Health bosses have told people over 80 not to panic if they have not been contacted about the coronavirus vaccine – as it is revealed that most of them will not get a jab until the New Year as mass immunisation begins.
Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said people need to 'hang fire' and be assured that they have not been forgotten about, despite not receiving a letter or a phone call about the vaccine.
He told the PA news agency: 'I don't think people should expect anything over the next few days because the reality is, as I said, that for the vast, vast, vast majority of people this will be done in January, February, March.
Even oldies aren't getting this until Jan-March, I think all the talk of we will be free by March is the government again over promising. Seems more like ETA is end of summer (if Oxford vaccine gets approved and we give that to the plebs).
That quote isn't clear whether, by "vast, vast, vast majority of people" he means the over 80s the article focuses on or people generally. The infographic refers to rollout to all over 50s from mid January. so it's quite a badly written article.
imho we just don't know what will happen and even Cummings's super-forecasters can't tell us. Hell of a lot of moving parts on this. But it seems sensible to assume it wont be as fast as anything that Johnson and Hancock promise.
The problem with state aid, is that the EU and their member states totally ignore all of the existing rules when it suits them - but they’re simultaneously wanting the UK to sign up to enforceable binding rules in the same areas.
Ignoring the rules is fine if you are fully signed up members of the club, it's a problem when you aren't a member but wish to continue to use it's facilities.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
But it's the *UK that wants access to EU markets*. Why on earth isn't a club entitled to set its own rules for people who want special privileges ?
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
By Adonis' 'reasoning', nobody could ever leave the EU because negotiations only began, at the EU's insistence, when Article 50 was triggered.
That was the point of Article 50 - it means you had zero incentive to leave.
Brexit has now made it very clear that attempting to leave is a very stupid idea..
If only the EU had been honest then and said "If you join, there is no possible mechanism to leave." That might have informed the debate in 1975 - and all points since.
By Adonis' 'reasoning', nobody could ever leave the EU because negotiations only began, at the EU's insistence, when Article 50 was triggered.
That was the point of Article 50 - it means you had zero incentive to leave.
Brexit has now made it very clear that attempting to leave is a very stupid idea..
If only the EU had been honest then and said "If you join, there is no possible mechanism to leave." That might have informed the debate in 1975 - and all points since.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
Giuliani was a good mayor.
Just because he's a nob now doesn't mean he was a nob then.
Although after all the excitement Russell went a bit flat near the finish.
Are you kidding? He didn't put a wheel wrong: 1. Aced the start to overtake Valtteri into turn 1 2. Aced the safety car restart 3. Built a comfortable lead which thanks to a few hot laps before the pit stop turned into a very comfortable lead 4. Reset the car to remove the low power issue 5. Sliced his way through the field after the botched pitstop 6. Sliced his way through the field after the puncture
When was the last time we saw Bottas work his way through the field? He is crap in traffic - the commentators say its the car, no its Valtteri. Hamilton can pass people. Russell can pass people. Bottas? Crap.
Wolff needs to get the Mercedes cheque book out. Offer a driver swap to Williams, Bottas for Russell plus suitable compensation.
By Adonis' 'reasoning', nobody could ever leave the EU because negotiations only began, at the EU's insistence, when Article 50 was triggered.
That was the point of Article 50 - it means you had zero incentive to leave.
Brexit has now made it very clear that attempting to leave is a very stupid idea..
If only the EU had been honest then and said "If you join, there is no possible mechanism to leave." That might have informed the debate in 1975 - and all points since.
The EU didn't exist in 1975.
Which just reinforces that we have never had a say on joining a club we are now told it was impossible to leave. That somwhere along the line, we were supposed to have handed over our sovereignty without question.
Would the people who engineered that situation like to admit they own Brexit as a result?
By Adonis' 'reasoning', nobody could ever leave the EU because negotiations only began, at the EU's insistence, when Article 50 was triggered.
That was the point of Article 50 - it means you had zero incentive to leave.
Brexit has now made it very clear that attempting to leave is a very stupid idea..
If only the EU had been honest then and said "If you join, there is no possible mechanism to leave." That might have informed the debate in 1975 - and all points since.
The EU didn't exist in 1975.
Which just reinforces that we have never had a say on joining a club we are now told it was impossible to leave. That somwhere along the line, we were supposed to have handed over our sovereignty without question.
Would the people who engineered that situation like to admit they own Brexit as a result?
Already backed Ferrari at 12 and McLaren at 101 (boosted) for the title, with small stakes.
If Bottas is there then Ferrari have a great chance of roaring back with Leclerc and Sainz. McLaren are less likely but they've been improving every year and have a very good driver lineup too.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
It comes back to the parispolitiques.fr test I've mentioned before.
If there were (maybe there is) a French successful popular web forum for discussion of politics, betting and political betting, what would its members be saying about this? Probably not much- from the eurostuff I read, I don't think most people care any more.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
It could take different forms, but there will be some form of evidence required to fly internationally I think. I`d be surprised if there isn`t.
I hope this is anticipated upfront or we run the risk of cohorts being vaccinated with no evidence and then the government having to scramble around retrospectively issuing something when it become apparent that some official documentation is required. The government must get ahead on this one.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
Giuliani was a good mayor.
Just because he's a nob now doesn't mean he was a nob then.
He was the best thing that happened to New York in decades, at the time.
A total and utter tw@ now though, two decades later.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
It could take different forms, but there will be some form of evidence required to fly internationally I think. I`d be surprised if there isn`t.
I hope this is anticipated upfront or we run the risk of cohorts being vaccinated with no evidence and then the government having to scramble around retrospectively issuing something when it become apparent that some official documentation is required. The government must get ahead on this one.
