The paranoia amongst some Leavers that any agreement with the EU must mean it’s bad for the UK is part of the problem of finding a trade deal .
In terms of the NI protocol perhaps both sides are happy . Is that now such a crime !
Look we know Farage will cry 'betrayal' if we get any Deal at all that stops short of bricking up the Channel Tunnel, he has a new party to promote after all for which he is standing candidates in the locals in May
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
No, they have the right to leave as Brexit has proven. What they dont have the right to do is change their laws to x and stay a member of a group that says x is not allowed.
Then their choices become: Stay a member of the group and dont do x, or leave and be free to do x.
The choice is still theirs, they are sovereign, not the group.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
5.
Calling someone a hypocrite is not being "up in arms".
It depends. If you get animated in the process you are up in arms about the hypocrisy.
As here with Mr Blue. He was cool as you like about Cummings' hypocrisy but is now all over Burley for hers. Hence why he becomes the 5th person on here to have lost their integrity over this.
What is your position on Burley btw? I can't recall seeing it.
Mr Cummings was in large part responsible de facto for Gmt policy. I don't know that Ms B was.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
5.
Calling someone a hypocrite is not being "up in arms".
It depends. If you get animated in the process you are up in arms about the hypocrisy.
As here with Mr Blue. He was cool as you like about Cummings' hypocrisy but is now all over Burley for hers. Hence why he becomes the 5th person on here to have lost their integrity over this.
What is your position on Burley btw? I can't recall seeing it.
He doesn't look up in arms to me, he's laughing at the double standards. If I laugh at a Jimmy Carr sketch it doesn't mean I'm up in arms.
As for my position: She's a hypocrite, I've never liked her as a journalist, but I couldn't care less what she has done. Nothing that has come out has changed my opinion on her at all and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite.
The paranoia amongst some Leavers that any agreement with the EU must mean it’s bad for the UK is part of the problem of finding a trade deal .
In terms of the NI protocol perhaps both sides are happy . Is that now such a crime !
Look we know Farage will cry 'betrayal' if we get any Deal at all that stops short of bricking up the Channel Tunnel, he has a new party to promote after all for which he is standing candidates in the locals in May
So? We shouldn't wreck the UK just because you are frightened of losing votes to Mr Farage.
More than a month since Wales' 17-day firebreak lockdown ended, there are more Covid-19 patients in hospitals than during the peak of the first wave in April.
Their firebreak has been a dismal failure, as forecast by many of us here. Probably worse even than forecast.
But they're still going ahead with Christmas loosening. It is insanity!
Yes, that is even more bonkers. They finally in a round about way admitting there is a big problemo, but have boxed themselves in to not taking any action until after Christmas.
No following the science, its all politics. They should be locking down Wales now and cancelling Christmas (so should England for that matter, as not squished down enough).
We have cancelled Christmas and did it some time ago
Likewise. We'll be on our own for the first time, not even bothering with decorations. Never felt more pessimistic about the future of the UK. Hope the Brexiteers enjoy their victory.
The paranoia amongst some Leavers that any agreement with the EU must mean it’s bad for the UK is part of the problem of finding a trade deal .
In terms of the NI protocol perhaps both sides are happy . Is that now such a crime !
Look we know Farage will cry 'betrayal' if we get any Deal at all that stops short of bricking up the Channel Tunnel, he has a new party to promote after all for which he is standing candidates in the locals in May
So? We shouldn't wreck the UK just because you are frightened of losing votes to Mr Farage.
The paranoia amongst some Leavers that any agreement with the EU must mean it’s bad for the UK is part of the problem of finding a trade deal .
In terms of the NI protocol perhaps both sides are happy . Is that now such a crime !
Look we know Farage will cry 'betrayal' if we get any Deal at all that stops short of bricking up the Channel Tunnel, he has a new party to promote after all for which he is standing candidates in the locals in May
So? We shouldn't wreck the UK just because you are frightened of losing votes to Mr Farage.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
No, they have the right to leave as Brexit has proven. What they dont have the right to do is change their laws to x and stay a member of a group that says x is not allowed.
Then their choices become: Stay a member of the group and dont do x, or leave and be free to do x.
The choice is still theirs, they are sovereign, not the group.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Not at all, it is more like saying an employee can leave a job if they want to, but whilst there they have to abide by the employment contract. They may not like everything in the contract but they get the benefits of employment. If they feel the costs outweigh the benefits they can leave.
