And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
Yes, but the question is: why? It makes no sense that the markets are moving towards Trump. They should be heading towards what the polls indicate, as the election gets closer and so many votes are already cast.
That is indeed the question. My answer thus far has been that people have last time on the brain and it's clouding their thinking. Rather like with our GE19. But it's becoming such a disconnect, despite the election being close and all the early voting, that I wonder if we could be missing some other big factor. What do you think?
I think there are some possible reasons here:
1. While Biden's lead in national polls has stayed fairly the same, if you were to look at RCP (I know...), you would see a drift down in national / battleground polls - not much but still. There is also the "Trump is ahead of where he was" argument;
2. I don't think Biden has necessarily answered the Hunter Biden questions well. I know the consensus on here is that it is a sh1t allegation but JB's responses (denials with holes in it like "well, large parts of my diary were unofficial so it may have happened", and having a go at reporters) doesn't sound that great. The risk is more allegations come out (Trump is a known entity);
- Also on this point, many people were pointing to the Cunnigham-Tillis race as an example of where the polls didn't move following scandal. Well, now they have and the race is neck and neck. Scandals take some days to feed in;
3. There have been a fair few people pushing the regression analysis on voter registration stuff (JP Morgan's Quant guy has done his own and come to the same conclusion). Many people on here talk of a polling disaster but the less talked about flip side is that Biden winning in key states would also overturn what has been known on registration. One of the two main predictors will be proven wrong.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
If Scotland leaves the UK constitutionally, Spain is not going to object to EU membership. The argument with Catalonia is that the Catalans do not want to secede constitutionally.
That's not my point. They won't veto membership but they certainly have no interest in helping Scotland transition to EU membership in a way that pays. Simply encourages Catalan nationalism. Countries put the national interest first every time.
Once Scotland has voted Yes it is in Spain's interests to distance themselves from the Scottish independence issue. The smoother the transition and the more they can pin the blame on perfidious Albion the better.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
The second Yes wins a referendum the Spanish will be wanting to show the Scots are nothing like the Catalans and that the UK is not a precedence for them (any more than the breakup of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia was).
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
Quite. Madrid's main concern is with UDI. If Scotland were to somehow secede against London's wishes -- and I cannot see a scenario where that would even happen -- you could expect Madrid to play hardball.
I'm slightly Scottish so hopefully a Scot passport will allow me entry back into the EU at some point
If SIndy is smart they'll do as the US does and tie citizenship with global income & tax liability, irrespective of location or residence - they'll need the money. Then will you want one?
We cannot back down over fishing, we can on state aid, there was nothing specific about state aid in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto unlike on reclaiming our fishing waters
The manifesto made it clear we were taking back control of our laws and our money.
"State aid" is about control of our laws and money. Does everything need to be made explicit for you.
So long as we have control over our laws and money then we are OK according to the manifesto, if we do not have control over our laws and money then the manifesto has been breached.
For once @HYUFD has a very good point. Of course in the overall scheme of things the state aid question is more important, but, politically, voters don't understand it anyway and it has no emotional salience, whereas the (largely mythical) narrative of our doughty fisherman having been shafted by the evil EU nicking their fish does. You can just imagine Farage making a big play of fishermen being 'betrayed', it's harder for him or anyone else to make a big play of the UK government not being able to go back to the pre-Thatcher practice of wasting taxpayers' money on subsidising losers and failing to pick winners. Even the current lot of Conservative MPs are not fans of that kind of Cummings nonsense.
Therefore, if Boris does want a deal, then he needs something he can portray as a great victory for our intrepid fishermen. There doesn't need to be much reality to it, of course, and whatever it is, it will also have to leave room for Macron and the other leaders of the coastal states to claim it's a great victory for their fishermen. Tricky, but probably not impossible, if the UK government hasn't gone completely bonkers.
The compromise will be over the level of quota and the length of the transition.
Britain is currently asking for 3-year transition to a 50%+ quota for UK fishermen, and annual negotiations thereafter, rather than 80-90% for some fish at present under the CFP. Expect a compromise of a 5-year transition to a 30-40% quota for UK fishermen and 3-5 year period negotiations after that.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
It's not independence, it's an Australia-style relationship with England.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
The second Yes wins a referendum the Spanish will be wanting to show the Scots are nothing like the Catalans and that the UK is not a precedence for them (any more than the breakup of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia was).
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
Quite. Madrid's main concern is with UDI. If Scotland were to somehow secede against London's wishes -- and I cannot see a scenario where that would even happen -- you could expect Madrid to play hardball.
That scenario is not going to happen.
