalisations is getting rather steep.
Yes, corresponds to the data from a 7-10 days ago which had a steep rise in cases.
I think the evidence points to R rapidly heading down towards 1, and perhaps now being under it. The problem is that the numbers (as always) are capturing the situation a couple of weeks ago.
Our government's habit of staring hard into the rear view mirror is deeply disturbing.
Again, how much of it is being driven by some of these mathematical models, which shall we say give some interesting results.
Trafalgar who reckon they can detect the Republican vote that tends to be quiet and which keeps its head down. They were very accurate in 2016 and today have Trump leading in Michigan 49 - 48. This could be the most significant development, as I keep saying put you money on Trump. If Michigan stays Republican then he is surely home, guess he would take Pennsylvania as well. It was really is a daft electoral system, far from Democratic.
Well the Shy Pollster is going to be best placed to detect the Shy Tumper.
The ramp of UK hospitalisations is getting rather steep.
Yes, corresponds to the data from a 7-10 days ago which had a steep rise in cases.
I think the evidence points to R rapidly heading down towards 1, and perhaps now being under it. The problem is that the numbers (as always) are capturing the situation a couple of weeks ago.
Our government's habit of staring hard into the rear view mirror is deeply disturbing.
It's the only way to drive in this crisis. The road ahead is completely unmarked.
What I like about Trafalgar is the detailed cross tabs that allow you to easily check the internal consistency of their polls.
Sarky!
They used to give at least some cross demo breakdowns in 2018 and 2016 but especially in 2016 they had ridiculous things like Trump winning the 18-25 year old group in Colorado by 10 points.
First polling must cause Andy to wonder how it got it so wrong
A poll of the North West and Greater Manchester would say differently I'm guessing.
Indeed
Burnham is VERY popular with what he is doing with just about everyone locally I have spoken to on this matter.
Polls of the UK are generally poor for the SNP. 4-5%. And it is noticeable it asks about the NW. Burnham isn't mayor of the NW which has bits in all three Tiers. But it's all North. So.
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.
Do you think money is flowing from softhead believers to hardhead purveyors?
Because come to think of it that is a theme with most things of this nature.
Trafalgar isn’t like Quinnipiac. The latter does tend to have a Dem bias but it’s not evident in every poll , sometimes it shows worse results than the others . Trafalgar resolutely pops out polls which show around a 6 point improvement for the GOP compared to the polling average . The issue in 2016 was not enough pollsters weighted for education and didn’t have enough non college educated white voters in their sample , that’s why we saw those misses in some key states , they have now addressed that issue . Trafalgar seems to have doubled down on its 2016 polls determined to find even more allegedly shy Trump voters .
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.
What are you talking about??!
Yes it did. So what???
The Treaty contained a load of stuff.
We were promised a vote, mostly, as I understand it, because Cabinet members persuaded even Blair, it was so far reaching the electorate needed consulting directly.
All main parties promised a vote. We didn’t get it, did we? We didn’t get chance to say “no thanks, think again”.
Lisbon was less significant than Maastricht.
In any case your argument is still one against the British system rather than against the EU. Perhaps we need a constitution that requires a referendum for certain changes.
Maybe we do. Not a bad idea to enshrine when to have votes.
The Irish have had votes on all the EU treaties I believe. Very wise. At least there’s been regular consultations with the people over the years as to whether they agreed with the direction of travel from EEC, EC, EU, Maastricht Nice Lisbon etc etc, and with a bit of arm twisting (poor in my view but that’s not the point here) the Irish have indicated they’re ok with the “mission creep” from 1973 to now. Fine. Good for them.
We had one “gerrymandered” vote in 1975 and nothing till 2016. No wonder the establishment got out of touch!
I don't think the law says that. At least, I can't find it.
Page 10: Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1:
Participation in gatherings indoors
1.—(1) No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 2 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(2) No person living in the Tier 2 area may participate in a gathering outside that area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 4 apply.
First polling must cause Andy to wonder how it got it so wrong
A poll of the North West and Greater Manchester would say differently I'm guessing.
Indeed
Burnham is VERY popular with what he is doing with just about everyone locally I have spoken to on this matter.
Polls of the UK are generally poor for the SNP. 4-5%. And it is noticeable it asks about the NW. Burnham isn't mayor of the NW which has bits in all three Tiers. But it's all North. So.
I don't think the law says that. At least, I can't find it.
Page 10: Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1:
Participation in gatherings indoors
1.—(1) No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 2 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(2) No person living in the Tier 2 area may participate in a gathering outside that area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 4 apply.
What I like about Trafalgar is the detailed cross tabs that allow you to easily check the internal consistency of their polls.
Sarky!
They used to give at least some cross demo breakdowns in 2018 and 2016 but especially in 2016 they had ridiculous things like Trump winning the 18-25 year old group in Colorado by 10 points.
So they stopped.
Imagine you're 18-25 and live in a Trumpy area, loads of Trump yard signs about. You'd probably think your neighbour was voting for Trump too. You're probably not voting given that demographic's terrible turnout.
Comments
Personally I doubt the other pollsters have gotten worse, considering after changing methodology to weight by education they were very good with polling in 2018. Still proof is in the pudding and thats 2.5 weeks away.
The EU is already in breach (arguably) of the Austrian State Treaty. Should we restart the occupation of Vienna?