That we have implemented Brexit shows quite clearly we were always sovereign.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
You're talking dross. You asked for a citation to a post that simply said and I quote:
No we didn't you ignoramus. The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement.
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
I gave a citation for that, like you asked for. Now you're trying to shift the goal posts.
There were two claims I made that I gave the citation for, do you agree or disagree with these?
"The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
"Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
You can only successfully argue that the impasse being over is BECAUSE of clauses in the IM Bill if you can demonstrate (1) why the Joint Committee was at an impasse in the first place, and (2) what has led to the end of the impasse.
You've made it clear that you can't do either of those things so yep: meaningless dross.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
No, they have the right to leave as Brexit has proven. What they dont have the right to do is change their laws to x and stay a member of a group that says x is not allowed.
Then their choices become: Stay a member of the group and dont do x, or leave and be free to do x.
The choice is still theirs, they are sovereign, not the group.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Not at all, it is more like saying an employee can leave a job if they want to, but whilst there they have to abide by the employment contract. They may not like everything in the contract but they get the benefits of employment. If they feel the costs outweigh the benefits they can leave.
That we have implemented Brexit shows quite clearly we were always sovereign.
And if an employee feels like he is working harder than his colleagues, getting paid less than his colleagues, not being respected and the company isn't doing what he wants to do then don't be surprised if the employee quits.
We were sovereign. We have exercised that sovereignty by quitting and moving on. What's your problem with that?
The paranoia amongst some Leavers that any agreement with the EU must mean it’s bad for the UK is part of the problem of finding a trade deal .
In terms of the NI protocol perhaps both sides are happy . Is that now such a crime !
Look we know Farage will cry 'betrayal' if we get any Deal at all that stops short of bricking up the Channel Tunnel, he has a new party to promote after all for which he is standing candidates in the locals in May
So? We shouldn't wreck the UK just because you are frightened of losing votes to Mr Farage.
If we get a Deal clearly Boris won't be
OH, won't he? He'll be utterly terrified.
If he was terrified he would have gone straight to No Deal already
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
You're talking dross. You asked for a citation to a post that simply said and I quote:
No we didn't you ignoramus. The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement.
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
I gave a citation for that, like you asked for. Now you're trying to shift the goal posts.
There were two claims I made that I gave the citation for, do you agree or disagree with these?
"The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
"Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
You can only successfully argue that the impasse being over is BECAUSE of clauses in the IM Bill if you can demonstrate (1) why the Joint Committee was at an impasse in the first place, and (2) what has led to the end of the impasse.
You've made it clear that you can't do either of those things so yep: meaningless dross.
You're moving the goalposts. "Why" wasn't in either my post there or the post I responded to which was and I quote: Prior to the IMB we had an agreed deal.
The IMB threatened to renege on that deal.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
You're adding "Why" into it, it wasn't in my post and it wasn't in Scott's post. Keep moving those goalposts.
So do you accept there was an impasse and now there isn't so there is a meaningful change? We can debate the why afterwards but do you accept that baseline?
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
No, they have the right to leave as Brexit has proven. What they dont have the right to do is change their laws to x and stay a member of a group that says x is not allowed.
Then their choices become: Stay a member of the group and dont do x, or leave and be free to do x.
The choice is still theirs, they are sovereign, not the group.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Not at all, it is more like saying an employee can leave a job if they want to, but whilst there they have to abide by the employment contract. They may not like everything in the contract but they get the benefits of employment. If they feel the costs outweigh the benefits they can leave.
That we have implemented Brexit shows quite clearly we were always sovereign.
And if an employee feels like he is working harder than his colleagues, getting paid less than his colleagues, not being respected and the company isn't doing what he wants to do then don't be surprised if the employee quits.
We were sovereign. We have exercised that sovereignty by quitting and moving on. What's your problem with that?
I don't actually have a big problem with Brexit. It is the dishonest, divisive and incompetent paths both the Johnson and May govts have taken that are problematic for me.
Implacable! Talk about your Brexit means Brexits as more than soundbite. If he were the PM I certainly would not need 8/1 odds before betting on a No Deal. But we have in Boris Johnson a quite different sort of politician.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
You're talking dross. You asked for a citation to a post that simply said and I quote:
No we didn't you ignoramus. The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement.
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
I gave a citation for that, like you asked for. Now you're trying to shift the goal posts.
There were two claims I made that I gave the citation for, do you agree or disagree with these?
"The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
"Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
You can only successfully argue that the impasse being over is BECAUSE of clauses in the IM Bill if you can demonstrate (1) why the Joint Committee was at an impasse in the first place, and (2) what has led to the end of the impasse.
You've made it clear that you can't do either of those things so yep: meaningless dross.
You're moving the goalposts. "Why" wasn't in either my post there or the post I responded to which was and I quote: Prior to the IMB we had an agreed deal.
The IMB threatened to renege on that deal.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
You're adding "Why" into it, it wasn't in my post and it wasn't in Scott's post. Keep moving those goalposts.
So do you accept there was an impasse and now there isn't so there is a meaningful change? We can debate the why afterwards but do you accept that baseline?
No I don't. You have yet to evidence at what point there was an "impasse" and the reason for it.
Clearly any "impasse" has been broken, seemingly by the UK simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to.
However if you're aware of any concessions the UK has been able to "extract" from the EU in order to make the agreement palatable then please share.
Your argument seems to be that the "EU didn't want a deal in the first place and now we have a deal" but you've provided zero evidence for that assumption.
The evidence of east Lothian is that moving Edinburgh to Tier 2 will see cases rocket. Like they have in every area that has been moved to tier 2 without being at tiny levels of cases.
There is a risk, I accept that. There is also a price. At the moment Edinburgh's vibrant night time economy, which employs tens of thousands across the City is dead. I was in the Grassmarket last night at the back of 7.00pm. I was alone, completely alone. So many businesses have been destroyed, so many jobs lost, it will take a very, very long time to recover. This lunchtime I was down on Princes Street. Normally at this time of year it is difficult to move along the pavement, not today. Edinburgh is suffering economic devastation and it needs to stop.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
No, they have the right to leave as Brexit has proven. What they dont have the right to do is change their laws to x and stay a member of a group that says x is not allowed.
Then their choices become: Stay a member of the group and dont do x, or leave and be free to do x.
The choice is still theirs, they are sovereign, not the group.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Richard it is hugely telling that you compare the UK as a sovereign member of the EU to a slave.
More than a month since Wales' 17-day firebreak lockdown ended, there are more Covid-19 patients in hospitals than during the peak of the first wave in April.
Their firebreak has been a dismal failure, as forecast by many of us here. Probably worse even than forecast.
But they're still going ahead with Christmas loosening. It is insanity!
Yes, that is even more bonkers. They finally in a round about way admitting there is a big problemo, but have boxed themselves in to not taking any action until after Christmas.
No following the science, its all politics. They should be locking down Wales now and cancelling Christmas (so should England for that matter, as not squished down enough).
We have cancelled Christmas and did it some time ago
Likewise. We'll be on our own for the first time, not even bothering with decorations. Never felt more pessimistic about the future of the UK. Hope the Brexiteers enjoy their victory.
More than a month since Wales' 17-day firebreak lockdown ended, there are more Covid-19 patients in hospitals than during the peak of the first wave in April.
Their firebreak has been a dismal failure, as forecast by many of us here. Probably worse even than forecast.
But they're still going ahead with Christmas loosening. It is insanity!
Yes, that is even more bonkers. They finally in a round about way admitting there is a big problemo, but have boxed themselves in to not taking any action until after Christmas.
No following the science, its all politics. They should be locking down Wales now and cancelling Christmas (so should England for that matter, as not squished down enough).
We have cancelled Christmas and did it some time ago
Likewise. We'll be on our own for the first time, not even bothering with decorations. Never felt more pessimistic about the future of the UK. Hope the Brexiteers enjoy their victory.
We will, thanks.
Are you expecting a humiliating deal or no deal chaos?
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
You're talking dross. You asked for a citation to a post that simply said and I quote:
No we didn't you ignoramus. The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement.
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
I gave a citation for that, like you asked for. Now you're trying to shift the goal posts.
There were two claims I made that I gave the citation for, do you agree or disagree with these?
"The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
"Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
You can only successfully argue that the impasse being over is BECAUSE of clauses in the IM Bill if you can demonstrate (1) why the Joint Committee was at an impasse in the first place, and (2) what has led to the end of the impasse.
You've made it clear that you can't do either of those things so yep: meaningless dross.
