The NFU is saying “this bit has gone down isn’t it terrible” without adding “but this bit has gone up”
Which bit of "undermining domestic food production" has gone up?
Old system
- I will give you a flat payment if you own lots of land. I don’t care that it benefits massive agribusinesses and wealthy aristocrats rather than the struggling farmers and I don’t give a shit about the environmental damage caused by monoculture and emphasis on volume of production
New system
- I am going to give the farming community the same amount of money but instead of doing a flat payment based on land I will require done environmentally beneficial work in return. This will create a community benefit
NFU (dominated by agribusiness)
- “Food production will be undermined”
Answer
- yes. There is a trade off between hyperindustrialised farming and environmental damage. Where you are on that spectrum is a political choice. - I’m surprised that you want to subsidise wealthy agribusinesses to destroy the environment, but it takes all sorts
But it's EU standardised damage to the environment. So it is *Good* environmental damage.
The National Farmers’ Union warned that the speed of the reduction in direct subsidies was “high risk” and some farms could become unviable, undermining domestic food production.
People benefit from the status quo like the status quo. Shocker.
The money isn’t been reduced...
Yes, but farmers will be expected to do a great deal of extra non income generating work in order to receive the same level of subsidies. That may or may not be a good thing overall, but pretending it will not impact the viability of a large number of farms is disingenuous.
Not really. The NFU is sticking up for agribusiness who do very well out of the current system.
Oh, I know this one. If I were an EU negotiator, I would conclude that Britain held all the cards.
Like Trump managing to lose money owning a casino, it's remarkable that UK negotiators "holding all the cards" are still contriving to throw away the entire game
I think you're stuck in 2017. That's what your beloved May did.
Now we have a leader standing up for the UK and playing our cards smartly, which is why Barnier is cross.
Oh, I know this one. If I were an EU negotiator, I would conclude that Britain held all the cards.
Like Trump managing to lose money owning a casino, it's remarkable that UK negotiators "holding all the cards" are still contriving to throw away the entire game
I think you're stuck in 2017. That's what your beloved May did.
Now we have a leader standing up for the UK and playing our cards smartly, which is why Barnier is cross.
We don't know that Barnier is cross. We certainly don't know if his crossness is real or performative. Making Barnier cross isn't the aim of the excercise... is it?
We do know that the UK has publicly said it will walk on a couple of occasions, and then not done so.
And isn't "Basic trade deal, similar to Canada but with more LPF rules" much closer to the EU's initial bid than the UK's "Canada plusplusplus", let alone a deal with the "exact same benefits"?
The NFU is saying “this bit has gone down isn’t it terrible” without adding “but this bit has gone up”
Which bit of "undermining domestic food production" has gone up?
Old system
- I will give you a flat payment if you own lots of land. I don’t care that it benefits massive agribusinesses and wealthy aristocrats rather than the struggling farmers and I don’t give a shit about the environmental damage caused by monoculture and emphasis on volume of production
New system
- I am going to give the farming community the same amount of money but instead of doing a flat payment based on land I will require done environmentally beneficial work in return. This will create a community benefit
NFU (dominated by agribusiness)
- “Food production will be undermined”
Answer
- yes. There is a trade off between hyperindustrialised farming and environmental damage. Where you are on that spectrum is a political choice. - I’m surprised that you want to subsidise wealthy agribusinesses to destroy the environment, but it takes all sorts
Charles's account has plainly been hacked by a thirteen year old wannabe marxist. As Charles himself would point out, the scheme which will give you a flat payment if you own lots of land will also give you a (smaller, but important to you) flat payment if you own, or just farm, a little bit of land. Take it away, and guess who has too many alternative sources of income to notice the difference, as between the aristocrats and the farmers?
And drill down a bit into the "environmentally beneficial work" and you will find an agenda of reducing livestock on landscapes which have been created by livestock farming in favour of "rewilding," and acres of bloody horrible conifer woods because inefficient carbon capture.
True story: South West Water is deliberately destroying drainage works on the Western edge of Dartmoor, because Dartmoor is not wet enough.
Labour has a real problem here. Many many of their non-cult MPs genuinely believe their job includes the prevention of harm to their constituents. Yes I know that many now ex-MPs tried to protect their constituents who angrily voted them out in favour of self-harm. I know several of the now ex-MPs who are quite content that they did the right thing.
So it depends on the deal. If we get the continuity EEA pig lipstick deal that I expect, Labour MPs won't have that big a problem supporting it. If the deal is one that guarantees the closure of Nissan (as an example) then why would a Labour MP especially one up here vote for it? Yes many of their constituents don't believe the coming harm (though less of them than before), but once a bad deal harms them they will go apoplectic, and sophistry arguments about "eugh its the Tories deal not ours" won't cut it if they voted for it.
There’s no problem. The choice is either a “deal” or “no deal”. One is objectively more harmful than the other.
I'm not sure that the Nissan COO agrees with you. He's made it absolutely clear their business in the UK isn't viable if we have tariffs. So any deal has to be the status quo to be different to no deal.
I do wonder if we’d have done better to have a one week quarantine period, which even if marginally less effective might have been far better observed ?
Trump's exit from office may not be a dignified one, clinging on and trying to overturn the result until the EC votes next month but he remains popular with the GOP base and will be frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2024 if he decides to run again against by then President Biden or if he does not run again VP Harris or whichever contender the Democrats nominate.
Grover Cleveland showed Presidents can win 2 non consecutive terms in office if they lose their re election battle
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
Labour has a real problem here. Many many of their non-cult MPs genuinely believe their job includes the prevention of harm to their constituents. Yes I know that many now ex-MPs tried to protect their constituents who angrily voted them out in favour of self-harm. I know several of the now ex-MPs who are quite content that they did the right thing.
So it depends on the deal. If we get the continuity EEA pig lipstick deal that I expect, Labour MPs won't have that big a problem supporting it. If the deal is one that guarantees the closure of Nissan (as an example) then why would a Labour MP especially one up here vote for it? Yes many of their constituents don't believe the coming harm (though less of them than before), but once a bad deal harms them they will go apoplectic, and sophistry arguments about "eugh its the Tories deal not ours" won't cut it if they voted for it.
There’s no problem. The choice is either a “deal” or “no deal”. One is objectively more harmful than the other.
I'm not sure that the Nissan COO agrees with you. He's made it absolutely clear their business in the UK isn't viable if we have tariffs. So any deal has to be the status quo to be different to no deal.
If you had to choose between a deal (with Nissan going), and no deal (also with Nissan going), well you have to choose the deal.
Oh, I know this one. If I were an EU negotiator, I would conclude that Britain held all the cards.
Like Trump managing to lose money owning a casino, it's remarkable that UK negotiators "holding all the cards" are still contriving to throw away the entire game
I think you're stuck in 2017. That's what your beloved May did.
Now we have a leader standing up for the UK and playing our cards smartly, which is why Barnier is cross.
We don't know that Barnier is cross. We certainly don't know if his crossness is real or performative. Making Barnier cross isn't the aim of the excercise... is it?
We do know that the UK has publicly said it will walk on a couple of occasions, and then not done so.
And isn't "Basic trade deal, similar to Canada but with more LPF rules" much closer to the EU's initial bid than the UK's "Canada plusplusplus", let alone a deal with the "exact same benefits"?
The UK has not said it will walk "on a couple of occasions", that is inaccurate.
The UK send it would walk a few weeks ago - and did. Until the EU bent and compromised at which point it made sense to resume talks.
Labour has a real problem here. Many many of their non-cult MPs genuinely believe their job includes the prevention of harm to their constituents. Yes I know that many now ex-MPs tried to protect their constituents who angrily voted them out in favour of self-harm. I know several of the now ex-MPs who are quite content that they did the right thing.
So it depends on the deal. If we get the continuity EEA pig lipstick deal that I expect, Labour MPs won't have that big a problem supporting it. If the deal is one that guarantees the closure of Nissan (as an example) then why would a Labour MP especially one up here vote for it? Yes many of their constituents don't believe the coming harm (though less of them than before), but once a bad deal harms them they will go apoplectic, and sophistry arguments about "eugh its the Tories deal not ours" won't cut it if they voted for it.
There’s no problem. The choice is either a “deal” or “no deal”. One is objectively more harmful than the other.