If Scotland were to secede then it will be because London has allowed it. In which case the Spanish will be trying to pin it on the English voting for Brexit and saying "nothing to do with us" and make the transition for the Scots back into the EU as easy as possible, because if Scotland easily gets back into the EU then Scottish independence has been demonstrated to be about Brexit not UDI so nothing like the Catalan issue.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
No deal is not that bad. It means an average of 3% tariffs - our currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
Do you actually believe this shit or are you just reading from a script. Tariffs are a big deal for cars and food, and the EU is the main export market for both those sectors (for that reason). But it is not mostly about the tariffs. It is about paperwork, ability of trucks to move, etc. No deal will be really bad. To even countenance it is lunacy.
Probably you or TUD, basically anyone who voted for Corbyn Labour last year or who votes SNP (except Malc G who is a rare rightwing Scottish nationalist)
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
The second Yes wins a referendum the Spanish will be wanting to show the Scots are nothing like the Catalans and that the UK is not a precedence for them (any more than the breakup of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia was).
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
Quite. Madrid's main concern is with UDI. If Scotland were to somehow secede against London's wishes -- and I cannot see a scenario where that would even happen -- you could expect Madrid to play hardball.
You can expect everyone to play hardball, not just Madrid. Sturgeon is many things, but she is not stupid.
Strip away the infantile "but they promised us a Canada Deal". Bottom line.
Frost, Gove and Johnson have so far failed to persuade their EU27 counterparts that a deal acceptable to the UK government is in their interests. The EU and its member states have no interest in protecting the UK from the consequences of its decision to leave the European Union. Any possible arrangement is necessarily worse, more precisely less, than the one the UK previously had. So we are talking about a potential arrangement that is better than nothing but worse than before. Even that is proving difficult.
A précis: people we don't like keep winning elections, what can we do about it?
No, just sensible points that if Scotland has a Parliament and Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies then so should England and Mayors should be accountable
Probably you or TUD, basically anyone who voted for Corbyn Labour last year or who votes SNP (except Malc G who is a rare rightwing Scottish nationalist)
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
The second Yes wins a referendum the Spanish will be wanting to show the Scots are nothing like the Catalans and that the UK is not a precedence for them (any more than the breakup of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia was).
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
Quite. Madrid's main concern is with UDI. If Scotland were to somehow secede against London's wishes -- and I cannot see a scenario where that would even happen -- you could expect Madrid to play hardball.
That scenario is not going to happen.
If Scotland were to secede then it will be because London has allowed it. In which case the Spanish will be trying to pin it on the English voting for Brexit and saying "nothing to do with us" and make the transition for the Scots back into the EU as easy as possible, because if Scotland easily gets back into the EU then Scottish independence has been demonstrated to be about Brexit not UDI so nothing like the Catalan issue.
There seems to be some confusion about "Canada Deal" and "Australian Terms". Here's a useful explainer.
The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.
In reality, the UK would get WTO plus a series of micro-deals in aviation, shipping and transport to keep the basics moving.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
Anything the EU has agreed to, or indicated they'd be prepared to do, won't survive Boris reneging on the Withdrawal Agreement. We could be heading, unbelievably, for the very worst of all the worst possible worlds: crashing out into WTO terms in maximum acrimony, without even the limited agreements similar to those Australia has, without the computer systems, customs agents, and other physical infrastructure in place, and in the middle of a global health catastrophe which has not only clobbered our economy but also has left companies with no spare resources to make preparations, even if they knew what they were supposed to be preparing for.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
No deal is not that bad. It means an average of 3% tariffs - our currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
Do you actually believe this shit or are you just reading from a script. Tariffs are a big deal for cars and food, and the EU is the main export market for both those sectors (for that reason). But it is not mostly about the tariffs. It is about paperwork, ability of trucks to move, etc. No deal will be really bad. To even countenance it is lunacy.
Yes I believe what I say.
Tariffs are bad for the country that levels the tariffs. The Kiwis unilaterally abolished their agricultural tariffs - and their agriculture improved it didn't get hurt.
If there are tariffs on cars and food then our economy will just need to adjust as well as it can, nothing lasts forever. If we're more productive doing something else we should do that on a global basis, it is Ricardian economics.
As for paperwork etc, there will need to be paperwork whether there is a deal or not, so that's really not as big a deal as people make out - even if we were to sign a deal tomorrow that wouldn't make all paperwork go away. And there will ]be some forms of minor side deals where its in both parties interests to do so even if there is no overarching deal.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
The second Yes wins a referendum the Spanish will be wanting to show the Scots are nothing like the Catalans and that the UK is not a precedence for them (any more than the breakup of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia was).
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
Quite. Madrid's main concern is with UDI. If Scotland were to somehow secede against London's wishes -- and I cannot see a scenario where that would even happen -- you could expect Madrid to play hardball.
That scenario is not going to happen.
If Scotland were to secede then it will be because London has allowed it. In which case the Spanish will be trying to pin it on the English voting for Brexit and saying "nothing to do with us" and make the transition for the Scots back into the EU as easy as possible, because if Scotland easily gets back into the EU then Scottish independence has been demonstrated to be about Brexit not UDI so nothing like the Catalan issue.
