"We hope their won't be a lockdown... THIS administration will never have a lockdown... We obviously won't know what... whatever happens ... but THIS administration will not have a lockdown...".
Sounds to me like he's given up.
He was as close to conceding as he's going to get at the moment. he nearly said 'the next administration' but stopped himself.
It feels a bit as if the narrative is that Johnson is the battered wife finally freed after years of controlling torment by her abuser, hurray! And that is not a narrative that should be allowed to take hold. We should be tough on Cummings, and tough on the causes of Cummings.
And we have had this twice in a row, Nick Timothy was only marginally less gruesome than Cummings. Vote Tory and you are not voting for the party leader but for some utterly creepy rasputin figure in the shadows.
Don't forget Steve Hilton. He generally gets a pass for being a harmless, barefoot hippy. But he was equally weird in his own way.
It feels a bit as if the narrative is that Johnson is the battered wife finally freed after years of controlling torment by her abuser, hurray! And that is not a narrative that should be allowed to take hold. We should be tough on Cummings, and tough on the causes of Cummings.
And we have had this twice in a row, Nick Timothy was only marginally less gruesome than Cummings. Vote Tory and you are not voting for the party leader but for some utterly creepy rasputin figure in the shadows.
Don't forget Steve Hilton. He generally gets a pass for being a harmless, barefoot hippy. But he was equally weird in his own way.
I don't know what happens in these famous public schools. They seem to turn out leaders who lack self-confidence in their ability to just get on with the job themselves.
He started saying he hoped the incoming administration would hopefully not introduce a lockdown but changed it mid sentence to say but who knows what is going to happen. It was clear what was in his mind.
I wonder if he has any concept of the logistical effort needed to deploy a vaccine. The choices and priorities that need to be made etc etc. He gives the impression that once he gets the vaccines approved it'll all be over in a matter of weeks.
The fear that they would screw up the distribution was why the New York Governor made his comments earlier in the week that he was having a go at.
It feels a bit as if the narrative is that Johnson is the battered wife finally freed after years of controlling torment by her abuser, hurray! And that is not a narrative that should be allowed to take hold. We should be tough on Cummings, and tough on the causes of Cummings.
And we have had this twice in a row, Nick Timothy was only marginally less gruesome than Cummings. Vote Tory and you are not voting for the party leader but for some utterly creepy rasputin figure in the shadows.
Don't forget Steve Hilton. He generally gets a pass for being a harmless, barefoot hippy. But he was equally weird in his own way.
I don't know what happens in these famous public schools. They seem to turn out leaders who lack self-confidence in their ability to just get on with the job themselves.
They turn out orficers who stand about while the other ranks do the work, one can only conclude.
However - I visited one some years back and the antechapel was heartbreaking. Brass plaques from floor to ceiling, commemorating the Great War dead.
But there is more to life than standingf around in an officer-like manner.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
It doesn't make sense because the big loser from us not being able to buy energy from France is Ireland because we sell them energy.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
Threatening a country's energy supply in order to force access to their resources? That's not a good look.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
Tbf it is an idea far more widespread than just in the government.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
France sells us the energy, not the EU. We sell the energy to Ireland, the EU doesn't buy it.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
The nub of the story is that we would cope well enough with this threat if it transpired. Even in no-deal.
“Dom is going to have to face up to the fact that after spending years writing millions of words in his blogs, he has achieved nothing in government,” said one ministerial adviser.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
Threatening a country's energy supply in order to force access to their resources? That's not a good look.
There's a dictator in Russia who does the same thing...
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
It doesn't make sense because the big loser from us not being able to buy energy from France is Ireland because we sell them energy.
Interesting angle. So, 4-d chess in international relations.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
France sells us the energy, not the EU. We sell the energy to Ireland, the EU doesn't buy it.
The EU regulates it, and, as you know, the EU is a regulatory superpower, probably the most important regulatory superpower of all.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
Tariffs and regulations are one thing, a blockade is another.
