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.
Leave NATO on North Korea terms, like I said it works for all scenarios
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.
That is always conveniently forgotten by the "it's all about sovereignty " Brexiteers. They conveniently avoid addressing the issue of US bases on British soil which is much more of a dilution of our sovereignty than membership of 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.
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.
Leave NATO on North Korea terms, like I said it works for all scenarios
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
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.
Leave NATO on North Korea terms, like I said it works for all scenarios
Australia terms still works too. 🤷🏻♂️
Australia isn't trying to rip up trading and co-operation agreements, we follow only North Korea
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.
You mean they'll be sticking it on the UK credit card and then allocating it to entirely notional sub national deficits about which they'll loudly complain surely? That's what English voters voted for, so suck it up.
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.
You mean they'll be sticking it on the UK credit card and then allocating it to entirely notional sub national deficits about which they'll loudly complain surely? That's what English voters voted for, so suck it up.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
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.
It is obvious that a deal involves making commitments to foreign countries. These commitments restrict what we can do (at least whilst maintaining that particular deal). All international treaties are reducing our sovereignty whether its NATO, WTO, EU, UN, Kyoto/Paris protocols, UDHR, etc in exchange for other countries simultaneously reducing their sovereignty and making commitments back to us.
Anyone in favour of deals that want unfettered sovereignty are by definition in favour of no deal.
Definitely the most insurrectionary - I can easily see him in a Cheka firing squad while the rest of us would be stroking our beards, weighing up the right punishment for counter-revolutionaries from a slap on the wrist to an intellectual argument.
I think I can stake a claim for consistency, if that's a word - various intensities of left-wing for 64 years. (Enter Philip to say "You mean pig-headedness" ).
Incidentally, I've just finished Dark Clouds Shining by David Downing - the most accurate and subtle novel about the different shades of opinion in the Russian Revolution that I've seen, with sympathetic portrayals of everything from anarchism to social democracy, with an undercurrent of sympathetic regret for all of them. I can't imagine who the audience is nowadays though. His Diary of a Dead Man on Leave, about a German communist facing the dark future of vain resistance to Nazi rule with totally unpredictable messages from Moscow, does a similarly excellent, humane, wistful but obscure job. Both books will be hard going unless you identify with the characters.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
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.
Leave NATO on North Korea terms, like I said it works for all scenarios
Australia terms still works too. 🤷🏻♂️
Australia isn't trying to rip up trading and co-operation agreements, we follow only North Korea
Which trading and co-operation agreements are North Korea ripping up?
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.
You mean they'll be sticking it on the UK credit card and then allocating it to entirely notional sub national deficits about which they'll loudly complain surely? That's what English voters voted for, so suck it up.
So wtf is the Public Religion Research Institute - rated A/B and not marked as partisan?
Could be a mis-key i suppose. I was surprised to find out almost all the polls they collect are hand keyed into their model rather than harvested automatically
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
Well, it was possible because it has been. The UK is no longer in 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.
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.
We have US bases on our soil, where they do absolutely what they like, including claiming diplomatic immunity when one of their own kills a British citizen. The EU didn't "set our laws" any more than it sets France's laws. The laws that were integrated into British law were all done with our consent as we were voluntary members, with the sovereign right to leave (which we did). Our membership of NATO is also by consent, but the compromises that we have agreed on sovereignty (having foreign troops on our soil) are far far greater. But, of course you and all Brexit religion fanatics are in denial, because sucking up to Americans is better to you than having an equal partnership with the continental Europeans.
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
Why though? Because of on average 3% tariffs? Which our floating exchange rate would absorb most of for exporters? Is that it or is there something else?
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
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.
Leave NATO on North Korea terms, like I said it works for all scenarios
Australia terms still works too. 🤷🏻♂️
Australia isn't trying to rip up trading and co-operation agreements, we follow only North Korea
Which trading and co-operation agreements are North Korea ripping up?
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
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.
You mean they'll be sticking it on the UK credit card and then allocating it to entirely notional sub national deficits about which they'll loudly complain surely? That's what English voters voted for, so suck it up.
So wtf is the Public Religion Research Institute - rated A/B and not marked as partisan?
Could be a mis-key i suppose. I was surprised to find out almost all the polls they collect are hand keyed into their model rather than harvested automatically
they are trying to fix it, its changing by the minute bet that generated a few jitters somewhere on Twitter
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
Why though? Because of on average 3% tariffs? Which our floating exchange rate would absorb most of for exporters? Is that it or is there something else?