You're moving the goalposts. "Why" wasn't in either my post there or the post I responded to which was and I quote: Prior to the IMB we had an agreed deal.
The IMB threatened to renege on that deal.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
You're adding "Why" into it, it wasn't in my post and it wasn't in Scott's post. Keep moving those goalposts.
So do you accept there was an impasse and now there isn't so there is a meaningful change? We can debate the why afterwards but do you accept that baseline?
No I don't. You have yet to evidence at what point there was an "impasse" and the reason for it.
Clearly any "impasse" has been broken, seemingly by the UK simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to.
However if you're aware of any concessions the UK has been able to "extract" from the EU in order to make the agreement palatable then please share.
Your argument seems to be that the "EU didn't want a deal in the first place and now we have a deal" but you've provided zero evidence for that assumption.
You're showing your ignorance here and why you're wrong. The UK is categorically not "simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to".
The UK had agreed to sign up to the Joint Committee resolving these issues, but the Joint Committee was failing to do so. So the UK took these powers in the IMB in case the Joint Committee failed.
Now the Joint Committee has reached an agreement. That was categorically NOT there before. It is a meaningful change, previously we had an agreement to let the Joint Committee sort it out but the Joint Committee was refusing to, now the Joint Committee has done so, so that is different.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
You're talking dross. You asked for a citation to a post that simply said and I quote:
No we didn't you ignoramus. The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement.
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
I gave a citation for that, like you asked for. Now you're trying to shift the goal posts.
There were two claims I made that I gave the citation for, do you agree or disagree with these?
"The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
"Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
You can only successfully argue that the impasse being over is BECAUSE of clauses in the IM Bill if you can demonstrate (1) why the Joint Committee was at an impasse in the first place, and (2) what has led to the end of the impasse.
You've made it clear that you can't do either of those things so yep: meaningless dross.
You're moving the goalposts. "Why" wasn't in either my post there or the post I responded to which was and I quote: Prior to the IMB we had an agreed deal.
The IMB threatened to renege on that deal.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
You're adding "Why" into it, it wasn't in my post and it wasn't in Scott's post. Keep moving those goalposts.
So do you accept there was an impasse and now there isn't so there is a meaningful change? We can debate the why afterwards but do you accept that baseline?
No I don't. You have yet to evidence at what point there was an "impasse" and the reason for it.
Clearly any "impasse" has been broken, seemingly by the UK simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to.
However if you're aware of any concessions the UK has been able to "extract" from the EU in order to make the agreement palatable then please share.
Your argument seems to be that the "EU didn't want a deal in the first place and now we have a deal" but you've provided zero evidence for that assumption.
You're showing your ignorance here and why you're wrong. The UK is categorically not "simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to".
The UK had agreed to sign up to the Joint Committee resolving these issues, but the Joint Committee was failing to do so. So the UK took these powers in the IMB in case the Joint Committee failed.
Now the Joint Committee has reached an agreement. That was categorically NOT there before. It is a meaningful change, previously we had an agreement to let the Joint Committee sort it out but the Joint Committee was refusing to, now the Joint Committee has done so, so that is different.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
You're talking dross. You asked for a citation to a post that simply said and I quote:
No we didn't you ignoramus. The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement.
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
I gave a citation for that, like you asked for. Now you're trying to shift the goal posts.
There were two claims I made that I gave the citation for, do you agree or disagree with these?
"The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
"Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
You can only successfully argue that the impasse being over is BECAUSE of clauses in the IM Bill if you can demonstrate (1) why the Joint Committee was at an impasse in the first place, and (2) what has led to the end of the impasse.
You've made it clear that you can't do either of those things so yep: meaningless dross.
You're moving the goalposts. "Why" wasn't in either my post there or the post I responded to which was and I quote: Prior to the IMB we had an agreed deal.
The IMB threatened to renege on that deal.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
You're adding "Why" into it, it wasn't in my post and it wasn't in Scott's post. Keep moving those goalposts.
So do you accept there was an impasse and now there isn't so there is a meaningful change? We can debate the why afterwards but do you accept that baseline?
No I don't. You have yet to evidence at what point there was an "impasse" and the reason for it.
Clearly any "impasse" has been broken, seemingly by the UK simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to.
However if you're aware of any concessions the UK has been able to "extract" from the EU in order to make the agreement palatable then please share.
Your argument seems to be that the "EU didn't want a deal in the first place and now we have a deal" but you've provided zero evidence for that assumption.