There is no such thing as "objectively".
Whether a deal is better or worse than no deal can not be objectively determined, it would depend upon both what the deal is and what subjective value judgements you put on the elements of the deal.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
Oh, I know this one. If I were an EU negotiator, I would conclude that Britain held all the cards.
Like Trump managing to lose money owning a casino, it's remarkable that UK negotiators "holding all the cards" are still contriving to throw away the entire game
I think you're stuck in 2017. That's what your beloved May did.
Now we have a leader standing up for the UK and playing our cards smartly, which is why Barnier is cross.
We don't know that Barnier is cross. We certainly don't know if his crossness is real or performative. Making Barnier cross isn't the aim of the excercise... is it?
We do know that the UK has publicly said it will walk on a couple of occasions, and then not done so.
And isn't "Basic trade deal, similar to Canada but with more LPF rules" much closer to the EU's initial bid than the UK's "Canada plusplusplus", let alone a deal with the "exact same benefits"?
The UK has not said it will walk "on a couple of occasions", that is inaccurate.
The UK send it would walk a few weeks ago - and did. Until the EU bent and compromised at which point it made sense to resume talks.
Trump's exit from office may not be a dignified one, clinging on and trying to overturn the result until the EC votes next month but he remains popular with the GOP base and will be frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2024 if he decides to run again against by then President Biden or if he does not run again VP Harris or whichever contender the Democrats nominate.
Grover Cleveland showed Presidents can win 2 non consecutive terms in office if they lose their re election battle
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
The rather basic problem with this scenario is that the UK side are not rational. Any negotiator knows that you have to start with an unvarnished understanding of both parties positions, the respective value of all the variables and an understanding of the movement of the power gauge as things progress.
The UK negotiating team seem to have looked at Tony McCarroll, concluded that he had a massive win and decided to copy the strategy.
The NFU is saying “this bit has gone down isn’t it terrible” without adding “but this bit has gone up”
Which bit of "undermining domestic food production" has gone up?
Old system
- I will give you a flat payment if you own lots of land. I don’t care that it benefits massive agribusinesses and wealthy aristocrats rather than the struggling farmers and I don’t give a shit about the environmental damage caused by monoculture and emphasis on volume of production
New system
- I am going to give the farming community the same amount of money but instead of doing a flat payment based on land I will require done environmentally beneficial work in return. This will create a community benefit
NFU (dominated by agribusiness)
- “Food production will be undermined”
Answer
- yes. There is a trade off between hyperindustrialised farming and environmental damage. Where you are on that spectrum is a political choice. - I’m surprised that you want to subsidise wealthy agribusinesses to destroy the environment, but it takes all sorts
Charles's account has plainly been hacked by a thirteen year old wannabe marxist. As Charles himself would point out, the scheme which will give you a flat payment if you own lots of land will also give you a (smaller, but important to you) flat payment if you own, or just farm, a little bit of land. Take it away, and guess who has too many alternative sources of income to notice the difference, as between the aristocrats and the farmers?
And drill down a bit into the "environmentally beneficial work" and you will find an agenda of reducing livestock on landscapes which have been created by livestock farming in favour of "rewilding," and acres of bloody horrible conifer woods because inefficient carbon capture.
True story: South West Water is deliberately destroying drainage works on the Western edge of Dartmoor, because Dartmoor is not wet enough.
There were two words in the article that excited me a lot - (to) 'boost soils'. If farmers are going to be subsidised to remineralise soils, it will increase both yield and the health-giving quality of produce. That is wonderful news.
The conifer forests etc. I can live without, but don't forget that agricultural policy will now be set domestically - this is.not something we're locking ourselves in to and tossing away the key.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
The rather basic problem with this scenario is that the UK side are not rational. Any negotiator knows that you have to start with an unvarnished understanding of both parties positions, the respective value of all the variables and an understanding of the movement of the power gauge as things progress.
The UK negotiating team seem to have looked at Tony McCarroll, concluded that he had a massive win and decided to copy the strategy.
The UK side is only irrational because you consider Brexit and reclaiming sovereignty to be irrational but considering that is the entire raison d'etre of Brexit it is entirely rational.
The UK's position has been consistent: a Canada-style free trade deal that respects British sovereignty, that is unvarnished. The values are known too. The power gauge is that if there is no deal we automatically regain all our sovereignty and the EU get zero fish and zero LPF.
Bloke on the radio this morning. Lord Someone, chair of the Lords Financial Services committee or somesuch - so we can of course safely discount his view...
...said it was sheer madness that the financial services had not been mentioned at all in the current debate about the deal, specifically passporting and equivalence, which gift remains entirely in the hands of the EU.
More was being talked about fish than financial services.
Paging @Philip_Thompson and the other muppets - can you please let us know the relative benefits of the fishing and financial services sector to the UK?
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
The rather basic problem with this scenario is that the UK side are not rational. Any negotiator knows that you have to start with an unvarnished understanding of both parties positions, the respective value of all the variables and an understanding of the movement of the power gauge as things progress.
The UK negotiating team seem to have looked at Tony McCarroll, concluded that he had a massive win and decided to copy the strategy.
Given Dom's influence, wasn't the UK's approach to rationally act irrational? "We're going to crash, and if I promise not to swerve, you must so I win. Ha ha!"
Leaving aside the relative weight argument, that has two flaws.
First, game theory tactics stop working once the other side clocks your strategy. That probably took anyone watching the UK about 28 nanoseconds.
Second, there are the quite tragic WW2 stories (Coldiz?) of British POWs feigning madness as part of their escape plan, and doing so so well that their grip on reality crumbled.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
Just for future reference, what if we concede and the EU retains large percentages of our "quota" as well as enforceable LPF provisions? What will you say then?
Trump's exit from office may not be a dignified one, clinging on and trying to overturn the result until the EC votes next month but he remains popular with the GOP base and will be frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2024 if he decides to run again against by then President Biden or if he does not run again VP Harris or whichever contender the Democrats nominate.
Grover Cleveland showed Presidents can win 2 non consecutive terms in office if they lose their re election battle
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
Yes. We win if we voluntarily impose huge costs and delay by having tariffs where there are none.
Your points about fish are interesting though: 1. Your proposed ban on EU fishing in our waters - I take it we will offer compensation for the quotas that we sold them? 2. Lets assume it goes as you want. As most of the fish we eat is imported and most of the fish in our waters is exported, we will need to have a comprehensive free trade deal. Which is the primary thing you are about to take away. 3. The fishing industry are now up in arms about what this "victory" which according to them will greatly impede their ability to trade and threatens the shut down of large parts of the fishing industry. Are they wrong?
Trump's exit from office may not be a dignified one, clinging on and trying to overturn the result until the EC votes next month but he remains popular with the GOP base and will be frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2024 if he decides to run again against by then President Biden or if he does not run again VP Harris or whichever contender the Democrats nominate.
Grover Cleveland showed Presidents can win 2 non consecutive terms in office if they lose their re election battle
Trump being the nominee in 2024 must have the Dems rubbing their hands with glee. It is obvious now that Trump has underperformed lower ticket Republicans, and very likely to be even more so next time.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
Just for future reference, what if we concede and the EU retains large percentages of our "quota" as well as enforceable LPF provisions? What will you say then?
That sounds like a compromise I could back.
Fish I don't particularly care about personally. We've always said under our control the EU could take a portion of our quota (just as we will have a portion of theirs) but we will need to see what the agreement is. The EU's opening salvo was no change to the quotas at all. Of course I expect them to end with some quota because that is what we are giving them as part of the deal, our position has never been that they get no quota at all (hence why a deal is better for them than no deal, if a deal meant no fish then they'd have no reason to compromise on this issue).
LPF - again enforceable has always been the UK's position. Canada's deal has enforceable LPF provisions.
What would be unacceptable under LPF is for the EU to unilaterally write the provisions or unilaterally enforce them. If they are mutually agreed and mutually enforced and reciprocal then that is acceptable.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
Yes. We win if we voluntarily impose huge costs and delay by having tariffs where there are none.
Your points about fish are interesting though: 1. Your proposed ban on EU fishing in our waters - I take it we will offer compensation for the quotas that we sold them? 2. Lets assume it goes as you want. As most of the fish we eat is imported and most of the fish in our waters is exported, we will need to have a comprehensive free trade deal. Which is the primary thing you are about to take away. 3. The fishing industry are now up in arms about what this "victory" which according to them will greatly impede their ability to trade and threatens the shut down of large parts of the fishing industry. Are they wrong?