Yes - that's just an appointment card to make sure people return for their second appointment. I suspect longer term a more robust solution will be required.
Already backed Ferrari at 12 and McLaren at 101 (boosted) for the title, with small stakes.
If Bottas is there then Ferrari have a great chance of roaring back with Leclerc and Sainz. McLaren are less likely but they've been improving every year and have a very good driver lineup too.
The engines and cars will be virtually identical to this year (except for McLaren).
McLaren are doing well with a Mercedes engine so I can see them being better than Racing Point given that they have the better engine - so 101 definitely is a misprice and worth getting
but I can't see Ferrari being anywhere close to winning.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
Power tools and building supplies, backlogged at British ports and in short supply. Should a hi-viz clad tradesman like Boris Johnson be concerned?
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
Giuliani was a good mayor.
Just because he's a nob now doesn't mean he was a nob then.
He was the best thing that happened to New York in decades, at the time.
A total and utter tw@ now though, two decades later.
I think he's an example of someone who has declined sharply. Younger Guiliani was much sharper.
Whether it's age related cognitive decline, or he's fallen for his own America's Mayor spin and become detached from reality, or perhaps a combination of both is unclear.
It could take different forms, but there will be some form of evidence required to fly internationally I think. I`d be surprised if there isn`t.
I hope this is anticipated upfront or we run the risk of cohorts being vaccinated with no evidence and then the government having to scramble around retrospectively issuing something when it become apparent that some official documentation is required. The government must get ahead on this one.
Yep. If you want to fly to Australia, NZ, UAE, Maldives etc, you’re going to need a vaccine or same-day negative test.
The next big international row is going to be over the format and standard of certificates of vaccination on a massive scale.
It’s going to be very tedious when a deal is announced in the coming days to hear the likely lads saying things like “Boris caved”.
I’ve not been one to give this government much credit in 2020 but if they secure a zero tariff -zero quota trade deal with the EU and are still relatively free to diverge and sign up to things like TPP, then well bloody done.
Yes, they are agreeing to water down their demands on LPF.
I think we're two days away from a Deal here and it's enough for me to buy more UK equity this morning.
That's brave of you. Generally speaking, it seems extremely unlikely that the EU will agree any deal that leaves the UK with anything approaching the benefits of EU membership, and I'm not sure that's all already priced in.
The UK psychodrama has a long way to run yet, particularly if we go No Deal. Problem is no-one knows why we actually Brexited. "But sovereignty" doesn't actually explain it when we end up with less of what we want.
Nevertheless the EU needs to do some thinking too. Once the UK gets out of its cycle of self-harm, which it will do eventually, both the UK (maybe reduced) and the EU will still be there and they both need to get a working relationship.
The EU is a membership organisation and like any such will want to protect the value of membership. Nevertheless it is in the interest of members to keep a large and generally like minded neighbouring country in its orbit. So what is it prepared to offer that is a significant downgrade on membership but is still attractive to third countries?
It could take different forms, but there will be some form of evidence required to fly internationally I think. I`d be surprised if there isn`t.
I hope this is anticipated upfront or we run the risk of cohorts being vaccinated with no evidence and then the government having to scramble around retrospectively issuing something when it become apparent that some official documentation is required. The government must get ahead on this one.
Yep. If you want to fly to Australia, NZ, UAE, Maldives etc, you’re going to need a vaccine or same-day negative test.
The next big international row is going to be over the format and standard of certificates of vaccination on a massive scale.
A further worry is what happens in-between cohorts. Lets say, for example, the majority of the UK population is vaccinated but I`m still down the pecking order somewhere yet want to fly abroad.
Would a negative test be sufficient? What about children?
It’s going to be very tedious when a deal is announced in the coming days to hear the likely lads saying things like “Boris caved”.
I’ve not been one to give this government much credit in 2020 but if they secure a zero tariff -zero quota trade deal with the EU and are still relatively free to diverge and sign up to things like TPP, then well bloody done.
As opposed to the "likely lads" who will be saying things like "the EU caved as expected"?
It could take different forms, but there will be some form of evidence required to fly internationally I think. I`d be surprised if there isn`t.
I hope this is anticipated upfront or we run the risk of cohorts being vaccinated with no evidence and then the government having to scramble around retrospectively issuing something when it become apparent that some official documentation is required. The government must get ahead on this one.
Yep. If you want to fly to Australia, NZ, UAE, Maldives etc, you’re going to need a vaccine or same-day negative test.
The next big international row is going to be over the format and standard of certificates of vaccination on a massive scale.
Not the fact that some people are going to have to wait absolutely ages as their Gov't has fucked up procurement (Canada) or has stuck young people to the back of the queue (All of them) ?
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
Okay, No deal then.
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
Okay, No deal then.
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
I'm not interested in discussing the merits of no deal. If that is what happens, we'll find out wont we?
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
It’s going to be very tedious when a deal is announced in the coming days to hear the likely lads saying things like “Boris caved”.
I’ve not been one to give this government much credit in 2020 but if they secure a zero tariff -zero quota trade deal with the EU and are still relatively free to diverge and sign up to things like TPP, then well bloody done.
This is what Starmer should be saying if Johnson comes back with a pile of shite: "Boris has caved " "This is Brexit in name only", "It fails to deliver x, y and z, as Brexit promised", "It doesn`t deliver what leavers voted for" etc etc.
So we`re not voting for it.
The news that Starmer is planning to vote for any deal is very disappointing.