I'm sure Dublin will be happy to have their interconnector cut off.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
The nub of the story is that we would cope well enough with this threat if it transpired. Even in no-deal.
Yes, it's a strange sort of threat because much of the energy we import from France is then reimported by Ireland. Additionally we buy most of our gas from Norway, I'm not sure they're going to stop exporting gas to the UK because the EU has told them so.
I doubt French companies who export energy to the UK will stop doing so on the say so of the EU either, or Irish companies importing from the UK on the same basis.
It's just about the oddest kind of threat they can come up with.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
France sells us the energy, not the EU. We sell the energy to Ireland, the EU doesn't buy it.
The EU regulates it, and, as you know, the EU is a regulatory superpower, probably the most important regulatory superpower of all.
So do they tell Ireland to stop importing energy from the UK as well?
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
Threatening a country's energy supply in order to force access to their resources? That's not a good look.
There's a dictator in Russia who does the same thing...
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
Threatening a country's energy supply in order to force access to their resources? That's not a good look.
What did you make of Priti Patel threatening Ireland's food supply?
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
Ultimately the UK is the military power in the region and threatening energy blockades seems like an escalation that would end up going in that kind of direction. The very idea that NATO allies would threaten each others national security just seems very bizarre.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
I don't like to go all HYUFD, but ... is that really true?
We don't hold many cards from the basic deck. But we do have a few up our sleeves.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
France sells us the energy, not the EU. We sell the energy to Ireland, the EU doesn't buy it.
The EU regulates it, and, as you know, the EU is a regulatory superpower, probably the most important regulatory superpower of all.
So do they tell Ireland to stop importing energy from the UK as well?
Well the UK is threatening to stop its own fishermen from being able to sell their fish to by miles their largest market, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Both sides need a deal, but of course we need it desperately and they don't. It will have to be a deal compliant with EU regulations. It really isn't complicated, that is the bind which our half-wit of a PM has boxed himself into.
It feels a bit as if the narrative is that Johnson is the battered wife finally freed after years of controlling torment by her abuser, hurray! And that is not a narrative that should be allowed to take hold. We should be tough on Cummings, and tough on the causes of Cummings.
And we have had this twice in a row, Nick Timothy was only marginally less gruesome than Cummings. Vote Tory and you are not voting for the party leader but for some utterly creepy rasputin figure in the shadows.
Don't forget Steve Hilton. He generally gets a pass for being a harmless, barefoot hippy. But he was equally weird in his own way.
I don't know what happens in these famous public schools. They seem to turn out leaders who lack self-confidence in their ability to just get on with the job themselves.
They turn out orficers who stand about while the other ranks do the work, one can only conclude.
However - I visited one some years back and the antechapel was heartbreaking. Brass plaques from floor to ceiling, commemorating the Great War dead.
But there is more to life than standingf around in an officer-like manner.
During the early part of the Great War, the life expectancy of subalterns, the junior officers fresh out of public school, the Lieutenant Georges in Blackadder terms, was six weeks.
“Dom is going to have to face up to the fact that after spending years writing millions of words in his blogs, he has achieved nothing in government,” said one ministerial adviser.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
Threatening a country's energy supply in order to force access to their resources? That's not a good look.
What did you make of Priti Patel threatening Ireland's food supply?
Also very stupid. As a means to try to create leverage. Of course doing so as a response to an EU mainland threat to UK food supply would be entirely reasonable.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
Ultimately the UK is the military power in the region and threatening energy blockades seems like an escalation that would end up going in that kind of direction. The very idea that NATO allies would threaten each others national security just seems very bizarre.
It's happening right now in the Eastern Mediterranean. What would be bizarre is the UK choosing to become the new Turkey.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
I don't like to go all HYUFD, but ... is that really true?