It's only metropolitan liberal elite fishermen who are up in arms, or something.
Trump's exit from office may not be a dignified one, clinging on and trying to overturn the result until the EC votes next month but he remains popular with the GOP base and will be frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2024 if he decides to run again against by then President Biden or if he does not run again VP Harris or whichever contender the Democrats nominate.
Grover Cleveland showed Presidents can win 2 non consecutive terms in office if they lose their re election battle
The entire argument of the "just let us decide our own risk" crowd totally fails to take into account that they're asking to decide everyone else's risk as well. And it's an asymmetric risk profile.
The ones wanting to choose for themselves and others to accept the risk are almost invariably the ones with the least risk. But they almost always look at the "risk of me being infected" and gloss over "the risk of me infecting others," and, in a public health scenario with an infectious pandemic: that is the crucial element.
After all, not one person in the UK (with the possible exception of Allison Pearson) has wanted anyone else to be infected, and no-one who has infected someone else has deliberately done so.
Yet over 5 million people have been infected nevertheless in the UK.
Those who did the infecting have indeed, overwhelmingly been okay. To the tune of 96% or so not needing hospitalisation and 99% or so not dying.
Yet 60,000 people who those infectors managed to infect have gone on to die. Given that most of these were in the higher risk categories, it's highly probable that very few of those 60,000 made the choice to face exposure and risk; instead others made the choice for them - and they ended up dying.
Nearly quarter of a million of the people those infectors did infect have been so sick they were hospitalised. A lot of those needing assistance to merely breathe.
At least a third of a million people face long-term consequences with what has been termed "long covid," many of these suffering organ damage.
Too many of those people infected - the third of a million with long covid, the quarter of a million so sick they were hospitalised, and the 60,000+ dead - had not made a decision to face higher risk.
They had that decision made for them.
By people whose own risk was low, and who did not fully think through the cost to others.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
Yes. We win if we voluntarily impose huge costs and delay by having tariffs where there are none.
Your points about fish are interesting though: 1. Your proposed ban on EU fishing in our waters - I take it we will offer compensation for the quotas that we sold them? 2. Lets assume it goes as you want. As most of the fish we eat is imported and most of the fish in our waters is exported, we will need to have a comprehensive free trade deal. Which is the primary thing you are about to take away. 3. The fishing industry are now up in arms about what this "victory" which according to them will greatly impede their ability to trade and threatens the shut down of large parts of the fishing industry. Are they wrong?
1. No, their quotas will lapse. Just as milk quotas lapsed. There is precedence for this. 2. We won't need a comprehensive free trade deal, trade is possible both with and without a comprehensive free trade deal. 3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
On the contrary, @Philip_Thompson assures me that "no deal" is the best scenario.
Which really begs the question why we're even trying to get a "deal" in the first place.
I have never said that. I have said no deal is better than a bad deal.
Good deal > No deal > bad deal.
What is hard about that to understand? So we can and should seek to get a good deal - but if we don't then no deal is a perfectly good fallback position.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
I need to be productive today, so here's a final thought.
Would No Deal have won the 2016 referendum? (Would No Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
Would any deal likely to emerge from this process have won the 2016 referendum? (Would This Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
If the answer to both of those is "No", then what, exactly, has the UK won, even if it gets a bit more of what it wants on the remaining issues?
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
I need to be productive today, so here's a final thought.
Would No Deal have won the 2016 referendum? (Would No Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
Would any deal likely to emerge from this process have won the 2016 referendum? (Would This Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
If the answer to both of those is "No", then what, exactly, has the UK won, even if it gets a bit more of what it wants on the remaining issues?
Any deal likely to emerge from this process will likely reflect the promises both sides made during the referendum (UK would leave Single Market, control laws, money, borders) so I'm going to say yes. Remember during the referendum both Leavers and Remainers were adamant the UK would leave the Single Market if we voted to Leave.
What the UK will have won is control over our own laws. If you're not happy with them you can vote for a new government to change them - and that includes the deal.
On the contrary, @Philip_Thompson assures me that "no deal" is the best scenario.
Which really begs the question why we're even trying to get a "deal" in the first place.
I have never said that. I have said no deal is better than a bad deal.
Good deal > No deal > bad deal.
What is hard about that to understand? So we can and should seek to get a good deal - but if we don't then no deal is a perfectly good fallback position.
Very simply, that comparing No Deal with Good or Bad Deal puts them on the same spectrum, measure, etc. You make it sound like a zero on a number scale from e.g. 5 through 0 to -5. Whereas a No Deal is in reality off the scale (literally). It's meaningless, and undefined, and always has been (unless you want to take WTO as a meaningful answer for a state such as the UK).
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
The rather basic problem with this scenario is that the UK side are not rational. Any negotiator knows that you have to start with an unvarnished understanding of both parties positions, the respective value of all the variables and an understanding of the movement of the power gauge as things progress.
The UK negotiating team seem to have looked at Tony McCarroll, concluded that he had a massive win and decided to copy the strategy.
The UK side is only irrational because you consider Brexit and reclaiming sovereignty to be irrational but considering that is the entire raison d'etre of Brexit it is entirely rational.
The UK's position has been consistent: a Canada-style free trade deal that respects British sovereignty, that is unvarnished. The values are known too. The power gauge is that if there is no deal we automatically regain all our sovereignty and the EU get zero fish and zero LPF.
I voted to leave the EU remember - I don't think Brexit is irrational at all. I think EEAxit is irrational. Nor do I think sovereignty is irrational.
You don't negotiate. All of these things you mention are variables in a negotiation. Things we want. Things they want. And the values of these variables. Sovereignty should be a high value / low cost trade. We want to make our own laws and as we have left the EU its not up to them to stop us.
The problem is the impact onto other variables. We asked for something that wasn't on the table (Canada+++++). That it wasn't on the table was clear from the start. So instead of understanding the realistic terms of the negotiation we just started to shout.
Final point (because like the government you haven't a clue how negotiation works). The walk away point. In any deal there is a walk away point - where the cost outweighs the value. Depending on context and objectives the WAP could be at any place along the scale. In our case we have to have a deal - no deal cripples business. That we don't understand this is our problem - the irrationality I talked about at the start. And its worse than that. Because we don't understand the WAP all our valuations of our variables - and more importantly the valuation of their variables - is wrong.
Which is where Tony McCarroll comes in. He went to court. Negotiated a deal. A big victory. Which completely cut him out of future royalties. Of one of the seminal rock'n'roll records of the era. And then pined for the band to get back together as they made a fortune without him.
The entire argument of the "just let us decide our own risk" crowd totally fails to take into account that they're asking to decide everyone else's risk as well. And it's an asymmetric risk profile.
The ones wanting to choose for themselves and others to accept the risk are almost invariably the ones with the least risk. But they almost always look at the "risk of me being infected" and gloss over "the risk of me infecting others," and, in a public health scenario with an infectious pandemic: that is the crucial element.
After all, not one person in the UK (with the possible exception of Allison Pearson) has wanted anyone else to be infected, and no-one who has infected someone else has deliberately done so.
Yet over 5 million people have been infected nevertheless in the UK.
Those who did the infecting have indeed, overwhelmingly been okay. To the tune of 96% or so not needing hospitalisation and 99% or so not dying.
Yet 60,000 people who those infectors managed to infect have gone on to die. Given that most of these were in the higher risk categories, it's highly probable that very few of those 60,000 made the choice to face exposure and risk; instead others made the choice for them - and they ended up dying.
Nearly quarter of a million of the people those infectors did infect have been so sick they were hospitalised. A lot of those needing assistance to merely breathe.
At least a third of a million people face long-term consequences with what has been termed "long covid," many of these suffering organ damage.
Too many of those people infected - the third of a million with long covid, the quarter of a million so sick they were hospitalised, and the 60,000+ dead - had not made a decision to face higher risk.
They had that decision made for them.
By people whose own risk was low, and who did not fully think through the cost to others.
I keep coming back to the issue that feelings are more important than facts, for some.
To me it actually seems rather cold and selfish.
"I Feels Bad" trumps "Dead People". "I Can't Breathe In A Mask"* trumps ......