Too clever by half. If it works easily for Scotland then it works easily for Catalonia (and Flanders etc.) Anyway, that's not really the point. The question is whether EU will relax rules on things like debt. If not, very difficult to see how Scotland can rejoin within imposing ruinous austerity, as per the Greek experience.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
The second Yes wins a referendum the Spanish will be wanting to show the Scots are nothing like the Catalans and that the UK is not a precedence for them (any more than the breakup of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia was).
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
Quite. Madrid's main concern is with UDI. If Scotland were to somehow secede against London's wishes -- and I cannot see a scenario where that would even happen -- you could expect Madrid to play hardball.
If the SNP won a majority at Holyrood next year then Boris and the Tory majority at Westminster will block an indyref2 on the basis indyref1 in 2014 was once in a generation, in which case SNP hardliners would want Sturgeon to declare UDI, exactly as the nationalist Catalan government did when Madrid blocked an independence referendum. Rajoy then suspended the Catalan Parliament and even arrested nationalist leaders or forced them into exile.
In which case Madrid would have no choice but to back London or risk setting a dangerous precedent for Catalonia
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
Support for Flemish nationalism has decreased recently, 72:28 against in the last poll I saw. In a cautionary tale for the SNP the nationalists have splintered into three separate parties with diffuse aims. What started as one unified party with a single aim split into Vlaams Blok/Belaang (bog standard nazis), Spirit (gave up and joined the Greens) and Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (want the equivalent of devomax++ with the federal government running foreign policy and the armed forces).
Probably you or TUD, basically anyone who voted for Corbyn Labour last year or who votes SNP (except Malc G who is a rare rightwing Scottish nationalist)
Actually, I voted tactically for the Lib Dems in my safe Tory seat as Lib Dems come second and Labour are nowhere - but I take the point
Probably you or TUD, basically anyone who voted for Corbyn Labour last year or who votes SNP (except Malc G who is a rare rightwing Scottish nationalist)
Christ, if I'm the most left wing person on here the PB Overton window is well fcuked.
A précis: people we don't like keep winning elections, what can we do about it?
Nothing wrong with that sentiment. Trump is an obnoxious lying nationalist and I would like someone to hopefully do something to stop him winning an election (so long as it is democratically legitimate).
The same applies to other divisive hate filled nationalists. The reality was that devolution was designed very badly by Labour as an attempt to bind in their support. That has failed and it is quite right that a properly thought out alternative should be considered before the Scots indulge in the same type of pointless self harm that English nationalists have inflicted on us with Brexit.
You would need an accepted definition of what constituted being left-wing, and since that is not possible (see for example the attempt to draw an equivalence between the far-left and the far-right) then it is even less possible to judge who is furthest to the Left.
But, for my definition of what it means to be left-wing, I am the most left-wing person on PB.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
No deal is not that bad. It means an average of 3% tariffs - our currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
Do you actually believe this shit or are you just reading from a script. Tariffs are a big deal for cars and food, and the EU is the main export market for both those sectors (for that reason). But it is not mostly about the tariffs. It is about paperwork, ability of trucks to move, etc. No deal will be really bad. To even countenance it is lunacy.
Yes I believe what I say.
Tariffs are bad for the country that levels the tariffs. The Kiwis unilaterally abolished their agricultural tariffs - and their agriculture improved it didn't get hurt.
If there are tariffs on cars and food then our economy will just need to adjust as well as it can, nothing lasts forever. If we're more productive doing something else we should do that on a global basis, it is Ricardian economics.
As for paperwork etc, there will need to be paperwork whether there is a deal or not, so that's really not as big a deal as people make out - even if we were to sign a deal tomorrow that wouldn't make all paperwork go away. And there will ]be some forms of minor side deals where its in both parties interests to do so even if there is no overarching deal.
Oh you are wrong there - it did hurt the farmers. However a new economic model was found that made what survived of New Zealand's farming community efficient and so profitable.
Whether that's actually possible within the UK is an entirely different question
There seems to be some confusion about "Canada Deal" and "Australian Terms". Here's a useful explainer.
The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.
In reality, the UK would get WTO plus a series of micro-deals in aviation, shipping and transport to keep the basics moving.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
Anything the EU has agreed to, or indicated they'd be prepared to do, won't survive Boris reneging on the Withdrawal Agreement. We could be heading, unbelievably, for the very worst of all the worst possible worlds: crashing out into WTO terms in maximum acrimony, without even the limited agreements similar to those Australia has, without the computer systems, customs agents, and other physical infrastructure in place, and in the middle of a global health catastrophe which has not only clobbered our economy but also has left companies with no spare resources to make preparations, even if they knew what they were supposed to be preparing for.