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
No, it's not because of tariffs. Those are just an inconvenience that will make things more expensive for consumers. The big problems are in other areas, such as the ability of British lorry drivers to drive their vehicles inside the Single Market, to name but one of many thousands.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Do you think it's acceptable that we can't unilaterally give preferential trade terms to Australia over the USA, and if not, how could we change that short of leaving the WTO?
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
So wtf is the Public Religion Research Institute - rated A/B and not marked as partisan?
Could be a mis-key i suppose. I was surprised to find out almost all the polls they collect are hand keyed into their model rather than harvested automatically
they are trying to fix it, its changing by the minute bet that generated a few jitters somewhere on Twitter
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
Why though? Because of on average 3% tariffs? Which our floating exchange rate would absorb most of for exporters? Is that it or is there something else?
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Again, even that's not true. EU policy can change. EU treaties can change. Lisbon is an example of exactly that. It could have been replaced with the different one, if the will was there. Any treaties, including Lisbon, can be renegotiated if the parties agree.
Drakeford has closed Wales but wants Westminster to pay for it
I very much doubt Rishi will give a penny more than he is already doing so
"Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages" (Stanley Baldwin, quoting Rudyard Kipling)
"There goes the tarts' vote"....
Actually, the prerogative of the upper class white male throughout the ages, whereas the average prostitute has less control over her own destiny, never mind anyone else's, than pretty much anyone who isn't an outright slave. A bonkers dictum which says an awful lot about the person who said it.
So wtf is the Public Religion Research Institute - rated A/B and not marked as partisan?
Could be a mis-key i suppose. I was surprised to find out almost all the polls they collect are hand keyed into their model rather than harvested automatically
It's been corrected now to a big Biden lead. Phew.
Drakeford has closed Wales but wants Westminster to pay for it
I very much doubt Rishi will give a penny more than he is already doing so
Wales and Scotland are testing how much England wants the union to the absolute limit.
Most of England doesnt care less either way. The elite establishment and UK nationalists (20-25%?) want to keep it and English nationalists (10-15%?) dislike Scottish influence enough that they are in favour of a break up. The other 60-70% dont have a strong view.
The centre left and right, and metropolitan interests, should be concerned that if Scotland leaves it fundamentally changes the balance and nature of our politics, but havent noticed yet. By the time they do, as with Brexit, it will be too late.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Rationality doesn't come into it. It was an emotional and particularly dumb decision. We are just starting to see the results, all of which were fobbed off as "project fear" at the time of the referendum. It will be much worse than "project fear" ever suggested due to the thorough incompetence of the Clown. Brexit is shit, and the only person who can't see it is a 24/7 keyboard warrior.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Lisbon "too late suck it up" led directly to Brexit.
So wtf is the Public Religion Research Institute - rated A/B and not marked as partisan?
Could be a mis-key i suppose. I was surprised to find out almost all the polls they collect are hand keyed into their model rather than harvested automatically
they are trying to fix it, its changing by the minute bet that generated a few jitters somewhere on Twitter
Bit of a 538 whoopsie by the look of it. Phew!
Public Religion Research Institute = gold standard. Always said so.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Again, even that's not true. EU policy can change. EU treaties can change. Lisbon is an example of exactly that. It could have been replaced with the different one, if the will was there. Any treaties, including Lisbon, can be renegotiated if the parties agree.
Prices are so high in the UK that presumably these are not particularly price sensitive tourists, they might not notice.
It's a cock-up - bricks & mortar retail is on its knees and this is another blow - many of these (often Chinese) tourists will go to Paris instead.
If we want to attract more tourists based on retail prices, how about some laws to open up competition on international sourcing to prevent the big brands constantly ripping the UK customers off whether foreign or domestic.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Lisbon "too late suck it up" led directly to Brexit.
I wonder what "no deal too late suck it up" might lead to
One does wonder what some parts of Twitter would make of the cleansing of the temple if it happened today, particularly given that in all likelihood Jesus looked a bit middle-eastern.
(Not suggesting that this particular church needed any 'cleansing', presumably bad luck that this church, in particular, was targeted. The perpetrator will hopefully be helped and/or punished appropriately depending on the facts)
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Lisbon "too late suck it up" led directly to Brexit.
I wouldn't have even considered voting for Brexit before that. It was that shocking attitude that first cracked my faith in remaining.
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.
You mean they'll be sticking it on the UK credit card and then allocating it to entirely notional sub national deficits about which they'll loudly complain surely? That's what English voters voted for, so suck it up.
In the end, the English taxpayer pays.
Who else is there?
In the end, the English voter votes for it.
Who else is there?
up until now.
But I think we may be close to the end. I really don;t know.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Lisbon "too late suck it up" led directly to Brexit.
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Lisbon "too late suck it up" led directly to Brexit.
I wonder what "no deal too late suck it up" might lead to
No deal will never be too late.
Lisbon was designed to be irreversible. No deal is not, even if no deal happens it will only ever be temporary until a deal is eventually agreed.
As 1000s are already due to die from non-covid illness as the NHS effectively shuts down yet again, the Welsh decide to shut down the entire principality and tell everyone to stay at home.
Presumably there is nothing bar precedent stopping him earning money as a columnist or writing a book whilst PM? Or he could just find a big govt grant/contract for his next girlfriend.....
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.
There wasn't any dynamic way for the EU to change our laws without us getting a vote until we decided to give up our say.
Yes there was. Lisbon was passed without us, the public, getting a vote again the manifesto of the elected government and we could not change it back.
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
"Without the UK agreeing" is not the same as "without getting a vote". The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Yes it has because the ratchet has been broken.
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
So it wasn't possible to leave the EU until we left it?
No it wasn't possible to reverse bad EU decisions (like Lisbon) short of leaving the EU.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Lisbon "too late suck it up" led directly to Brexit.
I wonder what "no deal too late suck it up" might lead to
No deal will never be too late.
Lisbon was designed to be irreversible. No deal is not, even if no deal happens it will only ever be temporary until a deal is eventually agreed.
What if that deal is a new accession treaty with opt outs removed?
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
Why though? Because of on average 3% tariffs? Which our floating exchange rate would absorb most of for exporters? Is that it or is there something else?
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
No, it's not because of tariffs. Those are just an inconvenience that will make things more expensive for consumers. The big problems are in other areas, such as the ability of British lorry drivers to drive their vehicles inside the Single Market, to name but one of many thousands.
A side deal for lorry permits would make a lot of sense for both parties even if there's no overarching deal. The EU won't want Irish lorries unable to reach the continent either.
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.
You're more leftie than me?
Yeah, I reckon so.
I don't make a big thing of it here because when I do make the mistake of trying to change someone's mind on here I don't try to do so all in one go.
My faith in workers democracy is a bit damaged by the behaviour of many of the prominent British advocates for the same, so I've tended to a bit more of an Anarchist viewpoint recently, but poll-watching as part of the Parliamentary road to Socialism is passing the time while I wait for the Revolution.
Drakeford has closed Wales but wants Westminster to pay for it
I very much doubt Rishi will give a penny more than he is already doing so
Wales and Scotland are testing how much England wants the union to the absolute limit.
Most of England doesnt care less either way. The elite establishment and UK nationalists (20-25%?) want to keep it and English nationalists (10-15%?) dislike Scottish influence enough that they are in favour of a break up. The other 60-70% dont have a strong view.
The centre left and right, and metropolitan interests, should be concerned that if Scotland leaves it fundamentally changes the balance and nature of our politics, but havent noticed yet. By the time they do, as with Brexit, it will be too late.
That is a correct reading.
If Scotland leaves, then I expect large sections of Welsh Labour will change their mind on the value of staying.
Nicola going for local tiering before considering a national lockdown
So following Boris rather than Drakeford then, interesting
That will be a new experience for Bozo. He'll be cocker hoop. Sturgeon will be desperately trying to make some meaningless distinction to look different.
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
Why though? Because of on average 3% tariffs? Which our floating exchange rate would absorb most of for exporters? Is that it or is there something else?
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
No, it's not because of tariffs. Those are just an inconvenience that will make things more expensive for consumers. The big problems are in other areas, such as the ability of British lorry drivers to drive their vehicles inside the Single Market, to name but one of many thousands.
A side deal for lorry permits would make a lot of sense for both parties even if there's no overarching deal. The EU won't want Irish lorries unable to reach the continent either.
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
Why though? Because of on average 3% tariffs? Which our floating exchange rate would absorb most of for exporters? Is that it or is there something else?
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
No, it's not because of tariffs. Those are just an inconvenience that will make things more expensive for consumers. The big problems are in other areas, such as the ability of British lorry drivers to drive their vehicles inside the Single Market, to name but one of many thousands.
A side deal for lorry permits would make a lot of sense for both parties even if there's no overarching deal. The EU won't want Irish lorries unable to reach the continent either.
'One MP said Johnson was concerned about raising his six children and sending his youngest son, Wilfred, to Eton, which costs £42,500 a year. ‘Boris has at least six children, some young enough to need financial help,’ the MP reportedly said. ‘And he had to pay ex-wife Marina Wheeler a shedload as part of their divorce deal'.....No 10 denied the claims to Metro.co.uk but declined to comment further. Government officials and former prime ministers can make a great amount of money by giving speeches and making appearances at engagements. MPs believe Johnson is envious of his predecessors, with Theresa May earning more than £1 million on the lecture circuit since resigning last year. David Cameron gets £120,000 per speech and Tony Blair is currently worth around £22 million due to consultancy work and giving lectures.'
I think 538.com has got that PRRI poll the wrong way round. I believe the poll it is referring to is here (you might need to retry a few times to get it to load, the website seems flakey):
It's an interesting, very detailed survey on attitudes. On voting intention, it says:
Among all Americans, 56% say they are voting for Biden for president, including 7% who are uncertain but lean toward Biden, compared to 42% who say they are voting for Trump, including 6% who are uncertain but lean toward Trump. These reported voting patterns are identical among registered voters.
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.
You're more leftie than me?
Yeah, I reckon so.
I don't make a big thing of it here because when I do make the mistake of trying to change someone's mind on here I don't try to do so all in one go.
My faith in workers democracy is a bit damaged by the behaviour of many of the prominent British advocates for the same, so I've tended to a bit more of an Anarchist viewpoint recently, but poll-watching as part of the Parliamentary road to Socialism is passing the time while I wait for the Revolution.
I think 538.com has got that PRRI poll the wrong way round. I believe the poll it is referring to is here (you might need to retry a few times to get it to load, the website seems flakey):
It's an interesting, very detailed survey on attitudes. On voting intention, it says:
Among all Americans, 56% say they are voting for Biden for president, including 7% who are uncertain but lean toward Biden, compared to 42% who say they are voting for Trump, including 6% who are uncertain but lean toward Trump. These reported voting patterns are identical among registered voters.
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
Why though? Because of on average 3% tariffs? Which our floating exchange rate would absorb most of for exporters? Is that it or is there something else?
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
No, it's not because of tariffs. Those are just an inconvenience that will make things more expensive for consumers. The big problems are in other areas, such as the ability of British lorry drivers to drive their vehicles inside the Single Market, to name but one of many thousands.
A side deal for lorry permits would make a lot of sense for both parties even if there's no overarching deal. The EU won't want Irish lorries unable to reach the continent either.
A year ago someone on this site (I suspect it was you or HYUFD) told me that was an situation that would be impossible to occur.
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.
You are certainly right that we are arguing about no deal vs a shit deal. But it still matters because no deal is more shit than a shit deal.
Why though? Because of on average 3% tariffs? Which our floating exchange rate would absorb most of for exporters? Is that it or is there something else?
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
No, it's not because of tariffs. Those are just an inconvenience that will make things more expensive for consumers. The big problems are in other areas, such as the ability of British lorry drivers to drive their vehicles inside the Single Market, to name but one of many thousands.
A side deal for lorry permits would make a lot of sense for both parties even if there's no overarching deal. The EU won't want Irish lorries unable to reach the continent either.
A year ago someone on this site (I suspect it was you or HYUFD) told me that was an situation that would be impossible to occur.
Drakeford has closed Wales but wants Westminster to pay for it
I very much doubt Rishi will give a penny more than he is already doing so
Wales and Scotland are testing how much England wants the union to the absolute limit.
Most of England doesnt care less either way. The elite establishment and UK nationalists (20-25%?) want to keep it and English nationalists (10-15%?) dislike Scottish influence enough that they are in favour of a break up. The other 60-70% dont have a strong view.
The centre left and right, and metropolitan interests, should be concerned that if Scotland leaves it fundamentally changes the balance and nature of our politics, but havent noticed yet. By the time they do, as with Brexit, it will be too late.
That is a correct reading.
If Scotland leaves, then I expect large sections of Welsh Labour will change their mind on the value of staying.
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.
You mean they'll be sticking it on the UK credit card and then allocating it to entirely notional sub national deficits about which they'll loudly complain surely? That's what English voters voted for, so suck it up.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Plenty of terrible things have happened under the democracy banner too.
Democracy needs to understand how to deal with the proliferation of biased and fake news that the internet and big data allows, otherwise it will be threatened in its role as "the worst form of govt, bar all the others".
Longer term, biotech is another threat to democracy, it may not last the next 100 years.
'One MP said Johnson was concerned about raising his six children and sending his youngest son, Wilfred, to Eton, which costs £42,500 a year. ‘Boris has at least six children, some young enough to need financial help,’ the MP reportedly said. ‘And he had to pay ex-wife Marina Wheeler a shedload as part of their divorce deal'.....No 10 denied the claims to Metro.co.uk but declined to comment further. Government officials and former prime ministers can make a great amount of money by giving speeches and making appearances at engagements. MPs believe Johnson is envious of his predecessors, with Theresa May earning more than £1 million on the lecture circuit since resigning last year. David Cameron gets £120,000 per speech and Tony Blair is currently worth around £22 million due to consultancy work and giving lectures.'
Danger of Wilfred missing out on Eton? We can't have that.
Comments
I very much doubt Rishi will give a penny more than he is already doing so
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
Always read the small print!
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I have zero interest in overthrowing capitalism or getting rid of the army, I support NATO, etc.
I don't support the Royal Family but I also have zero interest in seeing them removed.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/10/ed-vaizey-ending-tax-free-shopping-for-international-visitors-would-be-disastrous-for-the-british-economy.html
No doubt Johnson will now pinch this idea and re-brand it "Australia terms" lockdown
Under QMV many laws could be passed without the UK agreeing and without UK voters having any way to change it back.
Anyone in favour of deals that want unfettered sovereignty are by definition in favour of no deal.
Drakeford has made a decision and it is up to him to fund it and not blackmail Westminster
(Stanley Baldwin, quoting Rudyard Kipling)
"There goes the tarts' vote"....
I think I can stake a claim for consistency, if that's a word - various intensities of left-wing for 64 years. (Enter Philip to say "You mean pig-headedness"
Incidentally, I've just finished Dark Clouds Shining by David Downing - the most accurate and subtle novel about the different shades of opinion in the Russian Revolution that I've seen, with sympathetic portrayals of everything from anarchism to social democracy, with an undercurrent of sympathetic regret for all of them. I can't imagine who the audience is nowadays though. His Diary of a Dead Man on Leave, about a German communist facing the dark future of vain resistance to Nazi rule with totally unpredictable messages from Moscow, does a similarly excellent, humane, wistful but obscure job. Both books will be hard going unless you identify with the characters.
The behaviour of the UK government in signing treaties is really a matter for UK politics. Leaving the EU has not changed that.
Who else is there?
If the UK signs a bad treaty now we can elect a new government to reverse that treaty. Under the EU ratchet that wasn't possible.
It means that the "price" that the EU wants us to pay needs to be weighed against the level of "shit" that we will avoid if we sign the deal.
Which left leaving the EU as the only solution. So we have rationally done that.
Who else is there?
https://twitter.com/warmatters/status/1318112162695598080?s=20
bet that generated a few jitters somewhere on Twitter
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
The centre left and right, and metropolitan interests, should be concerned that if Scotland leaves it fundamentally changes the balance and nature of our politics, but havent noticed yet. By the time they do, as with Brexit, it will be too late.
He used the term "WTO" about a dozen times during that three minute period.
(Not suggesting that this particular church needed any 'cleansing', presumably bad luck that this church, in particular, was targeted. The perpetrator will hopefully be helped and/or punished appropriately depending on the facts)
But I think we may be close to the end. I really don;t know.
Lisbon was designed to be irreversible. No deal is not, even if no deal happens it will only ever be temporary until a deal is eventually agreed.
Madness.
I don't make a big thing of it here because when I do make the mistake of trying to change someone's mind on here I don't try to do so all in one go.
My faith in workers democracy is a bit damaged by the behaviour of many of the prominent British advocates for the same, so I've tended to a bit more of an Anarchist viewpoint recently, but poll-watching as part of the Parliamentary road to Socialism is passing the time while I wait for the Revolution.
If Scotland leaves, then I expect large sections of Welsh Labour will change their mind on the value of staying.
https://www.prri.org/research/amid-multiple-crises-trump-and-biden-supporters-see-different-realities-and-futures-for-the-nation/
It's an interesting, very detailed survey on attitudes. On voting intention, it says:
Among all Americans, 56% say they are voting for Biden for president, including 7% who are uncertain but lean toward Biden, compared to 42% who say they are voting for Trump, including 6% who are uncertain but lean toward Trump. These reported voting patterns are identical among registered voters.
https://twitter.com/iannewscot/status/1296039853767917569?s=20
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would be up creek without a paddle
The result of the experiment may go Labour's way, but it is not obvious.
In particular, Drakeford said: "we will not see the benefit" of the two-week period by 9th Nov, but rather "in the weeks that follow".
That doesn't sound as though he expects to have much to show after 2.5 weeks of lockdown. But then he is a cautious person.
Democracy needs to understand how to deal with the proliferation of biased and fake news that the internet and big data allows, otherwise it will be threatened in its role as "the worst form of govt, bar all the others".
Longer term, biotech is another threat to democracy, it may not last the next 100 years.