You're showing your ignorance here and why you're wrong. The UK is categorically not "simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to".
The UK had agreed to sign up to the Joint Committee resolving these issues, but the Joint Committee was failing to do so. So the UK took these powers in the IMB in case the Joint Committee failed.
Now the Joint Committee has reached an agreement. That was categorically NOT there before. It is a meaningful change, previously we had an agreement to let the Joint Committee sort it out but the Joint Committee was refusing to, now the Joint Committee has done so, so that is different.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
Yes. The government's attempt to wriggle out of the parts of the WA that involved a border in the Irish Sea has failed. There will be customs checks on goods transiting between GB and NI, regardless of whether or not we get a deal.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
You're talking dross. You asked for a citation to a post that simply said and I quote:
No we didn't you ignoramus. The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement.
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
I gave a citation for that, like you asked for. Now you're trying to shift the goal posts.
There were two claims I made that I gave the citation for, do you agree or disagree with these?
"The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
"Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement." - Is this true or false to you?
You can only successfully argue that the impasse being over is BECAUSE of clauses in the IM Bill if you can demonstrate (1) why the Joint Committee was at an impasse in the first place, and (2) what has led to the end of the impasse.
You've made it clear that you can't do either of those things so yep: meaningless dross.
You're moving the goalposts. "Why" wasn't in either my post there or the post I responded to which was and I quote: Prior to the IMB we had an agreed deal.
The IMB threatened to renege on that deal.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
You're adding "Why" into it, it wasn't in my post and it wasn't in Scott's post. Keep moving those goalposts.
So do you accept there was an impasse and now there isn't so there is a meaningful change? We can debate the why afterwards but do you accept that baseline?
No I don't. You have yet to evidence at what point there was an "impasse" and the reason for it.
Clearly any "impasse" has been broken, seemingly by the UK simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to.
However if you're aware of any concessions the UK has been able to "extract" from the EU in order to make the agreement palatable then please share.
Your argument seems to be that the "EU didn't want a deal in the first place and now we have a deal" but you've provided zero evidence for that assumption.
You're showing your ignorance here and why you're wrong. The UK is categorically not "simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to".
The UK had agreed to sign up to the Joint Committee resolving these issues, but the Joint Committee was failing to do so. So the UK took these powers in the IMB in case the Joint Committee failed.
Now the Joint Committee has reached an agreement. That was categorically NOT there before. It is a meaningful change, previously we had an agreement to let the Joint Committee sort it out but the Joint Committee was refusing to, now the Joint Committee has done so, so that is different.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
@Philip_Thompson please enlighten us on the areas where the EU have "blinked". What has changed?
The EU had been wanting the main UK/EU deal agreed before this agreement was reached. They weaponised the threat of not agreeing this thus causing GB/NI disruption if we didn't sign a UK/EU deal - which is what provoked the Government into bringing in the IM Bill.
Now this Protocol has been honoured in good faith with or without another deal as it always should have been, thus rendering the IM Bill unnecessary. It was only necessary due to the EU's stonewalling, the NI Protocol had envisioned this happening already in good faith and now it has.
You're so deluded it's hilarious. Christ.
Yet its turning out like I forecast when the IM Bill was released.
Others here were losing their minds about how this would mean the EU couldn't trust the UK - I said that this was balancing the scales making a respectful deal on NI more likely. Now one has been reached, like I said.
So who was delusional exactly?
You are delusional. Literally everything you write on this topic.
It's just complete and utter nonsense from start to finish.
PT sounds more and more like Comical Ali as each day passes. I wouldn't take a shred of comfort from any word he utters on Brexit.
More than a month since Wales' 17-day firebreak lockdown ended, there are more Covid-19 patients in hospitals than during the peak of the first wave in April.
Their firebreak has been a dismal failure, as forecast by many of us here. Probably worse even than forecast.
But they're still going ahead with Christmas loosening. It is insanity!
Yes, that is even more bonkers. They finally in a round about way admitting there is a big problemo, but have boxed themselves in to not taking any action until after Christmas.
No following the science, its all politics. They should be locking down Wales now and cancelling Christmas (so should England for that matter, as not squished down enough).
We have cancelled Christmas and did it some time ago
Likewise. We'll be on our own for the first time, not even bothering with decorations. Never felt more pessimistic about the future of the UK. Hope the Brexiteers enjoy their victory.