Participation in gatherings indoors
1.—(1) No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 2 area which—
(a) consists of two or more people, and
(b) takes place indoors.
(2) No person living in the Tier 2 area may participate in a gathering outside that area which—
(a) consists of two or more people, and
(b) takes place indoors.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 4 apply.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1104/pdfs/uksi_20201104_en.pdf
Up and running within a couple of days.
Doesn't help the lab capacity, which is the constraint, of course.
International rules are more what you might call guidelines. National laws are far more important.
Churchill was certainly not happy about not being able to use the Treaty Ports in WW2 - but they did allow a flight corridor for the Catalinas and Sunderlands flying off Lough Erne, as I recall.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-pollsters-have-changed-since-2016-and-what-still-worries-them-about-2020/
And yes there is a risk of over-correction from pollsters still fighting the last war. We've seen a lot of that in recent UK general elections. The mounting evidence that Democrats are very enthused to vote in 2020 is in stark contrast to their ambivalence in 2016, so assuming that the lessons of 2016 apply now may be overdoing it. It doesn't really matter that people may be voting against Trump rather than for Biden. What matters is that they're queuing at early in-person polling stations or posting votes back in record numbers.
That's what an 80 seat majority is for.
Yes it did. So what???
The Treaty contained a load of stuff.
We were promised a vote, mostly, as I understand it, because Cabinet members persuaded even Blair, it was so far reaching the electorate needed consulting directly.
All main parties promised a vote. We didn’t get it, did we? We didn’t get chance to say “no thanks, think again”.
13% difference for mainly the lowest paid employees matters massively more for them but is a virtual rounding error for overall covid-costs . . . and a fully engaged local clampdown would be far, far, far cheaper than a national one.
But my guess is that the national polling will hold up.
FWIW, laid a slug more Trump under 3 on Betfair this afternoon (and partially hedged, this time on Biden EV 240-269 .. which gives me a bit of cover on the tie, which the Trump EV hedge doesn't).
Can the OP form a support bubble with his brother, and then form another support bubble the next time he wants to go to the pub?
Ireland unilaterally converted itself from being a Commonwealth state, with deeper structural/legal ties than most, into a completely separate republic, by voting stuff through in the Dail, and essentially, looking at the UK and waiting for a reaction. Which never came.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metformin#History
https://twitter.com/rtnarch/status/1317116345125904385
In any case your argument is still one against the British system rather than against the EU. Perhaps we need a constitution that requires a referendum for certain changes.
Either stump up the money or don't. But do it now.
Do or do not do. There is no 3rd option.
Poor old Andy.
Under the EU we could not, there was a ratchet effect that meant changes could only go in one direction.
That ratchett has been broken now. Brexit has achieved that, so any future laws can be reversed.
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/10/15/schwarzenegger-california-republicans-off-the-rails-with-fake-ballot-boxes-9424470
..."It's a stupid thing that they're doing right now with those ballot boxes," Schwarzenegger said. "I think it's just Mickey Mouse stuff that, you know, has serious kind of effects. And I think that what they should do, really, is offer people hope and make everyone participate and make everyone be able to vote and those kind of things rather than make those fake ballot boxes."...
Trump blasts Susan Collins over SCOTUS amid reelection fight
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/16/trump-susan-collins-scotus-reelection-fight-429799
It was really is a daft electoral system, far from Democratic.
Sadly also think that HYUFD is dead serious re: his Shy Trumpsky vote = 5%
Perhaps we should calling this massive bloc the "Not-So-Proud Boy" vote?
The Irish have had votes on all the EU treaties I believe. Very wise. At least there’s been regular consultations with the people over the years as to whether they agreed with the direction of travel from EEC, EC, EU, Maastricht Nice Lisbon etc etc, and with a bit of arm twisting (poor in my view but that’s not the point here) the Irish have indicated they’re ok with the “mission creep” from 1973 to now. Fine. Good for them.
We had one “gerrymandered” vote in 1975 and nothing till 2016. No wonder the establishment got out of touch!
Our government's habit of staring hard into the rear view mirror is deeply disturbing.
I always said, sign whatever the EU wants.
Then the UK Supreme Court can rule it illegal, on constitutional grounds later. "Sorry, but you know these judges, bit like the ECJ, eh?"
I was meant to come off it but still haven't my bloods taken, were due in April.
Hospitalisations lag cases
Deaths lag hospitalisations
We are seeing, in recent days, what appears to be a least a pause in *cases* increasing.
Burnham is VERY popular with what he is doing with just about everyone locally I have spoken to on this matter.
Johnson: "I think everyone in every sector will be prepared for this. We will do mightily."
What a load of bollocks. He doesn't even pretend to answer the questions now.
Journalists should refuse to partake in these sessions when they have no proper face-to-face follow up to the lying clown.
So they stopped.
And it is noticeable it asks about the NW. Burnham isn't mayor of the NW which has bits in all three Tiers.
But it's all North. So.
Because come to think of it that is a theme with most things of this nature.
Why has the return of universities in some regions caused an explosion in fresher cases in 16-29 year olds and not in other regions?
Luck? Universities are testing in a different way in their own labs? There must be something. It is very odd.
Where a tweet is selective and not at all what was said as evidence by the next tweet, I will call it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg