The "Public Religion Research Institute" - perhaps they have just sampled evangelicals.
That polling page is prime internet real estate now, somebody should try making a poll for Pizza 2 Go Specials 10% Off With The Coupon Code 538 and see if they'll list it.
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.
The mind simply boggles. Who would pay 1 million pounds to listen to Theresa?
And whilst Blair & Cameron are smoother performers, I would start by expecting anything they say to be untrue.
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.
The mind simply boggles. Who would pay 1 million pounds to listen to Theresa?
And whilst Blair & Cameron are smoother performers, I would start by expecting anything they say to be untrue.
The question should be who would pay all ex-PMs millions to ensure the current PM listens to them?
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?
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would be up creek without a paddle
No they wouldn't, this is such a myth. Democracy finds a way.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would seek to reposition themselves to win a majority in England.
Any Labour left of Blair would be screwed certainly, Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a majority in England alone since 1966 and Heath in 1974, Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would all have won majorities in England alone
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.
It's not about tariffs. That's not what modern trade deals are about. Although for the sectors heavily affected (farming and autos) the tariffs are part of the problem. Exchange rate devaluations work by reducing the cost of domestic value added, for which read labour. In other words, by reducing real wages. So it may not offer much comfort to the British public, and in any case the move won't be enough to offset the tariffs in affected sectors.
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.
It's quite an old poll, but a highly rated pollster. They don't generally do General Elections and they haven't reported before in this cycle but they have certainly gone to town. Their full report is very long and detailed. It's full of good stuff if you have the time.
'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.
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.
"..otherwise it will be threatened in its role as "the worst form of govt, bar all the others""
What other systems of government even get close to democracy?
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would be up creek without a paddle
No they wouldn't, this is such a myth. Democracy finds a way.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would seek to reposition themselves to win a majority in England.
Any Labour left of Blair would be screwed certainly, Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a majority in England alone since 1966 and Heath in 1974, Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would all have won majorities in England alone
Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a UK election in that same period too.
2010 and 2017 is because there would, without NI or SNP or many LDs, be far less likely to be Hung Parliaments. But Labour would have been positioned differently had those elections happened without Scotland.
Boris must be delighted today. Somehow despite being in government and the buck stopping with him he has managed to shift responsibility onto devolved government.
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.....
Boris will already be receiving royalties from his books, two or three of which are on my own shelves. Looking at Churchillian precedents, of course familiar to our leading biographer of the great man, it might be that one of Boris's squillionaire mates can simply write a large cheque. If not, Boris could probably borrow against future earnings; Theresa May commands £100,000 a speech and Boris will expect more.
In short, I think it will be Boris's health rather than his financial health that will see him exit Downing Street next year.
'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.
'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.'
Here's a radical suggestion: don't have so many children with so many different baby mamas. Or don't send them to an expensive private school. Other schools are available, and who knows, maybe they won't grow up to be a dick like their dad.
Boris must be delighted today. Somehow despite being in government and the buck stopping with him he has managed to shift responsibility onto devolved government.
Not me gov.
The Welsh government's decision is nothing to do with him. For health in Wales the buck stops with Drakeford not Johnson.
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.
It's quite an old poll, but a highly rated pollster. They don't generally do General Elections and they haven't reported before in this cycle but they have certainly gone to town. Their full report is very long and detailed. It's full of good stuff if you have the time.
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.
"..otherwise it will be threatened in its role as "the worst form of govt, bar all the others""
What other systems of government even get close to democracy?
American democracy is like Western civilisation. A good idea; when is it going to start?
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.
It's quite an old poll, but a highly rated pollster. They don't generally do General Elections and they haven't reported before in this cycle but they have certainly gone to town. Their full report is very long and detailed. It's full of good stuff if you have the time.
I will. There are a couple of more recent ones from them up too. Oct 9-12. Biden +14 and +18. The "soft" South goes on that.
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.
It's quite an old poll, but a highly rated pollster. They don't generally do General Elections and they haven't reported before in this cycle but they have certainly gone to town. Their full report is very long and detailed. It's full of good stuff if you have the time.
I will. There are a couple of more recent ones from them up too. Oct 9-12. Biden +14 and +18. The "soft" South goes on that.
'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.
He’s entitled to it isn’t he?
Almost certain he'll be entitled, else what's the point of sending him to Eton?
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.
"..otherwise it will be threatened in its role as "the worst form of govt, bar all the others""
What other systems of government even get close to democracy?
It depends on the scenario and environment of the time. An authoritarian govt is probably better at handling pandemics, a militaristic govt may be better in a time when a small country is under threat from bigger neighbours.
Not all countries throughout time have been lucky enough to have the benign social and economic conditions that have allowed Western democracies to flourish. Fake and biased news is changing the environment again, it is up to democracy to respond.
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.
It's quite an old poll, but a highly rated pollster. They don't generally do General Elections and they haven't reported before in this cycle but they have certainly gone to town. Their full report is very long and detailed. It's full of good stuff if you have the time.
50 pages and on my scan through, not one question makes good reading for Donald.
So he'd better be hoping the whole this is flawed.
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.
It's quite an old poll, but a highly rated pollster. They don't generally do General Elections and they haven't reported before in this cycle but they have certainly gone to town. Their full report is very long and detailed. It's full of good stuff if you have the time.
I will. There are a couple of more recent ones from them up too. Oct 9-12. Biden +14 and +18. The "soft" South goes on that.
Texans won't be happy to be called "soft".
Well you know what I mean. Bit raw but not quite Dueling Banjos.
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
It will probably lead to a strong political counter-reaction at some point in the future too.
This is why I favour moderation. Or else you have an endless war that could rip the democratic fabric of the country in two.
'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.'
Here's a radical suggestion: don't have so many children with so many different baby mamas. Or don't send them to an expensive private school. Other schools are available, and who knows, maybe they won't grow up to be a dick like their dad.
Perhaps he should blame whoever is responsible for state schools if he refuses to send his kid to one. At least then we would be rid of Williamson.
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.
That is certainly an issue but I think it's more basic than that: the losing side simply needs to accept when it's lost, learn from it, re-group and look to see how best to fight future battles instead.
It doesn't need to like it, but attacking the system itself is the road to ruin.
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.
That is certainly an issue but I think it's more basic than that: the losing side simply needs to accept when it's lost, learn from it, re-group and look to see how best to fight future battles instead.
It doesn't need to like it, but attacking the system itself is the road to ruin.
It is the winning side that is attacking the system the most, both in the UK and the US. I will go further and say that their open contempt for the system is part of why they win.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would be up creek without a paddle
No they wouldn't, this is such a myth. Democracy finds a way.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would seek to reposition themselves to win a majority in England.
Any Labour left of Blair would be screwed certainly, Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a majority in England alone since 1966 and Heath in 1974, Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would all have won majorities in England alone
If newly independent England wants to vote to keep FPTP and then vote to keep electing Tory governments then good for them. I just don't want to live in that country.
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.
That is certainly an issue but I think it's more basic than that: the losing side simply needs to accept when it's lost, learn from it, re-group and look to see how best to fight future battles instead.
It doesn't need to like it, but attacking the system itself is the road to ruin.
Unless the system itself is corrupt (eg American voter suppression) 100% absolutely agreed.
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
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
It will probably lead to a strong political counter-reaction at some point in the future too.
This is why I favour moderation. Or else you have an endless war that could rip the democratic fabric of the country in two.
Amen. I'm looking more and more at the French Revolution as a model for Brexit, and the idiot factionalism that buried any good intentions and consequences in a landslide of horror. Few came out of it with enhanced reputations.
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.
It's quite an old poll, but a highly rated pollster. They don't generally do General Elections and they haven't reported before in this cycle but they have certainly gone to town. Their full report is very long and detailed. It's full of good stuff if you have the time.
50 pages and on my scan through, not one question makes good reading for Donald.
So he'd better be hoping the whole this is flawed.
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.
It might have escaped your notice that the Irish have put a great deal of work inot developing more direct ferry services to the rest of Europe, bypassing Brexitland completely.
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
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.
It might have escaped your notice that the Irish have put a great deal of work inot developing more direct ferry services to the rest of Europe, bypassing Brexitland completely.
Yes but not enough to remove 100% of lorries from 1 January 2020.
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
It will probably lead to a strong political counter-reaction at some point in the future too.
This is why I favour moderation. Or else you have an endless war that could rip the democratic fabric of the country in two.
Amen. I'm looking more and more at the French Revolution as a model for Brexit, and the idiot factionalism that buried any good intentions and consequences in a landslide of horror. Few came out of it with enhanced reputations.
Though the French aren't rushing back to a restoration of the monarchy are they?
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would be up creek without a paddle
No they wouldn't, this is such a myth. Democracy finds a way.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would seek to reposition themselves to win a majority in England.
Any Labour left of Blair would be screwed certainly, Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a majority in England alone since 1966 and Heath in 1974, Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would all have won majorities in England alone
If newly independent England wants to vote to keep FPTP and then vote to keep electing Tory governments then good for them. I just don't want to live in that country.
The assumption that English voters would blithely continue to give their support to a party that was instrumental in delivering the greatest international humiliation England has experienced for a thousand years, alongside a level of economic uncertainty Brexit does not get close to matching, is a quaint one.
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
They shouldn`t be doing that. Some people are exempt from wearing masks.
If you are exempt and can prove it, I have no doubt you will be allowed in.
If not, tough. Go elsewhere and spread your germs. Shops should be enforcing this in the same way they do No Smoking. The parallels are very similar.
How does my father prove he has alzheimer`s and can`t put a mask on or off (and when he does manage it loses his hearing aids in the process)? How can my wife prove she is exempt when going into a shop because I am partially deaf and I rely on lip-reading? These are clear exemptions to rules which were always only ever meant to be general rather than universal.
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.
3% average tariffs? You and HYUFD need to co-ordinate better. HYUFD is quoting much higher tariffs than that between a future IndyScot in the EU and the rUK.
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
Would they have done if not for the Iraq War?
Yes. I think the importance of this is overcooked - it mainly fractured support for Labour on the Left.
We'd have seen a better result for Blair in GE2005, as there were fewer Lab>LD defections, but a similarly poor one for Brown at GE2010.
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
It will probably lead to a strong political counter-reaction at some point in the future too.
This is why I favour moderation. Or else you have an endless war that could rip the democratic fabric of the country in two.
Amen. I'm looking more and more at the French Revolution as a model for Brexit, and the idiot factionalism that buried any good intentions and consequences in a landslide of horror. Few came out of it with enhanced reputations.
Though the French aren't rushing back to a restoration of the monarchy are they?
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
Would they have done if not for the Iraq War?
Yes. Eventually everything gets turned away from. One day people will turn away from Johnson.
I wonder if one particular user is this much of a bore in real life
Everyone on PB is one dimensional. It comes with endlessly discussing politics.
In real life, that would always be boring- whether or not you agreed with them. Although I suspect the time taken to be bored with SeanT might vary from person to person....
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
It will probably lead to a strong political counter-reaction at some point in the future too.
This is why I favour moderation. Or else you have an endless war that could rip the democratic fabric of the country in two.
Amen. I'm looking more and more at the French Revolution as a model for Brexit, and the idiot factionalism that buried any good intentions and consequences in a landslide of horror. Few came out of it with enhanced reputations.
Though the French aren't rushing back to a restoration of the monarchy are they?
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
Why did the Tory party turn towards it? Brexit was as much a rebellion against Cameron as against Blair, if not more.
They shouldn`t be doing that. Some people are exempt from wearing masks.
If you are exempt and can prove it, I have no doubt you will be allowed in.
If not, tough. Go elsewhere and spread your germs. Shops should be enforcing this in the same way they do No Smoking. The parallels are very similar.
How does my father prove he has alzheimer`s and can`t put a mask on or off (and when he does manage it loses his hearing aids in the process)? How can my wife prove she is exempt when going into a shop because I am partially deaf and I rely on lip-reading? These are clear exemptions to rules which were always only ever meant to be general rather than universal.
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
They shouldn`t be doing that. Some people are exempt from wearing masks.
If you are exempt and can prove it, I have no doubt you will be allowed in.
If not, tough. Go elsewhere and spread your germs. Shops should be enforcing this in the same way they do No Smoking. The parallels are very similar.
How does my father prove he has alzheimer`s and can`t put a mask on or off (and when he does manage it loses his hearing aids in the process)? How can my wife prove she is exempt when going into a shop because I am partially deaf and I rely on lip-reading? These are clear exemptions to rules which were always only ever meant to be general rather than universal.
Forgive me for inserting myself but that really is miserable. My entire commiserations. It's one of the many unhappy aspects of the current situation. I have a deaf lipreading family member so have heard about it thence. There are, however, cards to be hadn - link in this incl one that can go to the mobile phone
The point is we now have a real-life experiment to see if lockdown works.
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.
And when it doesn't...another 2 weeks?
Thata good point..if the cases keep rising and rising and the deaths keep rising and rising then it would be a brave call to say' Ok Lads, pubs are open again, go fill ye boots;....
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
Would they have done if not for the Iraq War?
Yes. Eventually everything gets turned away from. One day people will turn away from Johnson.
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.
3% average tariffs? You and HYUFD need to co-ordinate better. HYUFD is quoting much higher tariffs than that between a future IndyScot in the EU and the rUK.
I am not co-ordinated with HYUFD, he talks a lot of codswallop and I disagree with him as much as I disagree with anyone else.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would be up creek without a paddle
No they wouldn't, this is such a myth. Democracy finds a way.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would seek to reposition themselves to win a majority in England.
Any Labour left of Blair would be screwed certainly, Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a majority in England alone since 1966 and Heath in 1974, Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would all have won majorities in England alone
If newly independent England wants to vote to keep FPTP and then vote to keep electing Tory governments then good for them. I just don't want to live in that country.
The assumption that English voters would blithely continue to give their support to a party that was instrumental in delivering the greatest international humiliation England has experienced for a thousand years, alongside a level of economic uncertainty Brexit does not get close to matching, is a quaint one.
And the same with a newly independent Scotland endlessly voting SNP. People change their views and politics evolve. However, voters can be motivated for all kinds of reasons. The Tories shut Redcar steelworks which as you can imagine has been a Bad Thing for Redcar. And yet they have voted in a Tory MP...
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.
No it didn't. What led (lead?!) to Brexit was a dislike of foreigners by a large enough segment of the population who finally, they thought, had the chance to do something about it.
'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.'
Here's a radical suggestion: don't have so many children with so many different baby mamas. Or don't send them to an expensive private school. Other schools are available, and who knows, maybe they won't grow up to be a dick like their dad.
I think it's the school fees that are the killer rather than the copious and diverse procreation. Mick Philpott got by on much less than Johnson earns.
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
I had to google too. Just so @BigG doesn't have to ...
"OnlyFans is a British content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom.[4] Content creators can earn money from users who subscribe to their content—the "fans".[5] It is popular with sex workers[6] but also hosts content creators from other genres such as physical fitness experts, musicians and other creators who post regularly online.[7] It allows content creators to receive funding directly from their fans on a monthly basis as well as off tips and the pay-per-view (PPV) feature"
They shouldn`t be doing that. Some people are exempt from wearing masks.
Don't worry Drakeford is closing down the whole of Wales for two weeks so there is nowhere to wear masks
Setting aside your hostility to Drakeford, which you share frequently, don't you think it's quite a courageous unilateral gamble? It certainly won't be popular in Wales, even though many may agree with it. If by, say, the end of November there is no discernible difference in virus spread between Wales and England the gamble will have failed, and Drakeford will suffer. But by the same token, if there is a difference and his gamble pays off, he will get credit. I suspect Boris and co. will be worried about the possibility of the latter outcome because it means that the Welsh government (and Labour more generally) can say that Westminster didn't act quickly enough.
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.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
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.
No it didn't. What led (lead?!) to Brexit was a dislike of foreigners by a large enough segment of the population who finally, they thought, had the chance to do something about it.
The point is we now have a real-life experiment to see if lockdown works.
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.
And when it doesn't...another 2 weeks?
Thata good point..if the cases keep rising and rising and the deaths keep rising and rising then it would be a brave call to say' Ok Lads, pubs are open again, go fill ye boots;....
point of order, it won't be an sign of lockdown failure if deaths rose over its duration, since they lag infection by weeks. New cases is the key metric here, and comparisons against parallel demographics in the rest of the UK.
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
Would they have done if not for the Iraq War?
Yes. Eventually everything gets turned away from. One day people will turn away from Johnson.
From 97-10 it was a run of 13 years, with 3 GE's. That's a pretty dam good run for a labour party which is actually historically pretty crap at elections and holding onto power.
Of course every 'ideology' gets outdated, and tired, but if Starmer picks the bits which worked, dusts them off, and updates it, he's got a good base.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would be up creek without a paddle
No they wouldn't, this is such a myth. Democracy finds a way.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would seek to reposition themselves to win a majority in England.
Any Labour left of Blair would be screwed certainly, Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a majority in England alone since 1966 and Heath in 1974, Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 would all have won majorities in England alone
If newly independent England wants to vote to keep FPTP and then vote to keep electing Tory governments then good for them. I just don't want to live in that country.
The assumption that English voters would blithely continue to give their support to a party that was instrumental in delivering the greatest international humiliation England has experienced for a thousand years, alongside a level of economic uncertainty Brexit does not get close to matching, is a quaint one.
Even leaving aside the issues of humiliation or economic uncertainty - even if we arrived at that state of affairs in the happiest of circumstances, no democratic country will remain one party for ever: the opposition will simply move towards the centre of the new nation to the point that, at some election, it will win.
Party politics are not static, although many - such as the proponents of demographic shift leading to perpetual Democratic rule in the US - seem to talk and write as if they are.
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
I had to google too. Just so @BigG doesn't have to ...
"OnlyFans is a British content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom.[4] Content creators can earn money from users who subscribe to their content—the "fans".[5] It is popular with sex workers[6] but also hosts content creators from other genres such as physical fitness experts, musicians and other creators who post regularly online.[7] It allows content creators to receive funding directly from their fans on a monthly basis as well as off tips and the pay-per-view (PPV) feature"
fide Wikipedia.
Well there is a violinist around somewhere, isn’t there ?
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
I had to google too. Just so @BigG doesn't have to ...
"OnlyFans is a British content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom.[4] Content creators can earn money from users who subscribe to their content—the "fans".[5] It is popular with sex workers[6] but also hosts content creators from other genres such as physical fitness experts, musicians and other creators who post regularly online.[7] It allows content creators to receive funding directly from their fans on a monthly basis as well as off tips and the pay-per-view (PPV) feature"
fide Wikipedia.
I wonder who feels the need to pay for video content when there is a lot of content available on YouTube and certain other video platforms are available too.
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
Would they have done if not for the Iraq War?
Yes. Eventually everything gets turned away from. One day people will turn away from Johnson.
I wouldn't recommend it, who knows what he might get up to when your back's turned.
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
I had to google too. Just so @BigG doesn't have to ...
"OnlyFans is a British content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom.[4] Content creators can earn money from users who subscribe to their content—the "fans".[5] It is popular with sex workers[6] but also hosts content creators from other genres such as physical fitness experts, musicians and other creators who post regularly online.[7] It allows content creators to receive funding directly from their fans on a monthly basis as well as off tips and the pay-per-view (PPV) feature"
fide Wikipedia.
Well there is a violinist around somewhere, isn’t there ?
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.
No it didn't. What led (lead?!) to Brexit was a dislike of foreigners by a large enough segment of the population who finally, they thought, had the chance to do something about it.
They shouldn`t be doing that. Some people are exempt from wearing masks.
Don't worry Drakeford is closing down the whole of Wales for two weeks so there is nowhere to wear masks
Setting aside your hostility to Drakeford, which you share frequently, don't you think it's quite a courageous unilateral gamble? It certainly won't be popular in Wales, even though many may agree with it. If by, say, the end of November there is no discernible difference in virus spread between Wales and England the gamble will have failed, and Drakeford will suffer. But by the same token, if there is a difference and his gamble pays off, he will get credit. I suspect Boris and co. will be worried about the possibility of the latter outcome because it means that the Welsh government (and Labour more generally) can say that Westminster didn't act quickly enough.
Thousands of small businesses are operating in covid safe environment and parts of Wales have very low rates. I am opposed to national lockdowns and it seems Boris and Sturgeon conclude local tiering is better.
And more than that Drakeford wants Westminster to pay for this
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
I had to google too. Just so @BigG doesn't have to ...
"OnlyFans is a British content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom.[4] Content creators can earn money from users who subscribe to their content—the "fans".[5] It is popular with sex workers[6] but also hosts content creators from other genres such as physical fitness experts, musicians and other creators who post regularly online.[7] It allows content creators to receive funding directly from their fans on a monthly basis as well as off tips and the pay-per-view (PPV) feature"
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.
According to polling a narrow majority of both labour voters and conservative voters in England are in favour of breaking the union 51.5% and 52.5% something those parties should consider when looking at their pro union stance. LD voters are the most unionist bloc at a mere 33% that think breaking the union is something that should be done
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.
Self-harm in order to own the Blairites.
A more thoughtful poster might care to reflect why the electorate turned away from Blairism.
Why did the Tory party turn towards it? Brexit was as much a rebellion against Cameron as against Blair, if not more.
The Tory party under Cameron calculated that the affluent middle classes in England were the key constitutency to win over for victory, who favoured more social liberalism, more commitment about domestic public services, and more concern about global challenges, but were open to fiscal conservatism, lower taxes and market-based solutions.
It was only half an answer, as several of us argued at the time.
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.
No it didn't. What led (lead?!) to Brexit was a dislike of foreigners by a large enough segment of the population who finally, they thought, had the chance to do something about it.
Much truth here. Little knowledge of the Lisbon Treaty amongst many of those you refer to. Olde worlde sovereignty wonking is as much a minority sport as eurofederalism on the other side.
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
I had to google too. Just so @BigG doesn't have to ...
"OnlyFans is a British content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom.[4] Content creators can earn money from users who subscribe to their content—the "fans".[5] It is popular with sex workers[6] but also hosts content creators from other genres such as physical fitness experts, musicians and other creators who post regularly online.[7] It allows content creators to receive funding directly from their fans on a monthly basis as well as off tips and the pay-per-view (PPV) feature"
fide Wikipedia.
Well there is a violinist around somewhere, isn’t there ?
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.....
He'll patch it up with Carrie and talk her into doing an OnlyFans. It’s gonna be lit.
I had to google too. Just so @BigG doesn't have to ...
"OnlyFans is a British content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom.[4] Content creators can earn money from users who subscribe to their content—the "fans".[5] It is popular with sex workers[6] but also hosts content creators from other genres such as physical fitness experts, musicians and other creators who post regularly online.[7] It allows content creators to receive funding directly from their fans on a monthly basis as well as off tips and the pay-per-view (PPV) feature"
fide Wikipedia.
I wonder who feels the need to pay for video content when there is a lot of content available on YouTube and certain other video platforms are available too.
I think you get to see stuff before it's generally available. For example, the top level Lozza Fox membership will allow you to watch him working on new material and possibly even have the chance to influence it. Ditto with performers in other fields.
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.
No it didn't. What led (lead?!) to Brexit was a dislike of foreigners by a large enough segment of the population who finally, they thought, had the chance to do something about it.