We will, thanks.
Are you expecting a humiliating deal or no deal chaos?
No, I'm expecting a satisfactory deal with the EU, or the exciting possibilities of not being part of one.
The paranoia amongst some Leavers that any agreement with the EU must mean it’s bad for the UK is part of the problem of finding a trade deal .
In terms of the NI protocol perhaps both sides are happy . Is that now such a crime !
Look we know Farage will cry 'betrayal' if we get any Deal at all that stops short of bricking up the Channel Tunnel, he has a new party to promote after all for which he is standing candidates in the locals in May
So? We shouldn't wreck the UK just because you are frightened of losing votes to Mr Farage.
If we get a Deal clearly Boris won't be
OH, won't he? He'll be utterly terrified.
If he was terrified he would have gone straight to No Deal already
Still don't have a deal yet. And he wouldn't be in this position but for Mr Farage aqnd the Brexiter backbenchers.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
On the subject of the EU deal, one should look at the experience of the Swiss. They have constantly tinkered with their arrangements with the EU over a 30 year period. We should expect the same.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
No I am NOT trying to argue that, that's going a step further. I am not trying to argue that because you, Scott and Topping don't even accept that anything is different now to before the IM Bill was introduced. There's literally no point trying to show "WHY" there was no agreement or "HOW" the EU have "moved" if the person you're talking to is saying there is no new agreement and there has been no move.
This whole chain since you started asking for citations has been about no more than whether there is a new agreement or not. The why is for another discussion if you want to have that but only after its accepted there is a new agreement.
The relevant questions are: 1: Pre-IMB did the Joint Committee have an agreement in principle? Yes or no. 2: Today does the Joint Committee have an agreement in principle? Yes or no.
It can't be debated why the agreement in principle was reached unless if it isn't even accepted that one has been reached.
What happens to the Conservative Party in the event of a deal? Will it implode?
Given how Eurosceptic it has become I don't see how the party will sit back and accept the sort of deal we appear to be looking at.
Whatever else, get your popcorn ready.
Boris might accept a slightly crap deal.
The only really bad thing though would be any sort of EU sovereignty over the UK. I don't see him agreeing to that.
Bits and pieces of bad things aren't going to really hurt, and almost certainly there will be bits and pieces of good things too.
I'm fairly sure 'no deal' will be the outcome, but of course it's actually quite a lot of mini-deals in itself. The political damage to the EU from no deal will be far worse than that to the UK. The economic damage will hit the UK quite hard, and there will be all sorts of problems logistically. That'll pass though.
France, already a tinder-keg, is going to be the most outward sign of this failure.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
OMG OMG how will PT survive the night after such treatment - almost as bad as being called out by Kinabalu for not drooling at Kay Burley's feet cos she's a great journalist. These are truly the end of days for those on the right!
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
5.
Calling someone a hypocrite is not being "up in arms".
It depends. If you get animated in the process you are up in arms about the hypocrisy.
As here with Mr Blue. He was cool as you like about Cummings' hypocrisy but is now all over Burley for hers. Hence why he becomes the 5th person on here to have lost their integrity over this.
What is your position on Burley btw? I can't recall seeing it.
He doesn't look up in arms to me, he's laughing at the double standards. If I laugh at a Jimmy Carr sketch it doesn't mean I'm up in arms.
As for my position: She's a hypocrite, I've never liked her as a journalist, but I couldn't care less what she has done. Nothing that has come out has changed my opinion on her at all and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite.
People metaphorically up in arms about hypocrisy - as you two clearly are here with Burley - rarely use the actual words "metaphorically up in arms" because it's not cool to look like you're too bothered. So what they tend to say is they are merely "laughing at the double standards". Bit silly, but it's fine because it's obvious to the likes of me what is meant.
So, Burley = hypocrite. And Cummings = hypocrite too (in spades) with his Lockdown breaches and therefore for you to avoid loss of integrity you need to have said so at the time. Did you?
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Aren't you supposed to be studying?
(Good luck with that and exams)
Yes, I am.
Thank you!
Get to it. I regret getting distracted in my final year.
The paranoia amongst some Leavers that any agreement with the EU must mean it’s bad for the UK is part of the problem of finding a trade deal .
In terms of the NI protocol perhaps both sides are happy . Is that now such a crime !