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
They don't need to, being mostly retired on fixed incomes, sitting and watching working age people actually suffer the changes.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
Okay, No deal then.
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
I'm not interested in discussing the merits of no deal. If that is what happens, we'll find out wont we?
I expect, like the airports, the UK Gov't wouldn't even know how to begin to stop London banks halting credit to various EU customers even if it wanted to which it probably doesn't.
Already backed Ferrari at 12 and McLaren at 101 (boosted) for the title, with small stakes.
If Bottas is there then Ferrari have a great chance of roaring back with Leclerc and Sainz. McLaren are less likely but they've been improving every year and have a very good driver lineup too.
The engines and cars will be virtually identical to this year (except for McLaren).
McLaren are doing well with a Mercedes engine so I can see them being better than Racing Point given that they have the better engine - so 101 definitely is a misprice and worth getting
but I can't see Ferrari being anywhere close to winning.
£10 bet on McLaren (as 100 to 1 is a misprice) and Ladbrokes are saying "Your bet has not gone through as total stake entered exceeds the max stake allowed" so it's being reviewed.
Allowed a £5 and £5 at 80/1 so 90/1 overall which will do.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
Giuliani was a good mayor.
Just because he's a nob now doesn't mean he was a nob then.
He was the best thing that happened to New York in decades, at the time.
A total and utter tw@ now though, two decades later.
I think he's an example of someone who has declined sharply. Younger Guiliani was much sharper.
Whether it's age related cognitive decline, or he's fallen for his own America's Mayor spin and become detached from reality, or perhaps a combination of both is unclear.
The danger for any politician with power is that they start to believe their own hype, and don't subsequently settle back to any sort of mental normality. We have examples of our own.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
The EU got burned badly by the Japan trade deal, as every single non-UK Japanese car plant in the EU got closed almost immediately.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
Okay, No deal then.
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
The same as now, they capitalise a subsidiary, get it a credit rating and raise the money as a domestic company. That's how everyone else does it anyway.
Mr. Pioneers, could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Mr. Doethur was just making a puncture-based jest.
Which went straight over my head in my admiration for George Russell. Seriously though, he has shown up Bottas for what he is - a makeweight driver. Put Bottas in clear space in the fastest car and he is fast. In any other circumstance he struggles and we have seen it repeatedly. Forget "I have a contract" - Bottas should be replaced for 2021. Will cost a bit of money but Mercedes have plenty of it.
Same with the Aston Martin issue. Stroll Snr signs Vettel as a development driver for Lance. Made sense a the time the contract was signed. Since then Seb has been happy to trundle around out of the points and blame the car which the other driver manages to get working. Again there is a contract but Stroll has cash. Thank Vettel for his time, pay him off, rehire Perez.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
Okay, No deal then.
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
Govt should introduce the transactions tax that some EU countries want, and make it a deductable expense to British taxpayers.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
I refer you to @eek 's excellent response regarding this.
It’s going to be very tedious when a deal is announced in the coming days to hear the likely lads saying things like “Boris caved”.
I’ve not been one to give this government much credit in 2020 but if they secure a zero tariff -zero quota trade deal with the EU and are still relatively free to diverge and sign up to things like TPP, then well bloody done.
As opposed to the "likely lads" who will be saying things like "the EU caved as expected"?
So much on here is like a playground argument when in truth if a deal is agreed the grown ups should just be grateful sense has prevailed and we move on
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
It literally doesn't matter what we are "asking for".
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
They don't need to, being mostly retired on fixed incomes, sitting and watching working age people actually suffer the changes.
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
There is a rather large problem with the "Check, Change, Go" advertising. It isn't remotely clear how much needs to be checked, what they need to be changed to, or how we manage to go even if only driving a truck around inside the UK.
You mention Brexiteers not having a clue how things work - that includes the cabinet. Take the "its because of Brexit" context off and ask any of them would they be in favour of asking business to fill in reams of red tape at high cost as a replacement for a system where all of that has been abolished...
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
We're still going to buy it. It's just going to be more expensive. We have an insatiable demand for goods that isn't going to disappear overnight in 3.5 weeks time.
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
They don't need to, being mostly retired on fixed incomes, sitting and watching working age people actually suffer the changes.
Is my guess also.
In the past couple of years the EU has brought forward legislation that fundamentally affects the antiques and art market without any understanding of it, or real need for it.
Staying in would have been more disruptive for my business than leaving.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
Okay, No deal then.
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
The same as now, they capitalise a subsidiary, get it a credit rating and raise the money as a domestic company. That's how everyone else does it anyway.
S'ok - most people are quick to explain how this or that sector will face such and such, or no problems when they don't have the foggiest clue about how that sector works.
For @Sandpit as an example I believe he was one on here who with great perspicacity identified the flaws in the govt's track and trace app. But business finance? Perhaps not so much.
Just like you and me on, say, fishing or industrial light machinery (I hope I don't impugn your knowledge...).
Yes, they are agreeing to water down their demands on LPF.
I think we're two days away from a Deal here and it's enough for me to buy more UK equity this morning.
That's brave of you. Generally speaking, it seems extremely unlikely that the EU will agree any deal that leaves the UK with anything approaching the benefits of EU membership, and I'm not sure that's all already priced in.
The UK psychodrama has a long way to run yet, particularly if we go No Deal. Problem is no-one knows why we actually Brexited. "But sovereignty" doesn't actually explain it when we end up with less of what we want.
Nevertheless the EU needs to do some thinking too. Once the UK gets out of its cycle of self-harm, which it will do eventually, both the UK (maybe reduced) and the EU will still be there and they both need to get a working relationship.