That's a comfort blanket for Remainers.
It is both not comforting and also true.
Framing desire for control over migration as xenophobia is classic cognitive dissonance. Concern over immigration certainly got Brexit over the line in the vote but it wasn't the reason for the 30-35% voting bloc against the EU, that was increasingly shaping British politics, in the first place.
Since the EU was frustrating one of its main control levers through membership - and the effect of that had become clearer and clearer since 2004, and even more so after Cameron took office and couldn't reduce it below 100k - the failure of both it and the UK Government to address it set it up as an outcome.
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.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Comments
And whilst Blair & Cameron are smoother performers, I would start by expecting anything they say to be untrue.
Wales is, to an extent, being given responsibility without power. As is Scotland.
Without Wales and Scotland English Labour would seek to reposition themselves to win a majority in England.
Exchange rate devaluations work by reducing the cost of domestic value added, for which read labour. In other words, by reducing real wages. So it may not offer much comfort to the British public, and in any case the move won't be enough to offset the tariffs in affected sectors.
What other systems of government even get close to democracy?
2010 and 2017 is because there would, without NI or SNP or many LDs, be far less likely to be Hung Parliaments. But Labour would have been positioned differently had those elections happened without Scotland.
Not me gov.
In short, I think it will be Boris's health rather than his financial health that will see him exit Downing Street next year.
Biden + 11 -> 18 is healthy for him.
Not all countries throughout time have been lucky enough to have the benign social and economic conditions that have allowed Western democracies to flourish. Fake and biased news is changing the environment again, it is up to democracy to respond.
So he'd better be hoping the whole this is flawed.
This is why I favour moderation. Or else you have an endless war that could rip the democratic fabric of the country in two.
It doesn't need to like it, but attacking the system itself is the road to ruin.
A joint statement saying that they have agreed to work on a Canada style trade deal would be gamechanging, but I doubt it is likely.
If not, tough. Go elsewhere and spread your germs. Shops should be enforcing this in the same way they do No Smoking. The parallels are very similar.
HYUFD is quoting much higher tariffs than that between a future IndyScot in the EU and the rUK.
We'd have seen a better result for Blair in GE2005, as there were fewer Lab>LD defections, but a similarly poor one for Brown at GE2010.
In real life, that would always be boring- whether or not you agreed with them. Although I suspect the time taken to be bored with SeanT might vary from person to person....
Since I'm on slogans, 'Hunger is the most effective disease'.
I recommend @Big_G doesn’t.
You know that's not true, don't you Big_G. Are supermarkets closing?
https://actiononhearingloss.org.uk/coronavirus-response/face-coverings-how-the-regulations-apply-to-you/
https://www.facebook.com/actiononhearingloss/videos/face-covering-exemption-card/1486595961523279/
"OnlyFans is a British content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom.[4] Content creators can earn money from users who subscribe to their content—the "fans".[5] It is popular with sex workers[6] but also hosts content creators from other genres such as physical fitness experts, musicians and other creators who post regularly online.[7] It allows content creators to receive funding directly from their fans on a monthly basis as well as off tips and the pay-per-view (PPV) feature"
fide Wikipedia.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
It's coming folks.
That's a pretty dam good run for a labour party which is actually historically pretty crap at elections and holding onto power.
Of course every 'ideology' gets outdated, and tired, but if Starmer picks the bits which worked, dusts them off, and updates it, he's got a good base.
Party politics are not static, although many - such as the proponents of demographic shift leading to perpetual Democratic rule in the US - seem to talk and write as if they are.
“The instruments we have to gauge this race, the polling, our predictive models … are built around quote-unquote normal elections. And this is anything but a normal election,”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/trump-victory-democrats-election-430013
And more than that Drakeford wants Westminster to pay for this
It was only half an answer, as several of us argued at the time.
Since the EU was frustrating one of its main control levers through membership - and the effect of that had become clearer and clearer since 2004, and even more so after Cameron took office and couldn't reduce it below 100k - the failure of both it and the UK Government to address it set it up as an outcome.