Boris is clearly looking for a way out. He wants to preside over victory on Covid-19 next year (vaccine) and also to have "sorted" Brexit with a full deal. Even Macron knows that there will have to be a compromise on fish.
Of course, Boris will then head straight into a constitutional crisis with Scotland after May next year, and he will have to deal with the economic aftermath, but right now I expect he - at the very least - would like the chance to recover himself so he can decide whether to bow-out or to plough on by summer/autumn 2021.
Another dodgy graph. Or a dodgy conclusion from it. Look at around day 24, the UK growth is clearly steeper.
It's one problem with days since [fairly arbitrary condition] graphs. Cases are a bit lumpy, more so if on day of reporting with weekend effects etc, so one country's first day with >25/100k cases may be at a fairly different point in rise of cases to another country's. It would be better to use something like days since x consecutive days with cases over y (e.g. days since 5 consecutive days with over 25 cases per 100k). Still not perfect (none of these graphs are perfect, far from it) but better.
A précis: people we don't like keep winning elections, what can we do about it?
Nothing wrong with that sentiment. Trump is an obnoxious lying nationalist and I would like someone to hopefully do something to stop him winning an election (so long as it is democratically legitimate).
The same applies to other divisive hate filled nationalists. The reality was that devolution was designed very badly by Labour as an attempt to bind in their support. That has failed and it is quite right that a properly thought out alternative should be considered before the Scots indulge in the same type of pointless self harm that English nationalists have inflicted on us with Brexit.
Didn't Scotland vote in majority for exactly that devolution in 1997? What makes you think the Scottish people want a different form of devolution?
Another dodgy graph. Or a dodgy conclusion from it. Look at around day 24, the UK growth is clearly steeper.
From Ed Conway, never.....the man is a menace. Another journalist who somehow has the gig as "the stats guy", despite being yet another one with an English degree.
When Countdown want a new numbers person, they audition people with mathematical based degrees, then everybody is amazed when they can do maths.
There seems to be some confusion about "Canada Deal" and "Australian Terms". Here's a useful explainer.
The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.
In reality, the UK would get WTO plus a series of micro-deals in aviation, shipping and transport to keep the basics moving.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
A pedantic, but important point. The UK and and EU haven't agreed to micro deals. The EU is making a number of unilateral decisions about UK access to its systems, in its interest and which can be withdrawn at any time.
The important thing about treaties, which the UK seems to have forgotten with the Internal Market Bill nonsense is that treaties come with binding commitments. The fundamental reason for signing a treaty is to get the other side to commit to certain actions in the future that they might otherwise choose not to do.
A précis: people we don't like keep winning elections, what can we do about it?
Nothing wrong with that sentiment. Trump is an obnoxious lying nationalist and I would like someone to hopefully do something to stop him winning an election (so long as it is democratically legitimate).
The same applies to other divisive hate filled nationalists. The reality was that devolution was designed very badly by Labour as an attempt to bind in their support. That has failed and it is quite right that a properly thought out alternative should be considered before the Scots indulge in the same type of pointless self harm that English nationalists have inflicted on us with Brexit.
Shouldn't you mind your own beeswax and look to sort out the big fat mess England is making on behalf of us all first?
There seems to be some confusion about "Canada Deal" and "Australian Terms". Here's a useful explainer.
The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.
In reality, the UK would get WTO plus a series of micro-deals in aviation, shipping and transport to keep the basics moving.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
The Internal Market Bill has put all that in peril, unfortunately.
I'm not sure it does on the micro-deals, actually.
Anyway, it's academic since the Lords will reject it anyway - which Boris knows.
All deals depend on trust. The IMB has destroyed the EU's trust in the UK government as a party that can be relied on to stick to the agreements it makes. That the legislation may be delayed for a while does not change that.
A précis: people we don't like keep winning elections, what can we do about it?
Yeah I agree. Devolution should have been about setting up the best form of government, not "fighting nationalism" or any other ideology they don't like.
A précis: people we don't like keep winning elections, what can we do about it?
Nothing wrong with that sentiment. Trump is an obnoxious lying nationalist and I would like someone to hopefully do something to stop him winning an election (so long as it is democratically legitimate).
The same applies to other divisive hate filled nationalists. The reality was that devolution was designed very badly by Labour as an attempt to bind in their support. That has failed and it is quite right that a properly thought out alternative should be considered before the Scots indulge in the same type of pointless self harm that English nationalists have inflicted on us with Brexit.
Didn't Scotland vote in majority for exactly that devolution in 1997? What makes you think the Scottish people want a different form of devolution?
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
The second Yes wins a referendum the Spanish will be wanting to show the Scots are nothing like the Catalans and that the UK is not a precedence for them (any more than the breakup of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia was).
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
Quite. Madrid's main concern is with UDI. If Scotland were to somehow secede against London's wishes -- and I cannot see a scenario where that would even happen -- you could expect Madrid to play hardball.