No, in the North Sea the UK is the major military power, despite all of the jokes. Additionally, energy security is national security and I find it unlikely in the extreme that France would even countenance such a move against its main military ally in the region. I'd expect such a move would essentially make the UK withdraw from any security and intelligence cooperation for a very long time and given that the UK is, again, the main intelligence power in Europe (and by a very long distance too given our relationship with the US) that would be a huge, huge loss for European countries.
Is there a book on whether Cummings has enough dirt on Johnson to bring him down?
What, like Boris recruited a career psychopath who poisoned Whitehall, sabotaged the Covid response and wrecked Brexit, but then sacked him for being a bit rude about his girlfriend?
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
France sells us the energy, not the EU. We sell the energy to Ireland, the EU doesn't buy it.
The EU regulates it, and, as you know, the EU is a regulatory superpower, probably the most important regulatory superpower of all.
So do they tell Ireland to stop importing energy from the UK as well?
Well the UK is threatening to stop its fishermen from being able to sell their fish to by miles their largest market, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Both sides need a deal, but of course we need it desperately and they don't. It will have to be a deal compliant with EU regulations. It really isn't complicated, that is the bind which our half-wit of a PM has boxed himself into.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
Ultimately the UK is the military power in the region and threatening energy blockades seems like an escalation that would end up going in that kind of direction. The very idea that NATO allies would threaten each others national security just seems very bizarre.
It's happening right now in the Eastern Mediterranean. What would be bizarre is the UK choosing to become the new Turkey.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
I don't like to go all HYUFD, but ... is that really true?
No, in the North Sea the UK is the major military power, despite all of the jokes. Additionally, energy security is national security and I find it unlikely in the extreme that France would even countenance such a move against its main military ally in the region. I'd expect such a move would essentially make the UK withdraw from any security and intelligence cooperation for a very long time and given that the UK is, again, the main intelligence power in Europe (and by a very long distance too given our relationship with the US) that would be a huge, huge loss for European countries.
I'm glad we all agree with Evans-Pritchard that that this is a hollow threat.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
France sells us the energy, not the EU. We sell the energy to Ireland, the EU doesn't buy it.
The EU regulates it, and, as you know, the EU is a regulatory superpower, probably the most important regulatory superpower of all.
So do they tell Ireland to stop importing energy from the UK as well?
Well the UK is threatening to stop its fishermen from being able to sell their fish to by miles their largest market, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Both sides need a deal, but of course we need it desperately and they don't. It will have to be a deal compliant with EU regulations. It really isn't complicated, that is the bind which our half-wit of a PM has boxed himself into.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
And what's more, if threatening our energy supply (as opposed to complicating our energy supply and making it a bit more expensive - which may be what the story actually is) is the sort of thing they were pushing, then it arguably calls into question just how little they want/need a deal. If they were relatively relaxed about it, then such a threat wouldn't be necessary.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
I don't see what's far-fetched about it. If there's no deal there's no deal. There seems to be some bizarre idea in government that 'no deal' means that 'well, not exactly no deal, but all the things we're most concerned about continue as though there were a deal'.
I think the point is that, as pointed about above, first of all the biggest problem it would cause would be for Ireland.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
The point is surely just to emphasise that in a no deal scenario, the EU, and particularly France, has 'escalation dominance'.
I think we're about equal on the ultimate escalation?
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
Threatening a country's energy supply in order to force access to their resources? That's not a good look.
What did you make of Priti Patel threatening Ireland's food supply?
Not a good look either, given the history, although I don't believe she was actually involved in negotiations. Doesn't make this latest threat any better.
Good grief. Poor France. They say we're a fortnight behind, so we'd better watch out.
One should always touch wood, but the mantra that we are always "a couple of weeks behind" really needs some challenging. For a start we implemented systems of restrictions before them, and locked down at not far off the same time (but we in a better position when we did so). So if taking action earlier means anything, then there's no reason to think we end up where they are.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
If they want to buy the fish then they will need to live with the regulatory scheme and new pricing. Even though I literally give no fucks about fish, it is a national resource and quite simply if EU regulations prevent the importation of UK fish in no deal that's surely their problem.
Ultimately, it's a product they want to purchase that we have to sell to them, if they have put up stupid rules to stop it being bought I'm not sure you can blame the UK.
This is also why you remainers are seen as fifth columnists, you seem to be actively cheering the EU on with this odd threat to our national security. It's clearly an overreaction on their part but you seem to want them to do it so you can prove whatever point you want to make.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
UK is net importer of fish. I know it’s a North South thing between Haddock and Cod, but cod and chips could become a problem if we don’t get the promised batter fried brexit deal.
I don’t want to sound silly or anything, but I would like to contribute, the problem is fish swim about in the sea. 😮
.. although bizarrely, under the fantastic deal Boris signed up to, Northern Irish fishermen fishing in British waters will have access to EU markets.
That sounds good. Bully for NI fishermen.
Yes, it's a curiosity but one which might benefit NI in a small way. Of course it's nothing like compensation for the disaster to the rest of the NI economy.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
It doesn't make sense because the big loser from us not being able to buy energy from France is Ireland because we sell them energy.
The Irish grid, which operates on an all-island basis, would struggle to balance itself without the interconnecters.
It's less about the aggregate quantity of electricity transferred and more varying supply to match demand.
.. although bizarrely, under the fantastic deal Boris signed up to, Northern Irish fishermen fishing in British waters will have access to EU markets.
That sounds good. Bully for NI fishermen.
Yes, it's a curiosity but one which might benefit NI in a small way. Of course it's nothing like compensation for the disaster to the rest of the NI economy.
I don't know. NI may be the corner of the UK that does well out of all this, what with it having a foot in both markets.
Yeah, it's a bit far-fetched. But ... The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
It doesn't make sense because the big loser from us not being able to buy energy from France is Ireland because we sell them energy.
The Irish grid, which operates on an all-island basis, would struggle to balance itself without the interconnecters.
It's less about the aggregate quantity of electricity transferred and more varying supply to match demand.
I know, that's why it's such an odd threat. The UK would probably work it out and import gas from Norway and then Qatar to make up for it in the short term, Ireland just doesn't have that solution. I actually don't know how Ireland survives without rolling blackouts with no interconnector.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
If they want to buy the fish then they will need to live with the regulatory scheme and new pricing. Even though I literally give no fucks about fish, it is a national resource and quite simply if EU regulations prevent the importation of UK fish in no deal that's surely their problem.
Ultimately, it's a product they want to purchase that we have to sell to them, if they have put up stupid rules to stop it being bought I'm not sure you can blame the UK.
This is also why you remainers are seen as fifth columnists, you seem to be actively cheering the EU on with this odd threat to our national security. It's clearly an overreaction on their part but you seem to want them to do it so you can prove whatever point you want to make.
'Fifth columnist'. 'Remainer'. 'Cheering on the EU'
You've lost your mind. I'm in favour - or was whilst it was still possible - of a sensible, negotiated exit from the EU to implement the referendum result. Alas, it's not to be. All I'm doing is pointing out that the idiot of a PM the country has landed itself with has made a catastrophic job of negotiating our exit, making blunder after blunder. The three biggest blunders aren't hard to understand: boxing himself in to a completely unrealistic timetable in the midst of a pandemic, doing virtually nothing to prepare for the administrative changes which are likely to apply in a few weeks time, and spectacularly over-estimating the leverage which the UK has.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
If they want to buy the fish then they will need to live with the regulatory scheme and new pricing. Even though I literally give no fucks about fish, it is a national resource and quite simply if EU regulations prevent the importation of UK fish in no deal that's surely their problem.
Ultimately, it's a product they want to purchase that we have to sell to them, if they have put up stupid rules to stop it being bought I'm not sure you can blame the UK.
This is also why you remainers are seen as fifth columnists, you seem to be actively cheering the EU on with this odd threat to our national security. It's clearly an overreaction on their part but you seem to want them to do it so you can prove whatever point you want to make.
'Fifth columnist'. 'Remainer'. 'Cheering on the EU'
You've lost your mind. I'm in favour - or was whilst it was still possible - of a sensible, negotiated exit from the EU to implement the referendum result. Alas, it's not to be. All I'm doing is pointing out that the idiot of a PM the country has landed itself with has made a catastrophic job of negotiating our exit, making blunder after blunder. The three biggest blunders aren't hard to understand: boxing himself in to a completely unrealistic timetable in the midst of a pandemic, doing virtually nothing to prepare for the administrative changes which are likely to apply in a few weeks time, and spectacularly over-estimating the leverage which the UK has.
And you seem to be positively looking forwards to them trying to shut down the interconnectors so you can say "I told you so".
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
If they want to buy the fish then they will need to live with the regulatory scheme and new pricing. Even though I literally give no fucks about fish, it is a national resource and quite simply if EU regulations prevent the importation of UK fish in no deal that's surely their problem.
Ultimately, it's a product they want to purchase that we have to sell to them, if they have put up stupid rules to stop it being bought I'm not sure you can blame the UK.
This is also why you remainers are seen as fifth columnists, you seem to be actively cheering the EU on with this odd threat to our national security. It's clearly an overreaction on their part but you seem to want them to do it so you can prove whatever point you want to make.
The fish go to Danish waters to spawn. Then, as Marquee cleverly put it today, they swim closer to Cod’s Own Country.
To prevent over fishing, Every body is banned from fishing them till they grow bigger and succulent, yet despite nice adult ones within our waters we will remain net importer of things like cod in a big way. because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to.
.. although bizarrely, under the fantastic deal Boris signed up to, Northern Irish fishermen fishing in British waters will have access to EU markets.
That sounds good. Bully for NI fishermen.
Yes, it's a curiosity but one which might benefit NI in a small way. Of course it's nothing like compensation for the disaster to the rest of the NI economy.
I don't know. NI may be the corner of the UK that does well out of all this, what with it having a foot in both markets.
That was possible under Theresa May's proposals, but it's hard to see how it will work under the Boris Withdrawal Agreement terms. The burden of the checks in NI-GB trade is just going to be too high. It's a bloody shambles, frankly.
.. although bizarrely, under the fantastic deal Boris signed up to, Northern Irish fishermen fishing in British waters will have access to EU markets.
That sounds good. Bully for NI fishermen.
Yes, it's a curiosity but one which might benefit NI in a small way. Of course it's nothing like compensation for the disaster to the rest of the NI economy.
I don't know. NI may be the corner of the UK that does well out of all this, what with it having a foot in both markets.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
If they want to buy the fish then they will need to live with the regulatory scheme and new pricing. Even though I literally give no fucks about fish, it is a national resource and quite simply if EU regulations prevent the importation of UK fish in no deal that's surely their problem.
Ultimately, it's a product they want to purchase that we have to sell to them, if they have put up stupid rules to stop it being bought I'm not sure you can blame the UK.
This is also why you remainers are seen as fifth columnists, you seem to be actively cheering the EU on with this odd threat to our national security. It's clearly an overreaction on their part but you seem to want them to do it so you can prove whatever point you want to make.
The fish go to Danish waters to spawn. Then, as Marquee cleverly put it today, they swim closer to Cod’s Own Country.
To prevent over fishing, Every body is banned from fishing them till they grow bigger and succulent, yet despite nice adult ones within our waters we will remain net importer of things like cod in a big way. because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to.
I actually don't care whether we are net importers or exporters of fish tbh. I'm not the one threatening energy supply over it.
.. although bizarrely, under the fantastic deal Boris signed up to, Northern Irish fishermen fishing in British waters will have access to EU markets.
That sounds good. Bully for NI fishermen.
Yes, it's a curiosity but one which might benefit NI in a small way. Of course it's nothing like compensation for the disaster to the rest of the NI economy.
I don't know. NI may be the corner of the UK that does well out of all this, what with it having a foot in both markets.
That was possible under Theresa May's proposals, but it's hard to see how it will work under the Boris Withdrawal Agreement terms. The burden of the checks in NI-GB trade is just going to be too high. It's a bloody shambles, frankly.
If there's a deal then it's still on for NI. If no-deal then they are in the same boat as the rest of the UK, snafu as you would see it. edit: correction - we are all in the same boat deal or no-deal
The GOP must be heavy favourites to take back the house in 2022. Redistricting alone will wipe out the Dem majority, which may be down to single figures.
It's The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
If they want to buy the fish then they will need to live with the regulatory scheme and new pricing. Even though I literally give no fucks about fish, it is a national resource and quite simply if EU regulations prevent the importation of UK fish in no deal that's surely their problem.
Ultimately, it's a product they want to purchase that we have to sell to them, if they have put up stupid rules to stop it being bought I'm not sure you can blame the UK.
This is also why you remainers are seen as fifth columnists, you seem to be actively cheering the EU on with this odd threat to our national security. It's clearly an overreaction on their part but you seem to want them to do it so you can prove whatever point you want to make.
The fish go to Danish waters to spawn. Then, as Marquee cleverly put it today, they swim closer to Cod’s Own Country.
To prevent over fishing, Every body is banned from fishing them till they grow bigger and succulent, yet despite nice adult ones within our waters we will remain net importer of things like cod in a big way. because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to.
I actually don't care whether we are net importers or exporters of fish tbh. I'm not the one threatening energy supply over it.
It's more a question of what not taking the deal on the table and going for no deal could potentially lead to rather than a threat linking one to the other.
The UK is threatening nothing of the sort, it is saying that they should pay the market price for said fish. The UK doesn't get free energy from France, it pays the market price.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
My dear boy, if you think I'm I'm the one looking stupid then you've got a lot more growing up to do. The fishing issue has zero to do with price, as you would know if you'd done even the most cursory research into it.
If they want to buy the fish then they will need to live with the regulatory scheme and new pricing. Even though I literally give no fucks about fish, it is a national resource and quite simply if EU regulations prevent the importation of UK fish in no deal that's surely their problem.
Ultimately, it's a product they want to purchase that we have to sell to them, if they have put up stupid rules to stop it being bought I'm not sure you can blame the UK.
This is also why you remainers are seen as fifth columnists, you seem to be actively cheering the EU on with this odd threat to our national security. It's clearly an overreaction on their part but you seem to want them to do it so you can prove whatever point you want to make.
‘It’s a national resource’ I don’t want to be very argumentative but The idea that fish that swim into our waters is our own patriotic resource is just potty. You have to subtract agreements with others to prevent over fishing, subtract respect for fish life cycle of spawn one place big in another. We currently have a deal with EU that stops by law others fishing the fish swimming towards us, without that logically we will have less fish swimming towards our nets. And it varies from fish to fish like the threat to us importing the cod we need we won’t have enough of in ourpatriotic waters.
If there's a deal then it's still on for NI. If no-deal then they are in the same boat as the rest of the UK, snafu as you would see it.
Depends on the deal. It looks as though any deal which is reached is going to be very thin at best, which means there will still be a massive burden of red tape for trade between Britain and NI, as well as quite a lot between NI and the Republic. The whole sequence of that red tape has to add up to the same as the additional red tape between Britain and the continent, and splitting it into two chunks makes it worse, I'd have thought.
The GOP must be heavy favourites to take back the house in 2022. Redistricting alone will wipe out the Dem majority, which may be down to single figures.
Have they actually got that much scope to push redraw/gerrymander districts in their favour? The expectation before the election was that the Democrats would take back a lot of state legislatures and be able to push the pendulum back the other way, but i thought that many areas were already in the Republican favour by quite a long way. so it doesn't necessarily work the other way around. There's only so much juice you can squeeze from an orange,
The GOP must be heavy favourites to take back the house in 2022. Redistricting alone will wipe out the Dem majority, which may be down to single figures.
It's more a question of what not taking the deal on the table and going for no deal could potentially lead to rather than a threat linking one to the other.
I'm not certain 2022 will function as a normal midterm. People will be getting the vaccine in the US and enjoying life again. Tentatively I think Dems may do better than history suggests
Comments
I'm stumped.
It was clear what was in his mind.
The fear that they would screw up the distribution was why the New York Governor made his comments earlier in the week that he was having a go at.
When will Betfair and Spreadex settle? Sigh.
Just leaving Betfair who still haven't paid out on the Democrats winning Pennsylvania nor my bet on Biden 300 - 329 ECVs.
Grrrrr ....
However - I visited one some years back and the antechapel was heartbreaking. Brass plaques from floor to ceiling, commemorating the Great War dead.
But there is more to life than standingf around in an officer-like manner.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/11/13/eu-hints-brexit-energy-blockade-power-blackouts-hollow-threat/
Popcorn!
The Commission has conspicuously chosen not to deny a Bloomberg story on Thursday stating categorically that the EU is threatening an “energy blockade”, a claim that it would normally contest if untrue.
Quoted in the FT.
I may die laughing tonight or choke on popcorn.
Secondly i don't think it would be in the EU's interests to fundamentally threaten UK national security (through blockading energy supply/food supply etc). There are plenty of ways that the EU can make things relatively worse/difficult for the UK, in a way that is likely to lead to political pressure on the UK Govt, without pushing them to a position where the response is quite likely not to be "OK we'll come back to the negotiating table" as opposed to an escalation, even potentially a military escalation as the UK seeks to protect itself.
I'm sure Dublin will be happy to have their interconnector cut off.
I doubt French companies who export energy to the UK will stop doing so on the say so of the EU either, or Irish companies importing from the UK on the same basis.
It's just about the oddest kind of threat they can come up with.
We don't hold many cards from the basic deck. But we do have a few up our sleeves.
When you make ridiculous arguments like this is just makes you look stupid, Richard.
You could start your education here, for example:
https://twitter.com/LochfyneLangous/status/1326886702548455427
Ultimately, it's a product they want to purchase that we have to sell to them, if they have put up stupid rules to stop it being bought I'm not sure you can blame the UK.
This is also why you remainers are seen as fifth columnists, you seem to be actively cheering the EU on with this odd threat to our national security. It's clearly an overreaction on their part but you seem to want them to do it so you can prove whatever point you want to make.
I don’t want to sound silly or anything, but I would like to contribute, the problem is fish swim about in the sea. 😮
It's less about the aggregate quantity of electricity transferred and more varying supply to match demand.
You've lost your mind. I'm in favour - or was whilst it was still possible - of a sensible, negotiated exit from the EU to implement the referendum result. Alas, it's not to be. All I'm doing is pointing out that the idiot of a PM the country has landed itself with has made a catastrophic job of negotiating our exit, making blunder after blunder. The three biggest blunders aren't hard to understand: boxing himself in to a completely unrealistic timetable in the midst of a pandemic, doing virtually nothing to prepare for the administrative changes which are likely to apply in a few weeks time, and spectacularly over-estimating the leverage which the UK has.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1327362253633544194?s=20
Been saying similar for some time myself.
To prevent over fishing, Every body is banned from fishing them till they grow bigger and succulent, yet despite nice adult ones within our waters we will remain net importer of things like cod in a big way. because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to.
Left footers in the Irish market.
Democrats 218
Republicans 204
Still to declare: 13
https://results.decisiondeskhq.com
The alternative is restrictions and masks forever.
edit: correction - we are all in the same boat deal or no-deal
https://cookpolitical.com/2020-house-vote-tracker
There is a a couple of sub 100 majority seats still counting.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/nov/13/joe-biden-donald-trump-election-result-coronavirus-latest-updates
Tentatively I think Dems may do better than history suggests