The EU is a membership organisation and like any such will want to protect the value of membership. Nevertheless it is in the interest of members to keep a large and generally like minded neighbouring country in its orbit. So what is it prepared to offer that is a significant downgrade on membership but is still attractive to third countries?
To be fair to the EU, they have lots of possibilities already, just not ones that the UK particularly liked. M. Barnier even published a diagrammatic summary;
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
It literally doesn't matter what we are "asking for".
So, "you'll get what you're told you'll get", huh?
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
They don't need to, being mostly retired on fixed incomes, sitting and watching working age people actually suffer the changes.
Is my guess also.
In the past couple of years the EU has brought forward legislation that fundamentally affects the antiques and art market without any understanding of it, or real need for it.
Staying in would have been more disruptive for my business than leaving.
Great. The whole country can go into the antiques and art business. Got any jobs going?
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
It literally doesn't matter what we are "asking for".
Actually in trade terms it does, if we get the same tariffs as the Canada/EU deal but the EU insists on different governance it's a breach of MFN rules. It's why the EU has refused the Canada route as soon as we asked for it, as has been said many times the UK has repeatedly asked the EU for a deal with tariffs.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
It literally doesn't matter what we are "asking for".
So, "you'll get what you're told you'll get", huh?
I can ask someone for a Ferrari but it doesn't mean I'm going to get one, even if they've previously given a Ferrari to someone else.
It could take different forms, but there will be some form of evidence required to fly internationally I think. I`d be surprised if there isn`t.
I hope this is anticipated upfront or we run the risk of cohorts being vaccinated with no evidence and then the government having to scramble around retrospectively issuing something when it become apparent that some official documentation is required. The government must get ahead on this one.
Yep. If you want to fly to Australia, NZ, UAE, Maldives etc, you’re going to need a vaccine or same-day negative test.
The next big international row is going to be over the format and standard of certificates of vaccination on a massive scale.
I was supposed to go out to Romania. Needed a negative test 48 hours or less before arrival - couldn't reliably be obtained and even then was only in a handful of locations. So didn't go.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No deal it is then.....
Not necessarily, but you were giving a false impression.
One of the main aims of Leave was to regain our sovereignty. That is a valid aim (not one I agree with, but perfectly valid). Done.
Now having regained our sovereignty you are now complaining about not getting some of the benefits you get from giving some of it up.
You can't have both. This is what negotiations are about. Standing there and shouting irrationally that you want both is nuts.
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
They don't need to, being mostly retired on fixed incomes, sitting and watching working age people actually suffer the changes.
Is my guess also.
In the past couple of years the EU has brought forward legislation that fundamentally affects the antiques and art market without any understanding of it, or real need for it.
Staying in would have been more disruptive for my business than leaving.
Great. The whole country can go into the antiques and art business. Got any jobs going?
Hope to have soon. But I suspect the law will keep you much busier.
Your flippancy, of course, misses the point of my statement. There was no status quo position when we were unable to have control over our laws, i.e. whilst in the EU.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
It literally doesn't matter what we are "asking for".
Actually in trade terms it does, if we get the same tariffs as the Canada/EU deal but the EU insists on different governance it's a breach of MFN rules. It's why the EU has refused the Canada route as soon as we asked for it, as has been said many times the UK has repeatedly asked the EU for a deal with tariffs.
Exactly. So it doesn't matter what we ask for if the EU do not want to give it to us.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
It literally doesn't matter what we are "asking for".
Except that it does, because the alternative, which the British government are prepared to run with, is no deal at all, with the EU totally cut off from London finance.
Mr. eek, Ferrari's so poor this year because they were naughty with the engine previously and have taken a backward step. Next year, they should be able to make a (legal) leap forward.
Anyway, we shall see. Likely to be value (in my view, anyway) loser rather than come off, but that's why my stake was small.
Although after all the excitement Russell went a bit flat near the finish.
Are you kidding? He didn't put a wheel wrong: 1. Aced the start to overtake Valtteri into turn 1 2. Aced the safety car restart 3. Built a comfortable lead which thanks to a few hot laps before the pit stop turned into a very comfortable lead 4. Reset the car to remove the low power issue 5. Sliced his way through the field after the botched pitstop 6. Sliced his way through the field after the puncture
When was the last time we saw Bottas work his way through the field? He is crap in traffic - the commentators say its the car, no its Valtteri. Hamilton can pass people. Russell can pass people. Bottas? Crap.
Wolff needs to get the Mercedes cheque book out. Offer a driver swap to Williams, Bottas for Russell plus suitable compensation.
Also noticed that to get into the points after the puncture, he had to make up 8 seconds in 8 laps on a track with sub-minute laps.
He did so. Then overtook someone else for good measure. Looking at the fastest lap times, his was more than a second faster than anyone else on the grid all race, including Bottas. (Bottas was second fastest; his fastest lap all race was 1.16 seconds slower than Russell's fastest lap.) For context, in qualifying, one second separated 1st from 14th.
London (CNN) - The world just experienced its hottest November on record while Europe had its warmest fall, according to an alarming report from the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service.
Temperatures were most elevated in a large region across northern Europe, Siberia and the Arctic Ocean, where sea ice was at the second lowest level ever seen in November.
The United States, South America, southern Africa, the Tibetan Plateau, eastern Antarctica and most of Australia also saw temperatures well above average.
Globally, November was almost 0.8 degrees Celsius above the average for 1981-2010, and 0.1C higher than last year. And this unusual heat comes despite the cooling effect of La Niña.
It’s going to be very tedious when a deal is announced in the coming days to hear the likely lads saying things like “Boris caved”.