You can expect everyone to play hardball, not just Madrid. Sturgeon is many things, but she is not stupid.
She clearly isn't and I suspect has real concerns about the economics of Indy. It's one of the reasons Salmondites are so suspicious of her. They think she is a lot more comfortable being FM then leading another charge.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
No deal is not that bad. It means an average of 3% tariffs - our currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
Do you actually believe this shit or are you just reading from a script. Tariffs are a big deal for cars and food, and the EU is the main export market for both those sectors (for that reason). But it is not mostly about the tariffs. It is about paperwork, ability of trucks to move, etc. No deal will be really bad. To even countenance it is lunacy.
Probably you or TUD, basically anyone who voted for Corbyn Labour last year or who votes SNP (except Malc G who is a rare rightwing Scottish nationalist)
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
Support for Flemish nationalism has decreased recently, 72:28 against in the last poll I saw. In a cautionary tale for the SNP the nationalists have splintered into three separate parties with diffuse aims. What started as one unified party with a single aim split into Vlaams Blok/Belaang (bog standard nazis), Spirit (gave up and joined the Greens) and Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (want the equivalent of devomax++ with the federal government running foreign policy and the armed forces).
Exactly the same kind of splits have happened in Catalonia since the abrasive, hard line PP were replaced in power in Madrid by PSOE, who have proved to be far less confrontational.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
Because it's *already* benefitted from EU money. Do you know how many Scottish infrastructure projects were funded by the EU?
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
No deal is not that bad. It means an average of 3% tariffs - our currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
Do you actually believe this shit or are you just reading from a script. Tariffs are a big deal for cars and food, and the EU is the main export market for both those sectors (for that reason). But it is not mostly about the tariffs. It is about paperwork, ability of trucks to move, etc. No deal will be really bad. To even countenance it is lunacy.
Yes I believe what I say.
Tariffs are bad for the country that levels the tariffs. The Kiwis unilaterally abolished their agricultural tariffs - and their agriculture improved it didn't get hurt.
If there are tariffs on cars and food then our economy will just need to adjust as well as it can, nothing lasts forever. If we're more productive doing something else we should do that on a global basis, it is Ricardian economics.
As for paperwork etc, there will need to be paperwork whether there is a deal or not, so that's really not as big a deal as people make out - even if we were to sign a deal tomorrow that wouldn't make all paperwork go away. And there will ]be some forms of minor side deals where its in both parties interests to do so even if there is no overarching deal.
Oh you are wrong there - it did hurt the farmers. However a new economic model was found that made what survived of New Zealand's farming community efficient and so profitable.
Whether that's actually possible within the UK is an entirely different question
Transitions can be tough, especially on those who are inefficient.
But having a model of being more efficient and more profitable is a good thing. Long term state aid and intervention is not healthy and that applies to agriculture just as much as industry.
Probably you or TUD, basically anyone who voted for Corbyn Labour last year or who votes SNP (except Malc G who is a rare rightwing Scottish nationalist)
BJO?
I voted SNP and I'd describe myself as pretty centrist. I preferred Cameron to Corbyn and Blair to Boris. The SNP are more like the SDP end of the Liberal Democrats. I know a good few Tartan Tories, as the SNP used to be called.
There seems to be some confusion about "Canada Deal" and "Australian Terms". Here's a useful explainer.
The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.
In reality, the UK would get WTO plus a series of micro-deals in aviation, shipping and transport to keep the basics moving.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
Anything the EU has agreed to, or indicated they'd be prepared to do, won't survive Boris reneging on the Withdrawal Agreement. We could be heading, unbelievably, for the very worst of all the worst possible worlds: crashing out into WTO terms in maximum acrimony, without even the limited agreements similar to those Australia has, without the computer systems, customs agents, and other physical infrastructure in place, and in the middle of a global health catastrophe which has not only clobbered our economy but also has left companies with no spare resources to make preparations, even if they knew what they were supposed to be preparing for.
Boris is clearly looking for a way out. He wants to preside over victory on Covid-19 next year (vaccine) and also to have "sorted" Brexit with a full deal. Even Macron knows that there will have to be a compromise on fish.
Of course, Boris will then head straight into a constitutional crisis with Scotland after May next year, and he will have to deal with the economic aftermath, but right now I expect he - at the very least - would like the chance to recover himself so he can decide whether to bow-out or to plough on by summer/autumn 2021.
I truly hope you are right - and I believe that there are probably days when Johnson wakes up thinking exactly that. Then he meets up for his morning cuppa with Dominic Cummings ...
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
Because it's *already* benefitted from EU money. Do you know how many Scottish infrastructure projects were funded by the EU?
I have an idea as I've seen all the logos scattered about the Highlands. But the point is the UK was a net contributor. What makes you think Scotland will be a net beneficiary?
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
Because it's *already* benefitted from EU money. Do you know how many Scottish infrastructure projects were funded by the EU?