But that is my perspective.
*A tiny, tiny number of people truly can't use a mask for genuine physicals or psychological reasons. What most people are saying is that it feels weird and unusual - and they won't put up with some adaption discomfort.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
I need to be productive today, so here's a final thought.
Would No Deal have won the 2016 referendum? (Would No Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
Would any deal likely to emerge from this process have won the 2016 referendum? (Would This Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
If the answer to both of those is "No", then what, exactly, has the UK won, even if it gets a bit more of what it wants on the remaining issues?
A Canada Deal would have beaten Remain, 50% of voters think a Canada Deal would be good for Britain compared to 48% who backed Remain, 35% who think a Norway Deal would be good for Britain and 32% who think No Deal would be good for Britain.
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
The entire argument of the "just let us decide our own risk" crowd totally fails to take into account that they're asking to decide everyone else's risk as well. And it's an asymmetric risk profile.
The ones wanting to choose for themselves and others to accept the risk are almost invariably the ones with the least risk. But they almost always look at the "risk of me being infected" and gloss over "the risk of me infecting others," and, in a public health scenario with an infectious pandemic: that is the crucial element.
After all, not one person in the UK (with the possible exception of Allison Pearson) has wanted anyone else to be infected, and no-one who has infected someone else has deliberately done so.
Yet over 5 million people have been infected nevertheless in the UK.
Those who did the infecting have indeed, overwhelmingly been okay. To the tune of 96% or so not needing hospitalisation and 99% or so not dying.
Yet 60,000 people who those infectors managed to infect have gone on to die. Given that most of these were in the higher risk categories, it's highly probable that very few of those 60,000 made the choice to face exposure and risk; instead others made the choice for them - and they ended up dying.
Nearly quarter of a million of the people those infectors did infect have been so sick they were hospitalised. A lot of those needing assistance to merely breathe.
At least a third of a million people face long-term consequences with what has been termed "long covid," many of these suffering organ damage.
Too many of those people infected - the third of a million with long covid, the quarter of a million so sick they were hospitalised, and the 60,000+ dead - had not made a decision to face higher risk.
They had that decision made for them.
By people whose own risk was low, and who did not fully think through the cost to others.
In the mindset of the "just let us decide our own risk" crowd, those people who are in the highest risk groups should be putting themselves in 100% quarrantine: no contact with anyone who meets people under 40 years old. First of all that is impossible for more than a coupe of weeks. Even if it were possible it would be inhumane, condemning the elderly to a year+ of quarrantine.
I thought Next Tory Leader was the ultimate lay-the-favourite market. In 2024, Trump will be even older than Biden is now.
That's low energy bluepill Demoncrat talk.
The fealty that the MAGA army have to GEOTUS is intensely personal and will not easily transfer to anyone else. Not even the coke fuelled empty husk of a human that is DJTJ.
As long as he's not in jail then he'll have to be the Republican candidate in 2024.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
I need to be productive today, so here's a final thought.
Would No Deal have won the 2016 referendum? (Would No Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
Would any deal likely to emerge from this process have won the 2016 referendum? (Would This Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
If the answer to both of those is "No", then what, exactly, has the UK won, even if it gets a bit more of what it wants on the remaining issues?
A Canada Deal would have beaten Remain, 50% of voters think a Canada Deal would be good for Britain compared to 48% who backed Remain, 35% who think a Norway Deal would be good for Britain and 32% who think No Deal would be good for Britain.
The NFU is saying “this bit has gone down isn’t it terrible” without adding “but this bit has gone up”
Which bit of "undermining domestic food production" has gone up?
Old system
- I will give you a flat payment if you own lots of land. I don’t care that it benefits massive agribusinesses and wealthy aristocrats rather than the struggling farmers and I don’t give a shit about the environmental damage caused by monoculture and emphasis on volume of production
New system
- I am going to give the farming community the same amount of money but instead of doing a flat payment based on land I will require done environmentally beneficial work in return. This will create a community benefit
NFU (dominated by agribusiness)
- “Food production will be undermined”
Answer
- yes. There is a trade off between hyperindustrialised farming and environmental damage. Where you are on that spectrum is a political choice. - I’m surprised that you want to subsidise wealthy agribusinesses to destroy the environment, but it takes all sorts
Charles's account has plainly been hacked by a thirteen year old wannabe marxist. As Charles himself would point out, the scheme which will give you a flat payment if you own lots of land will also give you a (smaller, but important to you) flat payment if you own, or just farm, a little bit of land. Take it away, and guess who has too many alternative sources of income to notice the difference, as between the aristocrats and the farmers?
And drill down a bit into the "environmentally beneficial work" and you will find an agenda of reducing livestock on landscapes which have been created by livestock farming in favour of "rewilding," and acres of bloody horrible conifer woods because inefficient carbon capture.
True story: South West Water is deliberately destroying drainage works on the Western edge of Dartmoor, because Dartmoor is not wet enough.
There were two words in the article that excited me a lot - (to) 'boost soils'. If farmers are going to be subsidised to remineralise soils, it will increase both yield and the health-giving quality of produce. That is wonderful news.
The conifer forests etc. I can live without, but don't forget that agricultural policy will now be set domestically - this is.not something we're locking ourselves in to and tossing away the key.
Existing bio-diversity schemes in the UK emphasise mixed woodland, in a number of cases - not mono-cultural conifers planted in neat rows. And have done so for decades.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
I need to be productive today, so here's a final thought.
Would No Deal have won the 2016 referendum? (Would No Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
Would any deal likely to emerge from this process have won the 2016 referendum? (Would This Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
If the answer to both of those is "No", then what, exactly, has the UK won, even if it gets a bit more of what it wants on the remaining issues?
A Canada Deal would have beaten Remain, 50% of voters think a Canada Deal would be good for Britain compared to 48% who backed Remain, 35% who think a Norway Deal would be good for Britain and 32% who think No Deal would be good for Britain.
A Canada style trade deal with the EU is what Boris wants
You do understand the difference between "what Boris wants" and what Boris can get, don't you? He can what whatever he likes, it doesn't mean he can get it.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
The rather basic problem with this scenario is that the UK side are not rational. Any negotiator knows that you have to start with an unvarnished understanding of both parties positions, the respective value of all the variables and an understanding of the movement of the power gauge as things progress.
The UK negotiating team seem to have looked at Tony McCarroll, concluded that he had a massive win and decided to copy the strategy.
The UK side is only irrational because you consider Brexit and reclaiming sovereignty to be irrational but considering that is the entire raison d'etre of Brexit it is entirely rational.
The UK's position has been consistent: a Canada-style free trade deal that respects British sovereignty, that is unvarnished. The values are known too. The power gauge is that if there is no deal we automatically regain all our sovereignty and the EU get zero fish and zero LPF.
I voted to leave the EU remember - I don't think Brexit is irrational at all. I think EEAxit is irrational. Nor do I think sovereignty is irrational.
You don't negotiate. All of these things you mention are variables in a negotiation. Things we want. Things they want. And the values of these variables. Sovereignty should be a high value / low cost trade. We want to make our own laws and as we have left the EU its not up to them to stop us.
The problem is the impact onto other variables. We asked for something that wasn't on the table (Canada+++++). That it wasn't on the table was clear from the start. So instead of understanding the realistic terms of the negotiation we just started to shout.
Final point (because like the government you haven't a clue how negotiation works). The walk away point. In any deal there is a walk away point - where the cost outweighs the value. Depending on context and objectives the WAP could be at any place along the scale. In our case we have to have a deal - no deal cripples business. That we don't understand this is our problem - the irrationality I talked about at the start. And its worse than that. Because we don't understand the WAP all our valuations of our variables - and more importantly the valuation of their variables - is wrong.
Which is where Tony McCarroll comes in. He went to court. Negotiated a deal. A big victory. Which completely cut him out of future royalties. Of one of the seminal rock'n'roll records of the era. And then pined for the band to get back together as they made a fortune without him.
I understand you voted for Brexit during a referendum were both Remainers and Leavers united to say that Brexit meant leaving the EEA - but you've since then flipped to saying leaving the EEA is irrational and joined the "fuck Brexit" Liberal Democrats.
I'm sorry but I see no way to rationally square the circle for you.
We never asked for Canada+++++++ unless by we you mean Theresa May - and I no more associate myself with May than you do Corbyn and the government now is not May's government. The UK has asked for Canada.
We do not have to have a deal. If we don't have a deal we will trade on Australia terms and adapt.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
I need to be productive today, so here's a final thought.
Would No Deal have won the 2016 referendum? (Would No Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
Would any deal likely to emerge from this process have won the 2016 referendum? (Would This Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
If the answer to both of those is "No", then what, exactly, has the UK won, even if it gets a bit more of what it wants on the remaining issues?
A Canada Deal would have beaten Remain, 50% of voters think a Canada Deal would be good for Britain compared to 48% who backed Remain, 35% who think a Norway Deal would be good for Britain and 32% who think No Deal would be good for Britain.
A Canada style trade deal with the EU is what Boris wants
You do understand the difference between "what Boris wants" and what Boris can get, don't you? He can what whatever he likes, it doesn't mean he can get it.
If we believe Boris (big if, I know) then he wants - and I want the same thing: Canada style > Australia style > EEA style.
Canada style requires the EU to compromise, Australia style does not. So we have no reason to compromise to something EEA style since that is our least-preferred option and the default is something we would prefer.
Trump's exit from office may not be a dignified one, clinging on and trying to overturn the result until the EC votes next month but he remains popular with the GOP base and will be frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2024 if he decides to run again against by then President Biden or if he does not run again VP Harris or whichever contender the Democrats nominate.
Grover Cleveland showed Presidents can win 2 non consecutive terms in office if they lose their re election battle
I thought Next Tory Leader was the ultimate lay-the-favourite market. In 2024, Trump will be even older than Biden is now.
Trump will still be younger than Biden if Biden runs again and if Harris is the Democratic candidate she is more left than Biden
1. I don't expect Biden to run again, and (or maybe but!). 2. Many known knowns, unknowns etc can, and will happen before we get round to really thinking about the presidential candidates for whichever party in 2024.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
There are two issues at dispute, the LPF and fish.
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
I need to be productive today, so here's a final thought.
Would No Deal have won the 2016 referendum? (Would No Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
Would any deal likely to emerge from this process have won the 2016 referendum? (Would This Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
If the answer to both of those is "No", then what, exactly, has the UK won, even if it gets a bit more of what it wants on the remaining issues?
A Canada Deal would have beaten Remain, 50% of voters think a Canada Deal would be good for Britain compared to 48% who backed Remain, 35% who think a Norway Deal would be good for Britain and 32% who think No Deal would be good for Britain.
A Canada style trade deal with the EU is what Boris wants
I wonder what percentage of voters have a scooby about what either a Canada Deal or a Norway Deal would consist of?
The question was phrased such that a Canada Deal means an end to free movement and no financial contrubutions to the EU, unlike a Norway Deal and no tariffs on goods but services like the financial sector no longer can export freely to the EU
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
Yes, ignore them.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Labour has a real problem here. Many many of their non-cult MPs genuinely believe their job includes the prevention of harm to their constituents. Yes I know that many now ex-MPs tried to protect their constituents who angrily voted them out in favour of self-harm. I know several of the now ex-MPs who are quite content that they did the right thing.
So it depends on the deal. If we get the continuity EEA pig lipstick deal that I expect, Labour MPs won't have that big a problem supporting it. If the deal is one that guarantees the closure of Nissan (as an example) then why would a Labour MP especially one up here vote for it? Yes many of their constituents don't believe the coming harm (though less of them than before), but once a bad deal harms them they will go apoplectic, and sophistry arguments about "eugh its the Tories deal not ours" won't cut it if they voted for it.
There’s no problem. The choice is either a “deal” or “no deal”. One is objectively more harmful than the other.
I'm not sure that the Nissan COO agrees with you. He's made it absolutely clear their business in the UK isn't viable if we have tariffs. So any deal has to be the status quo to be different to no deal.
Gallowgate may not be old enough to remember but I would have thought you are - they said something similar about if the UK didn't join the Euro then too.
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
Yes, ignore them.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Para 2. Difficult with shellfish and similar.And needs lots of equipment.
At least hes now being clear - he can only lose if things are rigged. Which hes always said in advance too. After winning the Republican primaries last time he noted that he said that one would be rigged too but he stopped because he won.
Nor would it need to since our constituencies are to be decided not on population but on the number of registered voters, and preferably as out of date as possible because that favours the Conservatives.
Councils work damn hard to get people to register.
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
Yes, ignore them.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Para 2. Difficult with shellfish and similar.And needs lots of equipment.
Never seems to be a problem when I hit the supermarkets. Prawns scallops lobster mussels all abundantly available.
Of course the UK turned it down because if the UK hadn't turned it down the EU wouldn't be looking to compromise. The EU compromises only at the last minute. The UK needs to stand firm until a rational compromise can be agreed.
The rather basic problem with this scenario is that the UK side are not rational. Any negotiator knows that you have to start with an unvarnished understanding of both parties positions, the respective value of all the variables and an understanding of the movement of the power gauge as things progress.
The UK negotiating team seem to have looked at Tony McCarroll, concluded that he had a massive win and decided to copy the strategy.
The UK side is only irrational because you consider Brexit and reclaiming sovereignty to be irrational but considering that is the entire raison d'etre of Brexit it is entirely rational.
The UK's position has been consistent: a Canada-style free trade deal that respects British sovereignty, that is unvarnished. The values are known too. The power gauge is that if there is no deal we automatically regain all our sovereignty and the EU get zero fish and zero LPF.
I voted to leave the EU remember - I don't think Brexit is irrational at all. I think EEAxit is irrational. Nor do I think sovereignty is irrational.
You don't negotiate. All of these things you mention are variables in a negotiation. Things we want. Things they want. And the values of these variables. Sovereignty should be a high value / low cost trade. We want to make our own laws and as we have left the EU its not up to them to stop us.
The problem is the impact onto other variables. We asked for something that wasn't on the table (Canada+++++). That it wasn't on the table was clear from the start. So instead of understanding the realistic terms of the negotiation we just started to shout.
Final point (because like the government you haven't a clue how negotiation works). The walk away point. In any deal there is a walk away point - where the cost outweighs the value. Depending on context and objectives the WAP could be at any place along the scale. In our case we have to have a deal - no deal cripples business. That we don't understand this is our problem - the irrationality I talked about at the start. And its worse than that. Because we don't understand the WAP all our valuations of our variables - and more importantly the valuation of their variables - is wrong.
Which is where Tony McCarroll comes in. He went to court. Negotiated a deal. A big victory. Which completely cut him out of future royalties. Of one of the seminal rock'n'roll records of the era. And then pined for the band to get back together as they made a fortune without him.
The existence or otherwise of a free trade deal with the EU does not 'cripple business' in most of the world that doesn't have one. It doesn't even cripple business with the EU in most of the world that doesn't have one. That phrase is meaningless hyperbole.
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
Yes, ignore them.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Para 2. Difficult with shellfish and similar.And needs lots of equipment.
Never seems to be a problem when I hit the supermarkets. Prawns scallops lobster mussels all abundantly available.
As for equipment, are you against investment ?
Indeed.
Shellfish is traded and frozen all over the globe. I bought some recently (frozen) that was labelled on the packaging as coming from Canada amusingly enough.
Most people in Britain were brought up in a country that offered the faint hope of justice. The police would investigate corruption, if only occasionally. Politicians would dodge and weave but avoid flat-out lies. Political parties had moral standards, however flexible, and if a minister disgraced himself or herself they could resign. Opposition politicians, journalists, satirists, charities and alliances of concerned citizens worked on the assumption that if they exposed wrongdoing there was a chance it would stop.
I don’t wish to romanticise the past. My small point is that we have not always been as shamefully governed as we are governed today. Countries change and not always for the better. Corruptions of public life in Britain that were once challenged now pass unpunished. The old codes that restrained the powerful have proved useless against politicians who say: “We can break them and no one can stop us.” Boris Johnson’s administration now lies as a matter of policy and a matter of course.
Boris is Trump. Both leaders have shown that what we thought were checks and balances, were not; that our constitutional and democratic conventions were just that, conventions. The only mitigating factor is neither Boris nor Trump is consistent or dogmatic, let alone evil, but this cannot be guaranteed of their successors.
“Rulers’ self-restraint is one of the most important – if less formal – ways by which governments control themselves. The belief that there are some limits, generally understood and shared despite political differences, beyond which you do not go because it is not the “done thing”, not the British way, not least because when you are out of power you don’t want to be on the receiving end. It is the “good chaps” theory of government. Coupled with that is a belief that even a democratic system requires checks and balances, that the system of government has a value which should be preserved and endure beyond the needs or desires of those in power at any one time.”
“The British conventions governing democracy and the consensus around them endure for as long as they are understood, believed and accepted. They become vulnerable, their weaknesses exposed when the reasons for them are forgotten or not valued or not understood. What if it is not “good chaps” who are elected? What if they are seen as stultifying by those impatient to effect change and willing to get rid of anything in their way? Or if checks and balances are simply described as obstruction and not seen as having any inherent value? Some do think that a government with a Parliamentary majority should be free to do whatever it wants and can get through Parliament: electoral might is right.”
Everything Cohen describes follows from the fact that we have people in power who think nothing should stand in their way, that, for instance, corruption is fine if done by an elected government or because it is an emergency or a necessity.
And of course the definition of “emergency” or “necessity” becomes ever wider until it becomes the norm and no-one even bothers to call it for what it is.
So if it becomes necessary to pay “middlemen” or “intermediaries” who happen to be the Minister’s neighbour or best friend or golf partner or whatever humongous sums of money to fly in Covid vaccines because the ports are blocked etc no- one will bat an eye lid and many will applaud. We have seen some of that on here already.
Market forces, dear Mr Hannan!, decolonising the curriculum is what boarding school customers choose.
While the faculty at Boarding schools reflect the demographics of Olde Englande, the places are increasingly taken by overseas pupils from China, Africa, Russia and elsewhere, as well as second generation migrants. It can be quite a hard sell to teach British Imperialism as a good thing to them.
Sunak was Head Boy at Winchester, but that is only in line with how times have changed.
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
Yes, ignore them.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Para 2. Difficult with shellfish and similar.And needs lots of equipment.
Never seems to be a problem when I hit the supermarkets. Prawns scallops lobster mussels all abundantly available.
As for equipment, are you against investment ?
Investment in fishing will be needed, won't it? Have I misunderstood the fishing debate? If we lock out EU trawlers, who will replace them? Do we have an unused, fully-crewed fishing fleet ready to fill the gap, or will we just sell permits to the Spanish crews working now? And if we do that, how have we helped our fishing industry?
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
Yes, ignore them.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Para 2. Difficult with shellfish and similar.And needs lots of equipment.
It's the fresh not frozen aspect that adds £££ to the price. Basically Brexiters are saying to those businesses - fuck you, you can go second rate and lose your premium aspect and compete on price alone with everyone else.
I was in the Jesmond area of Newcastle yesterday (well to do but very studenty) and it was packed. Almost no social distancing and plenty of households mixing, albeit outside. I don't know why I bother frankly.
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
Yes, ignore them.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Para 2. Difficult with shellfish and similar.And needs lots of equipment.
It's the fresh not frozen aspect that adds £££ to the price. Basically Brexiters are saying to those businesses - fuck you, you can go second rate and lose your premium aspect and compete on price alone with everyone else.
Science is against brexiteers on fish, but they have boxed themselves in with their unachievable promises.
I see how waters can be patriotic but the fish stocks aren’t. They are only in the waters because of agreements. If there is something fishy in the waters of Denmark, it’s because that is where they spawn.
Coordinated action helped to prevent over fishing and improve fish stocks. Fish don’t recognise national borders. Agreement prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water. Ours. We need other peoples trawlers in our waters because we need a deal that looks after our interests in the bigger picture.
One example. Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK is imported. and Brexit doesn’t change that, because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to? So Even if Federal EU never existed, even if we are out, we have no choice but to be in fish agreement with our neighbours.
The idea that fish that swim into our waters is our own patriotic resource is just potty. From that negotiation triumph 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 are 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.
Science is against brexiteers on fish, but they have boxed themselves in with their unachievable promises and scientific ignorance.
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
You want to ignore the vested interests of the fishing industry. To negotiate a deal. For the fishing industry. That largely shuts them down.
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
Yes, ignore them.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Para 2. Difficult with shellfish and similar.And needs lots of equipment.
Never seems to be a problem when I hit the supermarkets. Prawns scallops lobster mussels all abundantly available.
As for equipment, are you against investment ?
Investment in fishing will be needed, won't it? Have I misunderstood the fishing debate? If we lock out EU trawlers, who will replace them? Do we have an unused, fully-crewed fishing fleet ready to fill the gap, or will we just sell permits to the Spanish crews working now? And if we do that, how have we helped our fishing industry?
Whats wrong with investment, it's what drives productivity and increases wages ?
As for fishing. control your own waters and you can set your own policy to suit. We can sell licences if we want, expand the catch or designate larger slices of our waters as no fishing zones to allow the oceans to recover.
Which ever way we look at it it gives us more options than today.
I think most people accept/expect that those in a national parliament should be on average older than the average voter.
Is that right? Older than the average working age voter yes, but older than the average voter I am not so sure. The age distribution in the UK HoC looks reasonable enough actually but the HoL is horrific.
Maybe a Christmas with no friends should be rebranded Australia style to make it sound better?
An Australia-style Christmas means barbecues, sunshine and swimming in a pool.
I doubt any English Christmas can ever be rebranded Australia style.
Actually Christmas Down Under can be quite weird. I have had one in Sydney and another in Auckland. While there are some local traditions such as Santa arriving in Sydney by surfboat, Christmas decorations and traditions are often Northern Hemisphere, with snow decorated shop windows, Christmas trees, Turkey and stuffing etc, all in stifling heat.
Market forces, dear Mr Hannan!, decolonising the curriculum is what boarding school customers choose.
While the faculty at Boarding schools reflect the demographics of Olde Englande, the places are increasingly taken by overseas pupils from China, Africa, Russia and elsewhere, as well as second generation migrants. It can be quite a hard sell to teach British Imperialism as a good thing to them.
Sunak was Head Boy at Winchester, but that is only in line with how times have changed.
Market forces, dear Mr Hannan!, decolonising the curriculum is what boarding school customers choose.
While the faculty at Boarding schools reflect the demographics of Olde Englande, the places are increasingly taken by overseas pupils from China, Africa, Russia and elsewhere, as well as second generation migrants. It can be quite a hard sell to teach British Imperialism as a good thing to them.
Sunak was Head Boy at Winchester, but that is only in line with how times have changed.
Most people in Britain were brought up in a country that offered the faint hope of justice. The police would investigate corruption, if only occasionally. Politicians would dodge and weave but avoid flat-out lies. Political parties had moral standards, however flexible, and if a minister disgraced himself or herself they could resign. Opposition politicians, journalists, satirists, charities and alliances of concerned citizens worked on the assumption that if they exposed wrongdoing there was a chance it would stop.
I don’t wish to romanticise the past. My small point is that we have not always been as shamefully governed as we are governed today. Countries change and not always for the better. Corruptions of public life in Britain that were once challenged now pass unpunished. The old codes that restrained the powerful have proved useless against politicians who say: “We can break them and no one can stop us.” Boris Johnson’s administration now lies as a matter of policy and a matter of course.
Boris is Trump. Both leaders have shown that what we thought were checks and balances, were not; that our constitutional and democratic conventions were just that, conventions. The only mitigating factor is neither Boris nor Trump is consistent or dogmatic, let alone evil, but this cannot be guaranteed of their successors.
“Rulers’ self-restraint is one of the most important – if less formal – ways by which governments control themselves. The belief that there are some limits, generally understood and shared despite political differences, beyond which you do not go because it is not the “done thing”, not the British way, not least because when you are out of power you don’t want to be on the receiving end. It is the “good chaps” theory of government. Coupled with that is a belief that even a democratic system requires checks and balances, that the system of government has a value which should be preserved and endure beyond the needs or desires of those in power at any one time.”
“The British conventions governing democracy and the consensus around them endure for as long as they are understood, believed and accepted. They become vulnerable, their weaknesses exposed when the reasons for them are forgotten or not valued or not understood. What if it is not “good chaps” who are elected? What if they are seen as stultifying by those impatient to effect change and willing to get rid of anything in their way? Or if checks and balances are simply described as obstruction and not seen as having any inherent value? Some do think that a government with a Parliamentary majority should be free to do whatever it wants and can get through Parliament: electoral might is right.”
Everything Cohen describes follows from the fact that we have people in power who think nothing should stand in their way, that, for instance, corruption is fine if done by an elected government or because it is an emergency or a necessity.
And of course the definition of “emergency” or “necessity” becomes ever wider until it becomes the norm and no-one even bothers to call it for what it is.
So if it becomes necessary to pay “middlemen” or “intermediaries” who happen to be the Minister’s neighbour or best friend or golf partner or whatever humongous sums of money to fly in Covid vaccines because the ports are blocked etc no- one will bat an eye lid and many will applaud. We have seen some of that on here already.
But in the real world the "middlemen" tasked with flying in the vaccines isn't "best friends" it is the military.
While for PPE 99.5% of PPE purchased has been consumable and there was a global shortage of availability. Those businesses that stepped into the gap and provided millions of items of PPE should be thanked not condemned.
I think most people accept/expect that those in a national parliament should be on average older than the average voter.
Yes, quite. Not saying theres no issue particular in prominence of some in USA who have been around decades, but that tweet is a bit of a blunt instrument. Last week I had looked at House Reps versus MPs by length of service and it was quite interesting but hard to draw conclusions from.
I was in the Jesmond area of Newcastle yesterday (well to do but very studenty) and it was packed. Almost no social distancing and plenty of households mixing, albeit outside. I don't know why I bother frankly.
My neighbourhood in Leeds borders the studenty areas and each Friday/Saturday night the local Aldi and Coop have still been full of students dressed up to go out buying crates of beer. Lockdown II is definitely deemed optional for some. I only graduated 7 years ago so I understand what it's like but it's their family they'll be putting at risk when they all disappear home later this week and early next week.
Maybe a Christmas with no friends should be rebranded Australia style to make it sound better?
An Australia-style Christmas means barbecues, sunshine and swimming in a pool.
I doubt any English Christmas can ever be rebranded Australia style.
Actually Christmas Down Under can be quite weird. I have had one in Sydney and another in Auckland. While there are some local traditions such as Santa arriving in Sydney by surfboat, Christmas decorations and traditions are often Northern Hemisphere, with snow decorated shop windows, Christmas trees, Turkey and stuffing etc, all in stifling heat.
I know, I spent eight Christmas's there from age 10 to 17.
It can be rather discombombulating having White Christmas sang in air conditioning or outdoors when its over 30 degrees celsius outside.
I think most people accept/expect that those in a national parliament should be on average older than the average voter.
Is that right? Older than the average working age voter yes, but older than the average voter I am not so sure. The age distribution in the UK HoC looks reasonable enough actually but the HoL is horrific.
HoL wants experts and the accomplished, so people with decades of experience are more likely. Add to that the more common experience of it being treated as a retirement home for MPs and plaything of donors and people who've helped out top politicians and it trends even more to the old.
I'm not opposed in principle to an appointed chamber if done right, but I'm not sure it could have a more balanced age ratio if its kept.
I’ve got a feeling the politicians Christmas policy is going to be political disaster. They didn’t have the balls to cancel Christmas with a solid lockdown across the top of it, instead they have resulted to saying stuff like, open all the windows to lessen the chance of catching COVID off the person you are having lunch with, that will probably age as well as, doctor I’ve have got a cough, here have one of my cigarettes.
Comments
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1333333794301104130
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1333333796058443776
Making Barnier cross isn't the aim of the excercise... is it?
We do know that the UK has publicly said it will walk on a couple of occasions, and then not done so.
And isn't "Basic trade deal, similar to Canada but with more LPF rules" much closer to the EU's initial bid than the UK's "Canada plusplusplus", let alone a deal with the "exact same benefits"?
And drill down a bit into the "environmentally beneficial work" and you will find an agenda of reducing livestock on landscapes which have been created by livestock farming in favour of "rewilding," and acres of bloody horrible conifer woods because inefficient carbon capture.
True story: South West Water is deliberately destroying drainage works on the Western edge of Dartmoor, because Dartmoor is not wet enough.
Grover Cleveland showed Presidents can win 2 non consecutive terms in office if they lose their re election battle
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1331274679915597826?s=20
The UK send it would walk a few weeks ago - and did. Until the EU bent and compromised at which point it made sense to resume talks.
Whether a deal is better or worse than no deal can not be objectively determined, it would depend upon both what the deal is and what subjective value judgements you put on the elements of the deal.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/there-is-simply-no-credible-evidence-to-suggest-the-eu-will-concede-at-the-last-minute
No doubt, holes can be picked in that argument as well. But it's a heck of a gamble.
The UK negotiating team seem to have looked at Tony McCarroll, concluded that he had a massive win and decided to copy the strategy.
The conifer forests etc. I can live without, but don't forget that agricultural policy will now be set domestically - this is.not something we're locking ourselves in to and tossing away the key.
The UK's position has been consistent: a Canada-style free trade deal that respects British sovereignty, that is unvarnished. The values are known too. The power gauge is that if there is no deal we automatically regain all our sovereignty and the EU get zero fish and zero LPF.
...said it was sheer madness that the financial services had not been mentioned at all in the current debate about the deal, specifically passporting and equivalence, which gift remains entirely in the hands of the EU.
More was being talked about fish than financial services.
Paging @Philip_Thompson and the other muppets - can you please let us know the relative benefits of the fishing and financial services sector to the UK?
TIA
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1333232811076165632?s=20
On those issues either the EU concede in which case we win.
Or the EU don't concede, we go to no deal, in which case we win.
Heads we win, tails they lose. The default no deal position is that the EU get none of our fish whatsoever and no control over our policies so no LPF. So since we hold all the cards, they should compromise, but if they don't we move on without them.
Leaving aside the relative weight argument, that has two flaws.
First, game theory tactics stop working once the other side clocks your strategy. That probably took anyone watching the UK about 28 nanoseconds.
Second, there are the quite tragic WW2 stories (Coldiz?) of British POWs feigning madness as part of their escape plan, and doing so so well that their grip on reality crumbled.
It's a total loss.
A complete failure.
Which really begs the question why we're even trying to get a "deal" in the first place.
Your points about fish are interesting though:
1. Your proposed ban on EU fishing in our waters - I take it we will offer compensation for the quotas that we sold them?
2. Lets assume it goes as you want. As most of the fish we eat is imported and most of the fish in our waters is exported, we will need to have a comprehensive free trade deal. Which is the primary thing you are about to take away.
3. The fishing industry are now up in arms about what this "victory" which according to them will greatly impede their ability to trade and threatens the shut down of large parts of the fishing industry. Are they wrong?
Fish I don't particularly care about personally. We've always said under our control the EU could take a portion of our quota (just as we will have a portion of theirs) but we will need to see what the agreement is. The EU's opening salvo was no change to the quotas at all. Of course I expect them to end with some quota because that is what we are giving them as part of the deal, our position has never been that they get no quota at all (hence why a deal is better for them than no deal, if a deal meant no fish then they'd have no reason to compromise on this issue).
LPF - again enforceable has always been the UK's position. Canada's deal has enforceable LPF provisions.
What would be unacceptable under LPF is for the EU to unilaterally write the provisions or unilaterally enforce them. If they are mutually agreed and mutually enforced and reciprocal then that is acceptable.
The entire argument of the "just let us decide our own risk" crowd totally fails to take into account that they're asking to decide everyone else's risk as well. And it's an asymmetric risk profile.
The ones wanting to choose for themselves and others to accept the risk are almost invariably the ones with the least risk. But they almost always look at the "risk of me being infected" and gloss over "the risk of me infecting others," and, in a public health scenario with an infectious pandemic: that is the crucial element.
After all, not one person in the UK (with the possible exception of Allison Pearson) has wanted anyone else to be infected, and no-one who has infected someone else has deliberately done so.
Yet over 5 million people have been infected nevertheless in the UK.
Those who did the infecting have indeed, overwhelmingly been okay. To the tune of 96% or so not needing hospitalisation and 99% or so not dying.
Yet 60,000 people who those infectors managed to infect have gone on to die. Given that most of these were in the higher risk categories, it's highly probable that very few of those 60,000 made the choice to face exposure and risk; instead others made the choice for them - and they ended up dying.