I’ve not been one to give this government much credit in 2020 but if they secure a zero tariff -zero quota trade deal with the EU and are still relatively free to diverge and sign up to things like TPP, then well bloody done.
As opposed to the "likely lads" who will be saying things like "the EU caved as expected"?
So much on here is like a playground argument when in truth if a deal is agreed the grown ups should just be grateful sense has prevailed and we move on
That rather depends on what the deal actually provides. A deal that creates massive immediate disruption in our ability to trade and a long term huge cost / admin issue isn't "sense" - its what Conservative governments have spent generations removing from business.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
We're still going to buy it. It's just going to be more expensive. We have an insatiable demand for goods that isn't going to disappear overnight in 3.5 weeks time.
How much will remainers pay in a new EU sales tax, on say Spainsh/French/Italian wines over New World, to prove their fealty?
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
They don't need to, being mostly retired on fixed incomes, sitting and watching working age people actually suffer the changes.
Is my guess also.
In the past couple of years the EU has brought forward legislation that fundamentally affects the antiques and art market without any understanding of it, or real need for it.
Staying in would have been more disruptive for my business than leaving.
Great. The whole country can go into the antiques and art business. Got any jobs going?
Hope to have soon. But I suspect the law will keep you much busier.
Your flippancy, of course, misses the point of my statement. There was no status quo position when we were unable to have control over our laws, i.e. whilst in the EU.
My point, however, was that of course there will be winners from the changes as a result of leaving the EU. The issue will be if the losers heavily outnumber the winners.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
It literally doesn't matter what we are "asking for".
Actually in trade terms it does, if we get the same tariffs as the Canada/EU deal but the EU insists on different governance it's a breach of MFN rules. It's why the EU has refused the Canada route as soon as we asked for it, as has been said many times the UK has repeatedly asked the EU for a deal with tariffs.
Exactly. So it doesn't matter what we ask for if the EU do not want to give it to us.
And this is where no deal becomes a realistic option and I still think it's massively underpriced. Signing up to the LPF as it the EU are saying right now is never going to happen, so either they water that down, accept the Canada style tariffs or we no deal. Those are the three options available, of those I think no deal is at least a 50% chance.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
We're still going to buy it. It's just going to be more expensive. We have an insatiable demand for goods that isn't going to disappear overnight in 3.5 weeks time.
How much will remainers pay in a new EU sales tax, on say Spainsh/French/Italian wines over New World, to prove their fealty?
Yawn. "Remainers" this. "Remainers" that. Get over it.
Mr. Cooke, Russell was very impressive but the fastest lap disparity is misleading. Russell's was on low fuel, with the fastest car, and with fresh tyres of the fastest compound.
He may have got the fastest lap anyway but the margin was larger than it ought to be due to the new soft tyres.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
The LPF stuff has never been seen in a trade agreement? We're asking for something that hasn't been seen before in a trade agreement. We want to leave the EEA but still be able to trade on EEA terms with the EEA from outside the EEA. If we were agreeing tariffs and quotas then LPF would not be relevant.
No, we are asking for goods trade to be the same as the Canada or Japan deals with the EU, which don’t contain ratchet provisions on labour law.
It literally doesn't matter what we are "asking for".
Except that it does, because the alternative, which the British government are prepared to run with, is no deal at all, with the EU totally cut off from London finance.
Well then I look forward to the EU caving to our every demand.
Derek Hatton is arrested in property fraud probe: Liverpool City Council's ex-Trotskyist deputy leader is one of five men including mayor Joe Anderson held after 15-month investigation
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
It comes back to the parispolitiques.fr test I've mentioned before.
If there were (maybe there is) a French successful popular web forum for discussion of politics, betting and political betting, what would its members be saying about this? Probably not much- from the eurostuff I read, I don't think most people care any more.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
Very true. And all the nations in the EU have sovereignty - any one of them can block a deal for any damn reason they like. The French decide to stick it to 'les ros-bifs'? They can do that (as the Brits can stick it to the 'Frogs' too, if we wish). If the EU as a whole or any one nation judge it to be in their interests to not have a deal then they should pursue that too, as should the UK if we judge it better not to have a deal. Sovereignty means either side can choose not to do a deal or try and do a deal that screws the other side. It doesn't matter if a deal was done with Canada because the EU like Canadians or were fans of Due South, it doesn't have to do one with the UK and certainly doesn't have to do the same deal with the UK. There are even rational reasons not to do the same deal - the UK is rather closer and more of a threat to undercut EU producer prices through different laws and standards due to it being cheap and quick to get goods into the EU assuming there are no border checks.
The problem for the UK is that trade to the EU makes up a far larger percentage of the UK's trade than trade to the UK does for any single EU country. No deal will hurt on both sides, but it's hard to make the case that it won't hurt the UK more (I'm talking here about short term harms, longer term harms and benefits are of course harder to judge - I don't find it impossible that no deal is better for the UK in 10-15 years than a deal, for example, although I think it unlikely and a very painful road to those possible benefits). Companies will be hurt and some will go under on both sides if there is no deal and widespread disruption, but a UK company exporting, say proportional to population to the EU27 countries will be hit harder than say a German company exporting proportional to population to the other 26 EU countries and the UK - they lose or have hindered access to the market in one (large) country, the UK company loses or has hindered access to the market in four large countries (more, depends how you define large) and 23 smaller countries.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
We're still going to buy it. It's just going to be more expensive. We have an insatiable demand for goods that isn't going to disappear overnight in 3.5 weeks time.
How much will remainers pay in a new EU sales tax, on say Spainsh/French/Italian wines over New World, to prove their fealty?