Scotland would go straight into the EEA. Norway has already said that wouldn't be a problem. The EU would be a few years down the road.
Another dodgy graph. Or a dodgy conclusion from it. Look at around day 24, the UK growth is clearly steeper.
It's one problem with days since [fairly arbitrary condition] graphs. Cases are a bit lumpy, more so if on day of reporting with weekend effects etc, so one country's first day with >25/100k cases may be at a fairly different point in rise of cases to another country's. It would be better to use something like days since x consecutive days with cases over y (e.g. days since 5 consecutive days with over 25 cases per 100k). Still not perfect (none of these graphs are perfect, far from it) but better.
The problem with all such attempts is the temptation to fit data.
Fighting against the the impulse to pick the "right" data is very hard. And part of the core of good science.
One reason I tend to rely on my various graphs etc is that I don't fiddle with them - autogenerate the same thing, day after day. I introduce new ones, but tend to leave the older ones alone.
There seems to be some confusion about "Canada Deal" and "Australian Terms". Here's a useful explainer.
The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.
In reality, the UK would get WTO plus a series of micro-deals in aviation, shipping and transport to keep the basics moving.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
A pedantic, but important point. The UK and and EU haven't agreed to micro deals. The EU is making a number of unilateral decisions about UK access to its systems, in its interest and which can be withdrawn at any time.
The important thing about treaties, which the UK seems to have forgotten with the Internal Market Bill nonsense is that treaties come with binding commitments. The fundamental reason for signing a treaty is to get the other side to commit to certain actions in the future that they might otherwise choose not to do.
And, the UK will do the same. Both the UK and EU will discuss how they will both do it with each other. Thus these will become micro deals.
You're right that they're temporary and there's no permanence attached to them. But that applies to both sides.
There seems to be some confusion about "Canada Deal" and "Australian Terms". Here's a useful explainer.
The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.
In reality, the UK would get WTO plus a series of micro-deals in aviation, shipping and transport to keep the basics moving.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
The Internal Market Bill has put all that in peril, unfortunately.
I'm not sure it does on the micro-deals, actually.
Anyway, it's academic since the Lords will reject it anyway - which Boris knows.
All deals depend on trust. The IMB has destroyed the EU's trust in the UK government as a party that can be relied on to stick to the agreements it makes. That the legislation may be delayed for a while does not change that.
You exaggerate.
All deals depend upon self-interest, not trust, though trust helps.
Brexiteers aren't very trusting of the EU and the ECJ either which is why deal-making is difficult right now. But even if there's a full breakdown of trust there will still be areas where a deal would be in each sides mutual interest so despite the lack of trust side deals could be agreed.
You would need an accepted definition of what constituted being left-wing, and since that is not possible (see for example the attempt to draw an equivalence between the far-left and the far-right) then it is even less possible to judge who is furthest to the Left.
But, for my definition of what it means to be left-wing, I am the most left-wing person on PB.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
Because it's *already* benefitted from EU money. Do you know how many Scottish infrastructure projects were funded by the EU?
Scotland would go straight into the EEA. Norway has already said that wouldn't be a problem. The EU would be a few years down the road.
So Scotland would, for an indeterminate period, be outside both the UK and the EU? Cue capital flight and collapse in investment.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
Philip wants no deal because he believes in the Brexit religion, and believes most unthinkingly and fundamentally. Our Bozo, who art in Brexitland, hallowed be thy name....
It's a bit more nuanced for Nicola than for Drakeford. He doesn't much care about the private sector as he's a socialist who isn't trying to create a broad-based coalition which will vote for independence. He just needs to keep the public sector onside. Be interesting to see how she responds.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
Philip wants no deal because he believes in the Brexit religion, and believes most unthinkingly and fundamentally. Our Bozo, who art in Brexitland, hallowed be thy name....
I don't want no deal, I want a good deal. A good deal is any where we control our laws and money.
I believe if we go to no deal it will be a temporary state of affairs and we'll ultimately agree a deal but from a new baseline of having regained unfettered control of our sovereign laws, money, natural resources etc
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
Philip wants no deal because he believes in the Brexit religion, and believes most unthinkingly and fundamentally. Our Bozo, who art in Brexitland, hallowed be thy name....
"Give us this day our daily bread." in a food lorry queue
There seems to be some confusion about "Canada Deal" and "Australian Terms". Here's a useful explainer.
The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.
In reality, the UK would get WTO plus a series of micro-deals in aviation, shipping and transport to keep the basics moving.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
The Internal Market Bill has put all that in peril, unfortunately.
I'm not sure it does on the micro-deals, actually.
Anyway, it's academic since the Lords will reject it anyway - which Boris knows.
All deals depend on trust. The IMB has destroyed the EU's trust in the UK government as a party that can be relied on to stick to the agreements it makes. That the legislation may be delayed for a while does not change that.