Nearly quarter of a million of the people those infectors did infect have been so sick they were hospitalised. A lot of those needing assistance to merely breathe.
At least a third of a million people face long-term consequences with what has been termed "long covid," many of these suffering organ damage.
Too many of those people infected - the third of a million with long covid, the quarter of a million so sick they were hospitalised, and the 60,000+ dead - had not made a decision to face higher risk.
They had that decision made for them.
By people whose own risk was low, and who did not fully think through the cost to others.
2. We won't need a comprehensive free trade deal, trade is possible both with and without a comprehensive free trade deal.
3. Ignore vested interests squealing at this stage of negotiations. They exaggerate for effect what they want to try and get what they want agreed.
https://www.amazon.com/Trump-So-Much-Winning-T-Shirt/dp/B07D3N3RVL?
Good deal > No deal > bad deal.
What is hard about that to understand? So we can and should seek to get a good deal - but if we don't then no deal is a perfectly good fallback position.
Would No Deal have won the 2016 referendum? (Would No Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
Would any deal likely to emerge from this process have won the 2016 referendum? (Would This Deal have beaten Remain in a head-to-head?)
If the answer to both of those is "No", then what, exactly, has the UK won, even if it gets a bit more of what it wants on the remaining issues?
What the UK will have won is control over our own laws. If you're not happy with them you can vote for a new government to change them - and that includes the deal.
You don't negotiate. All of these things you mention are variables in a negotiation. Things we want. Things they want. And the values of these variables. Sovereignty should be a high value / low cost trade. We want to make our own laws and as we have left the EU its not up to them to stop us.
The problem is the impact onto other variables. We asked for something that wasn't on the table (Canada+++++). That it wasn't on the table was clear from the start. So instead of understanding the realistic terms of the negotiation we just started to shout.
Final point (because like the government you haven't a clue how negotiation works). The walk away point. In any deal there is a walk away point - where the cost outweighs the value. Depending on context and objectives the WAP could be at any place along the scale. In our case we have to have a deal - no deal cripples business. That we don't understand this is our problem - the irrationality I talked about at the start. And its worse than that. Because we don't understand the WAP all our valuations of our variables - and more importantly the valuation of their variables - is wrong.
Which is where Tony McCarroll comes in. He went to court. Negotiated a deal. A big victory. Which completely cut him out of future royalties. Of one of the seminal rock'n'roll records of the era. And then pined for the band to get back together as they made a fortune without him.
Q: Which educational establishments have done more damage to the UK in the C21st, Eton College or Islamist madrassas?
To me it actually seems rather cold and selfish.
"I Feels Bad" trumps "Dead People". "I Can't Breathe In A Mask"* trumps ......
But that is my perspective.
*A tiny, tiny number of people truly can't use a mask for genuine physicals or psychological reasons. What most people are saying is that it feels weird and unusual - and they won't put up with some adaption discomfort.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/08/18/majority-people-think-freedom-movement-fair-price-
A Canada style trade deal with the EU is what Boris wants
What they want is what they were sold. Salvation. The CFP was massively damaging to them, lets get out. So we get out, but stop them from economically exporting which kills them completely.
What a victory for Britain. Patriotism at its finest.
The fealty that the MAGA army have to GEOTUS is intensely personal and will not easily transfer to anyone else. Not even the coke fuelled empty husk of a human that is DJTJ.
As long as he's not in jail then he'll have to be the Republican candidate in 2024.
I'm sorry but I see no way to rationally square the circle for you.
We never asked for Canada+++++++ unless by we you mean Theresa May - and I no more associate myself with May than you do Corbyn and the government now is not May's government. The UK has asked for Canada.
We do not have to have a deal. If we don't have a deal we will trade on Australia terms and adapt.
I think they really want to keep Albon, even though they know it's dumb when Hulkenberg and Perez are both free agents and clearly better drivers.
Canada style requires the EU to compromise, Australia style does not. So we have no reason to compromise to something EEA style since that is our least-preferred option and the default is something we would prefer.
2. Many known knowns, unknowns etc can, and will happen before we get round to really thinking about the presidential candidates for whichever party in 2024.
A deal won't shut them down. No deal won't shut them down. Fish can be exported to the EU on WTO terms, it just needs to be frozen first. So if that is what happens they will need to freeze it first, at which point it can be sold to the EU - or sold anywhere in the globe too.
They will want a deal tweaked to what they prefer, so would Nissan, so would anyone else. But ignore them all. Its as much bullshit as the supposed idea Nissan are going to close likely is bullshit too.
Its lobbying nonsense, just ignore it.
As for equipment, are you against investment ?
I doubt any English Christmas can ever be rebranded Australia style.
Shellfish is traded and frozen all over the globe. I bought some recently (frozen) that was labelled on the packaging as coming from Canada amusingly enough.
“Rulers’ self-restraint is one of the most important – if less formal – ways by which governments control themselves. The belief that there are some limits, generally understood and shared despite political differences, beyond which you do not go because it is not the “done thing”, not the British way, not least because when you are out of power you don’t want to be on the receiving end. It is the “good chaps” theory of government. Coupled with that is a belief that even a democratic system requires checks and balances, that the system of government has a value which should be preserved and endure beyond the needs or desires of those in power at any one time.”
“The British conventions governing democracy and the consensus around them endure for as long as they are understood, believed and accepted. They become vulnerable, their weaknesses exposed when the reasons for them are forgotten or not valued or not understood. What if it is not “good chaps” who are elected? What if they are seen as stultifying by those impatient to effect change and willing to get rid of anything in their way? Or if checks and balances are simply described as obstruction and not seen as having any inherent value? Some do think that a government with a Parliamentary majority should be free to do whatever it wants and can get through Parliament: electoral might is right.”
Everything Cohen describes follows from the fact that we have people in power who think nothing should stand in their way, that, for instance, corruption is fine if done by an elected government or because it is an emergency or a necessity.
And of course the definition of “emergency” or “necessity” becomes ever wider until it becomes the norm and no-one even bothers to call it for what it is.
So if it becomes necessary to pay “middlemen” or “intermediaries” who happen to be the Minister’s neighbour or best friend or golf partner or whatever humongous sums of money to fly in Covid vaccines because the ports are blocked etc no- one will bat an eye lid and many will applaud. We have seen some of that on here already.
While the faculty at Boarding schools reflect the demographics of Olde Englande, the places are increasingly taken by overseas pupils from China, Africa, Russia and elsewhere, as well as second generation migrants. It can be quite a hard sell to teach British Imperialism as a good thing to them.
Sunak was Head Boy at Winchester, but that is only in line with how times have changed.
https://www.ft.com/content/98ed81ac-f529-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654
I see how waters can be patriotic but the fish stocks aren’t. They are only in the waters because of agreements. If there is something fishy in the waters of Denmark, it’s because that is where they spawn.
Coordinated action helped to prevent over fishing and improve fish stocks. Fish don’t recognise national borders. Agreement prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water. Ours. We need other peoples trawlers in our waters because we need a deal that looks after our interests in the bigger picture.
One example. Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK is imported. and Brexit doesn’t change that, because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to? So Even if Federal EU never existed, even if we are out, we have no choice but to be in fish agreement with our neighbours.
The idea that fish that swim into our waters is our own patriotic resource is just potty. From that negotiation triumph 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 are 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.
Science is against brexiteers on fish, but they have boxed themselves in with their unachievable promises and scientific ignorance.
As for fishing. control your own waters and you can set your own policy to suit. We can sell licences if we want, expand the catch or designate larger slices of our waters as no fishing zones to allow the oceans to recover.
Which ever way we look at it it gives us more options than today.
While for PPE 99.5% of PPE purchased has been consumable and there was a global shortage of availability. Those businesses that stepped into the gap and provided millions of items of PPE should be thanked not condemned.
https://twitter.com/FCDOGovUK/status/1333345021848858626?s=20
C'mon tartan-teammates!
It can be rather discombombulating having White Christmas sang in air conditioning or outdoors when its over 30 degrees celsius outside.
I'm not opposed in principle to an appointed chamber if done right, but I'm not sure it could have a more balanced age ratio if its kept.
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1333357746075422726
In other news Calum Ilott[sp] won't be racing in F1 next year.