Me personally? I tend to drink New World wines rather than continental, so....
[Edit: Actually, you might be on to something here. If the price of plonk goes up because of Brexit, that will not help Leave's "Sunnily Lit Uplands" meme. People enjoy their little luxuries and if Brexit is the villain....
Ah well.... this is Leave's victory. We have already Brexited ]
Listening to LBC (as ever, now) where every other ad is about the new paperwork and arrangements required if you do any business with the EU and that there are particular arrangements if NI/RoI is involved
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
They don't need to, being mostly retired on fixed incomes, sitting and watching working age people actually suffer the changes.
Is my guess also.
In the past couple of years the EU has brought forward legislation that fundamentally affects the antiques and art market without any understanding of it, or real need for it.
Staying in would have been more disruptive for my business than leaving.
I get that. Of course there are areas where it's an embuggerance and I think you explained it to me some time ago. Happy if you would like to remind me what exactly it is but it seemed IIRC to be absolutely valid.
But in aggregate for the UK economy is more what I was talking about.
Still, at least we can finally jettison Droite de Suite after all this time.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
We're still going to buy it. It's just going to be more expensive. We have an insatiable demand for goods that isn't going to disappear overnight in 3.5 weeks time.
How much will remainers pay in a new EU sales tax, on say Spainsh/French/Italian wines over New World, to prove their fealty?
Yawn. "Remainers" this. "Remainers" that. Get over it.
EUphiles? Antibrexiteers? What are they called now? I didn't realise 'remainers' was pejorative in any sense.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
We're still going to buy it. It's just going to be more expensive. We have an insatiable demand for goods that isn't going to disappear overnight in 3.5 weeks time.
How much will remainers pay in a new EU sales tax, on say Spainsh/French/Italian wines over New World, to prove their fealty?
Me personally? I tend to drink New World wines rather than continental, so....
I also imagine that the management of firms announcing redundancies because of tarriff and regulatory barriers will be asking those who voted leave to head out the door first. Not. Because the world doesn't work like that and Tres Difficile is just channeling his handle.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
If you are a small business in Strasbourg, you can just pop stuff in the post to Southampton right now. And vice-versa. After January 1, there's a pile of extra paperwork to fill in. If the time cost of completing the forms (or the money cost of getting someone to do it for you) exceeds the profit on the deal, are you going to bother? It's not obvious that you should. So you'll sell it to someone in Seville instead, even though there's less raw profit in that.
Of course, the same happens the other way. So both UK and EU economies become a bit more closed, a bit more autarkic. Not the end of the world, but everyone's horizons close a bit, which is a shame. And goods find it a bit harder to get to the place that values them most. And that's what a free market is all about, because every bit of freely-entered-into trade benefits both the buyer and seller.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
Okay, No deal then.
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
The same as now, they capitalise a subsidiary, get it a credit rating and raise the money as a domestic company. That's how everyone else does it anyway.
S'ok - most people are quick to explain how this or that sector will face such and such, or no problems when they don't have the foggiest clue about how that sector works.
For @Sandpit as an example I believe he was one on here who with great perspicacity identified the flaws in the govt's track and trace app. But business finance? Perhaps not so much.
Just like you and me on, say, fishing or industrial light machinery (I hope I don't impugn your knowledge...).
It does raise some interesting scenarios wrt selling senior notes and jurisdictional issues, especially given that the ECJ would try and get involved. Does the senior debt sold by the subsidiary subordinate everything else held by the parent?
I'm honestly not sure. Hopefully the clever lawyers have figured it all out.
Mr. Cooke, Russell was very impressive but the fastest lap disparity is misleading. Russell's was on low fuel, with the fastest car, and with fresh tyres of the fastest compound.
He may have got the fastest lap anyway but the margin was larger than it ought to be due to the new soft tyres.
Oh, he had the advantages, but he still had to play his cards. Bottas certainly hasn't done so this season. Even with those advantages, a second+ per lap on the entire field is still pretty impressive.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
Not true though is it. The EU is quite happy for us to trade as an independent country with all our own rules, BUT, BUT don't then expect to get a free trade agreement.
Anyone agreeing to this would be bonkers. It would mean the Govt could ensure our businesses could undercut European competitors unfairly.
Cake and eat it applies.
So I repeat the EU is NOT requiring us to behave as if we have not left. It is entirely up to us. On the contrary it is us who want the both the benefits of membership without the consequences.
To which the response by the EU is 'Fuck off'.
No, the LPF stuff has never before been seen in a trade agreement.
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Oh boo f*cking hoo. This was supposed to be the "easiest deal in the world". This is all on you guys.
The point is that the EU are trying to impose ratchet mechanisms on UK law, that don’t appear in their own trade deals with other nations such as Canada and Japan.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
Like I said, boo f*cking hoo. This is a consequence of leaving - having to deal with the big boys. Don't like it? Well it's tough isn't it.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
Okay, No deal then.
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
The same as now, they capitalise a subsidiary, get it a credit rating and raise the money as a domestic company. That's how everyone else does it anyway.
S'ok - most people are quick to explain how this or that sector will face such and such, or no problems when they don't have the foggiest clue about how that sector works.
For @Sandpit as an example I believe he was one on here who with great perspicacity identified the flaws in the govt's track and trace app. But business finance? Perhaps not so much.
Just like you and me on, say, fishing or industrial light machinery (I hope I don't impugn your knowledge...).
It does raise some interesting scenarios wrt selling senior notes and jurisdictional issues, especially given that the ECJ would try and get involved. Does the senior debt sold by the subsidiary subordinate everything else held by the parent?