You exaggerate.
All deals depend upon self-interest, not trust, though trust helps.
Brexiteers aren't very trusting of the EU and the ECJ either which is why deal-making is difficult right now. But even if there's a full breakdown of trust there will still be areas where a deal would be in each sides mutual interest so despite the lack of trust side deals could be agreed.
Please tell us your experience in this area? Are you a retired multi millionaire deal maker? Or perhaps you worked for the DTI before you turned 24/7 keyboard warrior?
Most left wing? Must be @HYUFD. Wants to centralise all control and dictate policy over people's heads. For what he perceives to be their benefit not what they think.
You are not effected by this sledgehammer blow to all of us living here in Wales
Even Vincent Cable rejected national circuit breaks today
It will be interesting to see in ~4 weeks time now what the difference is between England and Scotland. It looks like England is getting R under 1 without resorting to circuit breaks.
Another dodgy graph. Or a dodgy conclusion from it. Look at around day 24, the UK growth is clearly steeper.
It's one problem with days since [fairly arbitrary condition] graphs. Cases are a bit lumpy, more so if on day of reporting with weekend effects etc, so one country's first day with >25/100k cases may be at a fairly different point in rise of cases to another country's. It would be better to use something like days since x consecutive days with cases over y (e.g. days since 5 consecutive days with over 25 cases per 100k). Still not perfect (none of these graphs are perfect, far from it) but better.
The problem with all such attempts is the temptation to fit data.
Fighting against the the impulse to pick the "right" data is very hard. And part of the core of good science.
One reason I tend to rely on my various graphs etc is that I don't fiddle with them - autogenerate the same thing, day after day. I introduce new ones, but tend to leave the older ones alone.
Yep, the best thing here, as with your graphs, is probably just to report cases by day. It shouldn't be beyond the reader to interpret slopes that happen at different times.
Most left wing? Must be @HYUFD. Wants to centralise all control and dictate policy over people's heads. For what he perceives to be their benefit not what they think.
Sounds a bit trotty to me...
The most left wing person on this site is Dura Ace by quite a margin.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
Philip wants no deal because he believes in the Brexit religion, and believes most unthinkingly and fundamentally. Our Bozo, who art in Brexitland, hallowed be thy name....
I don't want no deal, I want a good deal. A good deal is any where we control our laws and money.
I believe if we go to no deal it will be a temporary state of affairs and we'll ultimately agree a deal but from a new baseline of having regained unfettered control of our sovereign laws, money, natural resources etc
Most international agreements 'fetter' us in some way. Sovereignty doesn't hinge on avoiding any entanglement with the outside world.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
Philip wants no deal because he believes in the Brexit religion, and believes most unthinkingly and fundamentally. Our Bozo, who art in Brexitland, hallowed be thy name....
I don't want no deal, I want a good deal. A good deal is any where we control our laws and money.
I believe if we go to no deal it will be a temporary state of affairs and we'll ultimately agree a deal but from a new baseline of having regained unfettered control of our sovereign laws, money, natural resources etc
The sad fact is that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can do what they want, and England will pay. They have England over a barrel, because the English government wants the union.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
Philip wants no deal because he believes in the Brexit religion, and believes most unthinkingly and fundamentally. Our Bozo, who art in Brexitland, hallowed be thy name....
I don't want no deal, I want a good deal. A good deal is any where we control our laws and money.
I believe if we go to no deal it will be a temporary state of affairs and we'll ultimately agree a deal but from a new baseline of having regained unfettered control of our sovereign laws, money, natural resources etc
On this basis you would leave NATO.
NATO doesn't set our laws. We have agreed commitments that we have set and we could renounce them if we choose to do so, there is no dynamic way for NATO to change our obligations without us getting a vote.
Comments
1. While Biden's lead in national polls has stayed fairly the same, if you were to look at RCP (I know...), you would see a drift down in national / battleground polls - not much but still. There is also the "Trump is ahead of where he was" argument;
2. I don't think Biden has necessarily answered the Hunter Biden questions well. I know the consensus on here is that it is a sh1t allegation but JB's responses (denials with holes in it like "well, large parts of my diary were unofficial so it may have happened", and having a go at reporters) doesn't sound that great. The risk is more allegations come out (Trump is a known entity);
- Also on this point, many people were pointing to the Cunnigham-Tillis race as an example of where the polls didn't move following scandal. Well, now they have and the race is neck and neck. Scandals take some days to feed in;
3. There have been a fair few people pushing the regression analysis on voter registration stuff (JP Morgan's Quant guy has done his own and come to the same conclusion). Many people on here talk of a polling disaster but the less talked about flip side is that Biden winning in key states would also overturn what has been known on registration. One of the two main predictors will be proven wrong.