I'm honestly not sure. Hopefully the clever lawyers have figured it all out.
They have.
TL;DR
Very expensive, lots of paperwork, new subsidiaries, very well capitalised subsidiaries domiciled inside the EU.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It was Giuliani's broken windows policy of tackling small crimes hard and three strikes and you are out that made the difference, under Koch and Dinkins his predecessors much of New York city was a crime ridden hellhole, particularly around the Bronx, Giuliani changed all that and enabled the much safer, more tourist friendly city that it is today
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards. Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal. Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway? If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard. If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out. It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
They sold us £374bn of stuff in 2019, about the same as their largest export market the US. I'm sure they can just find other places to flog their stuff.
From (quick Google) total exports out of EU to rest of world of EUR4067bn. Can't be bothered to convert to £, but can we assume that exports to UK are <10% of EU exports?
UK exports to world were £689.0 billion (gov.uk). To EU £294 billion (Commons Library). That's 43%.
So, in no deal, EU suffers possible disruption to about 10% of exports, UK to about 43% of exports. I would suggest that no deal is a bigger problem for UK than EU, although a big problem for both. (In addition, there is of course intra-EU trade and intra-UK trade, the EU, being somewhat larger, has a larger internal market than the UK to potentially fill the gap. Also, if the £294bn we exported to EU, if impacted by no deal, opens up potentially £294bn of opportunity for EU businesses to take that business (~79% of the value of the exports to us that might be disrupted). Edit: of course, UK companies can also exploit the £374bn of potentially impacted EU exports to us, too.
(I've tried for fair comparisons, but these are from quick Googles, so it's possible the figures are not all comparable - I'd be happy to have any errors pointed out).
Comments
Brexit has now made it very clear that attempting to leave is a very stupid idea..
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1335868595507752960?s=20
They want to be able to pass future EU law that says no-one working in financial services should be allowed to work more than 35 hours a week, and if the UK doesn’t pass the same law they’ll be denied access to EU markets.
The state aid dispute is over the fact that all EU law on the subject is routinely ignored (by their own courts) when it’s politically convenient, but they want to be able to stop the UK gov bailing out British Airways in the middle of a pandemic.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It doesn't have a blue-black cover.....
Just because he's a nob now doesn't mean he was a nob then.
1. Aced the start to overtake Valtteri into turn 1
2. Aced the safety car restart
3. Built a comfortable lead which thanks to a few hot laps before the pit stop turned into a very comfortable lead
4. Reset the car to remove the low power issue
5. Sliced his way through the field after the botched pitstop
6. Sliced his way through the field after the puncture
When was the last time we saw Bottas work his way through the field? He is crap in traffic - the commentators say its the car, no its Valtteri. Hamilton can pass people. Russell can pass people. Bottas? Crap.
Wolff needs to get the Mercedes cheque book out. Offer a driver swap to Williams, Bottas for Russell plus suitable compensation.
Would the people who engineered that situation like to admit they own Brexit as a result?
Already backed Ferrari at 12 and McLaren at 101 (boosted) for the title, with small stakes.
If Bottas is there then Ferrari have a great chance of roaring back with Leclerc and Sainz. McLaren are less likely but they've been improving every year and have a very good driver lineup too.
If there were (maybe there is) a French successful popular web forum for discussion of politics, betting and political betting, what would its members be saying about this? Probably not much- from the eurostuff I read, I don't think most people care any more.
I don't know (Is there one? It would be fascinating to find out), but I can imagine it including:
Europe holds more of the cards.
Europe has is pretty much ready and Britain isn't for January, deal or no deal.
Is it going to be worth us selling stuff to the British, anyway?
If they double-cross us on the Withdraw Agreement, the final deal needs to be nailed down hard.
If les rosbifs want to trade with us, that's lovely, but they don't get a blank cheque. If they undercut us, now or in the future, we decide what tarrifs to put on. souveraineté, n'est-ce pas?
I don't think it's unpatriotic as a Briton to point those likely opinions out.
It also doesn't really matter if they're correct opinions, if their the opinions that our opposite numbers hold. There isn't some equivalent of a teacher on playground duty that the UK can run off to and say "Europe won't play with me and it's not fair".
I hope this is anticipated upfront or we run the risk of cohorts being vaccinated with no evidence and then the government having to scramble around retrospectively issuing something when it become apparent that some official documentation is required. The government must get ahead on this one.
A total and utter tw@ now though, two decades later.
The EU were massively in favour of giving us a ‘Canada’ agreement, until we said that was what we wanted.
I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Brexiters thought we'd "just leave" and are amazed that there is any administrative change.
Then again the vast majority of Brexiters, I imagine, have no idea how the current system works.
McLaren are doing well with a Mercedes engine so I can see them being better than Racing Point given that they have the better engine - so 101 definitely is a misprice and worth getting
but I can't see Ferrari being anywhere close to winning.
I didn't see any of this on the side of a bus.
https://twitter.com/KateAndrs/status/1335878150417489922
Whether it's age related cognitive decline, or he's fallen for his own America's Mayor spin and become detached from reality, or perhaps a combination of both is unclear.
The next big international row is going to be over the format and standard of certificates of vaccination on a massive scale.
I’ve not been one to give this government much credit in 2020 but if they secure a zero tariff -zero quota trade deal with the EU and are still relatively free to diverge and sign up to things like TPP, then well bloody done.
Nevertheless the EU needs to do some thinking too. Once the UK gets out of its cycle of self-harm, which it will do eventually, both the UK (maybe reduced) and the EU will still be there and they both need to get a working relationship.
The EU is a membership organisation and like any such will want to protect the value of membership. Nevertheless it is in the interest of members to keep a large and generally like minded neighbouring country in its orbit. So what is it prepared to offer that is a significant downgrade on membership but is still attractive to third countries?
Would a negative test be sufficient? What about children?
From where are companies in the EU going to find finance next year, given that the vast majority of it currently comes from London?
So we`re not voting for it.
The news that Starmer is planning to vote for any deal is very disappointing.
Allowed a £5 and £5 at 80/1 so 90/1 overall which will do.
The EU got burned badly by the Japan trade deal, as every single non-UK Japanese car plant in the EU got closed almost immediately.
Same with the Aston Martin issue. Stroll Snr signs Vettel as a development driver for Lance. Made sense a the time the contract was signed. Since then Seb has been happy to trundle around out of the points and blame the car which the other driver manages to get working. Again there is a contract but Stroll has cash. Thank Vettel for his time, pay him off, rehire Perez.
You mention Brexiteers not having a clue how things work - that includes the cabinet. Take the "its because of Brexit" context off and ask any of them would they be in favour of asking business to fill in reams of red tape at high cost as a replacement for a system where all of that has been abolished...
Staying in would have been more disruptive for my business than leaving.
For @Sandpit as an example I believe he was one on here who with great perspicacity identified the flaws in the govt's track and trace app. But business finance? Perhaps not so much.
Just like you and me on, say, fishing or industrial light machinery (I hope I don't impugn your knowledge...).
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/slide_presented_by_barnier_at_euco_15-12-2017.pdf
One of the main aims of Leave was to regain our sovereignty. That is a valid aim (not one I agree with, but perfectly valid). Done.
Now having regained our sovereignty you are now complaining about not getting some of the benefits you get from giving some of it up.
You can't have both. This is what negotiations are about. Standing there and shouting irrationally that you want both is nuts.
Your flippancy, of course, misses the point of my statement. There was no status quo position when we were unable to have control over our laws, i.e. whilst in the EU.
Anyway, we shall see. Likely to be value (in my view, anyway) loser rather than come off, but that's why my stake was small.
He did so. Then overtook someone else for good measure.
Looking at the fastest lap times, his was more than a second faster than anyone else on the grid all race, including Bottas. (Bottas was second fastest; his fastest lap all race was 1.16 seconds slower than Russell's fastest lap.)
For context, in qualifying, one second separated 1st from 14th.
Temperatures were most elevated in a large region across northern Europe, Siberia and the Arctic Ocean, where sea ice was at the second lowest level ever seen in November.
The United States, South America, southern Africa, the Tibetan Plateau, eastern Antarctica and most of Australia also saw temperatures well above average.
Globally, November was almost 0.8 degrees Celsius above the average for 1981-2010, and 0.1C higher than last year. And this unusual heat comes despite the cooling effect of La Niña.
He may have got the fastest lap anyway but the margin was larger than it ought to be due to the new soft tyres.
The problem for the UK is that trade to the EU makes up a far larger percentage of the UK's trade than trade to the UK does for any single EU country. No deal will hurt on both sides, but it's hard to make the case that it won't hurt the UK more (I'm talking here about short term harms, longer term harms and benefits are of course harder to judge - I don't find it impossible that no deal is better for the UK in 10-15 years than a deal, for example, although I think it unlikely and a very painful road to those possible benefits). Companies will be hurt and some will go under on both sides if there is no deal and widespread disruption, but a UK company exporting, say proportional to population to the EU27 countries will be hit harder than say a German company exporting proportional to population to the other 26 EU countries and the UK - they lose or have hindered access to the market in one (large) country, the UK company loses or has hindered access to the market in four large countries (more, depends how you define large) and 23 smaller countries.
[Edit: Actually, you might be on to something here. If the price of plonk goes up because of Brexit, that will not help Leave's "Sunnily Lit Uplands" meme. People enjoy their little luxuries and if Brexit is the villain....
Ah well.... this is Leave's victory. We have already Brexited ]
But in aggregate for the UK economy is more what I was talking about.
Still, at least we can finally jettison Droite de Suite after all this time.
Remainiacs, on the other hand..
Of course, the same happens the other way. So both UK and EU economies become a bit more closed, a bit more autarkic. Not the end of the world, but everyone's horizons close a bit, which is a shame. And goods find it a bit harder to get to the place that values them most. And that's what a free market is all about, because every bit of freely-entered-into trade benefits both the buyer and seller.
I'm honestly not sure. Hopefully the clever lawyers have figured it all out.
Even with those advantages, a second+ per lap on the entire field is still pretty impressive.
TL;DR
Very expensive, lots of paperwork, new subsidiaries, very well capitalised subsidiaries domiciled inside the EU.
UK exports to world were £689.0 billion (gov.uk). To EU £294 billion (Commons Library). That's 43%.
So, in no deal, EU suffers possible disruption to about 10% of exports, UK to about 43% of exports. I would suggest that no deal is a bigger problem for UK than EU, although a big problem for both. (In addition, there is of course intra-EU trade and intra-UK trade, the EU, being somewhat larger, has a larger internal market than the UK to potentially fill the gap. Also, if the £294bn we exported to EU, if impacted by no deal, opens up potentially £294bn of opportunity for EU businesses to take that business (~79% of the value of the exports to us that might be disrupted). Edit: of course, UK companies can also exploit the £374bn of potentially impacted EU exports to us, too.
(I've tried for fair comparisons, but these are from quick Googles, so it's possible the figures are not all comparable - I'd be happy to have any errors pointed out).