Britain is currently asking for 3-year transition to a 50%+ quota for UK fishermen, and annual negotiations thereafter, rather than 80-90% for some fish at present under the CFP. Expect a compromise of a 5-year transition to a 30-40% quota for UK fishermen and 3-5 year period negotiations after that.
My bigger worry is why the UK Government announced this consultation... just six days ago with a deadline of, err, 10th November: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fisheries-allocating-and-managing-quota-in-england-and-crown-dependencies
I think much of this is because the Government simply isn't ready and has allowed a vacuum to develop whilst it works out its bottom line.
If Scotland were to secede then it will be because London has allowed it. In which case the Spanish will be trying to pin it on the English voting for Brexit and saying "nothing to do with us" and make the transition for the Scots back into the EU as easy as possible, because if Scotland easily gets back into the EU then Scottish independence has been demonstrated to be about Brexit not UDI so nothing like the Catalan issue.
Tariffs are a big deal for cars and food, and the EU is the main export market for both those sectors (for that reason).
But it is not mostly about the tariffs. It is about paperwork, ability of trucks to move, etc. No deal will be really bad. To even countenance it is lunacy.
The UK and EU have quietly already agreed to this.
Frost, Gove and Johnson have so far failed to persuade their EU27 counterparts that a deal acceptable to the UK government is in their interests. The EU and its member states have no interest in protecting the UK from the consequences of its decision to leave the European Union. Any possible arrangement is necessarily worse, more precisely less, than the one the UK previously had. So we are talking about a potential arrangement that is better than nothing but worse than before. Even that is proving difficult.
Tariffs are bad for the country that levels the tariffs. The Kiwis unilaterally abolished their agricultural tariffs - and their agriculture improved it didn't get hurt.
If there are tariffs on cars and food then our economy will just need to adjust as well as it can, nothing lasts forever. If we're more productive doing something else we should do that on a global basis, it is Ricardian economics.
As for paperwork etc, there will need to be paperwork whether there is a deal or not, so that's really not as big a deal as people make out - even if we were to sign a deal tomorrow that wouldn't make all paperwork go away. And there will ]be some forms of minor side deals where its in both parties interests to do so even if there is no overarching deal.
In which case Madrid would have no choice but to back London or risk setting a dangerous precedent for Catalonia
Anyway, it's academic since the Lords will reject it anyway - which Boris knows.
Still, ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!
The same applies to other divisive hate filled nationalists. The reality was that devolution was designed very badly by Labour as an attempt to bind in their support. That has failed and it is quite right that a properly thought out alternative should be considered before the Scots indulge in the same type of pointless self harm that English nationalists have inflicted on us with Brexit.
But, for my definition of what it means to be left-wing, I am the most left-wing person on PB.
Whether that's actually possible within the UK is an entirely different question
Of course, Boris will then head straight into a constitutional crisis with Scotland after May next year, and he will have to deal with the economic aftermath, but right now I expect he - at the very least - would like the chance to recover himself so he can decide whether to bow-out or to plough on by summer/autumn 2021.
When Countdown want a new numbers person, they audition people with mathematical based degrees, then everybody is amazed when they can do maths.
The important thing about treaties, which the UK seems to have forgotten with the Internal Market Bill nonsense is that treaties come with binding commitments. The fundamental reason for signing a treaty is to get the other side to commit to certain actions in the future that they might otherwise choose not to do.
Actually, just mind your own beeswax will do.
No wonder it is a mess.
But having a model of being more efficient and more profitable is a good thing. Long term state aid and intervention is not healthy and that applies to agriculture just as much as industry.
Fighting against the the impulse to pick the "right" data is very hard. And part of the core of good science.
One reason I tend to rely on my various graphs etc is that I don't fiddle with them - autogenerate the same thing, day after day. I introduce new ones, but tend to leave the older ones alone.
You're right that they're temporary and there's no permanence attached to them. But that applies to both sides.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1318150973429325824?s=20
All deals depend upon self-interest, not trust, though trust helps.
Brexiteers aren't very trusting of the EU and the ECJ either which is why deal-making is difficult right now. But even if there's a full breakdown of trust there will still be areas where a deal would be in each sides mutual interest so despite the lack of trust side deals could be agreed.
Good luck with that one!
You are not effected by this sledgehammer blow to all of us living here in Wales
Even Vincent Cable rejected national circuit breaks today
Although that one may be too Thatcherite.
I believe if we go to no deal it will be a temporary state of affairs and we'll ultimately agree a deal but from a new baseline of having regained unfettered control of our sovereign laws, money, natural resources etc
Sounds a bit trotty to me...
https://youtu.be/ngSmlcETkmA
So, what happens to the Welsh Universities?
As I understand it, the students are stuck in their kennels for two and a half weeks.
It is a gutsy call by Drakeford, but whether it is the right one remains to be seen.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8853245/VINCE-CABLE-Circuit-breaker-idea-crude-lazy-defies-common-sense.html