Look we know Farage will cry 'betrayal' if we get any Deal at all that stops short of bricking up the Channel Tunnel, he has a new party to promote after all for which he is standing candidates in the locals in May
Yes. The Tories need to not panic about that, as his reaction was inevitable
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
5.
Calling someone a hypocrite is not being "up in arms".
It depends. If you get animated in the process you are up in arms about the hypocrisy.
As here with Mr Blue. He was cool as you like about Cummings' hypocrisy but is now all over Burley for hers. Hence why he becomes the 5th person on here to have lost their integrity over this.
What is your position on Burley btw? I can't recall seeing it.
Mr Cummings was in large part responsible de facto for Gmt policy. I don't know that Ms B was.
Yes. His hypocrisy was surely the more egregious. Which makes the position of anybody defending him and attacking her all the more untenable and not a little reprehensible.
Traditionally international agreements weren't worth the paper they were written on the instant one or all sides felt they could get away ignoring them. We've come a long way in recent centuries.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
There is only one answer to this for anybody wishing to hold on to their integrity - it depends what she has done. The law is the law. There should be no exemptions from it for Boris Johnson cronies or for Sky TV presenters.
I expect that fewer people vindictively despise Burley enough to crowdfund for the legal case, for what the police described as, “might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention”, but did not intend to take “retrospective action”.
Perhaps people take a dimmer view of the architects of rules breaking them than they do of TV news reporters doing so.
More than a month since Wales' 17-day firebreak lockdown ended, there are more Covid-19 patients in hospitals than during the peak of the first wave in April.
Their firebreak has been a dismal failure, as forecast by many of us here. Probably worse even than forecast.
But they're still going ahead with Christmas loosening. It is insanity!
Yes, that is even more bonkers. They finally in a round about way admitting there is a big problemo, but have boxed themselves in to not taking any action until after Christmas.
No following the science, its all politics. They should be locking down Wales now and cancelling Christmas (so should England for that matter, as not squished down enough).
We have cancelled Christmas and did it some time ago
Likewise. We'll be on our own for the first time, not even bothering with decorations. Never felt more pessimistic about the future of the UK. Hope the Brexiteers enjoy their victory.
We will, thanks.
Let's see how the Red-wall leavers feel in a couple of months time, not that I care, it's what they voted for so no use bleating afterwards. As far as I can see there is precious little joy being expressed amongst the Brexiteers. The best the most optimistic can come up this is that it might not be that bad. Shame the consequences can't be targeted at those that vote for it.
Far easier and more likely to spark division amongst 27 than amongst the handful of views here in the UK. The last thing that the UK is intentionally doing now is to engender division anyway - the UK is clearly focused on getting a deal given there are just days left.
The 'being rubbish' thing may well have been mostly in the UKs court at times, but at the death of these negotiations I think that the EU find themselves mostly owning the meme.
Of course there's no comfort to be had on either side. This'll be quite bad, and if the French play stupid afterwards then it'll be very bad indeed.
Paging DavidL: Inverclyde, Falkirk and Angus will move down from level three to level two from Friday.
Edinburgh stays in level 3.
Absolutely ridiculous. Several thousand more jobs lost.
Thousands?!? In a city of 450k, in a week until the next review, and with furlough available?
If they're overcautious, it's probably due to letting things get out of control (again) in September and October. Or maybe they're just trying to delay the case increase resulting from level 2 to after Christmas.
Has anyone ever had problems withdrawing Belfair monies because the card with which they deposited the plurality of said monies is no longer active?
Yes sometimes impossible online, but should be quick to sort out on the phone if you explain.
Cheers. Got it sorted through the online messaging. Awkwardly one of the additional security questions was the last four digits of both cards. These are handily in the account section of site....
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
There is only one answer to this for anybody wishing to hold on to their integrity - it depends what she has done. The law is the law. There should be no exemptions from it for Boris Johnson cronies or for Sky TV presenters.
I expect that fewer people vindictively despise Burley enough to crowdfund for the legal case, for what the police described as, “might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention”, but did not intend to take “retrospective action”.
Perhaps people take a dimmer view of the architects of rules breaking them than they do of TV news reporters doing so.
You know how people can be.
I actually find Burley more hypocritical than Cummings - she publicly called out people for breaking/not knowing the rules whereas I'm not aware Cummings made any public pronouncements and I can quite imagine him saying "Tell the plebs to do whatever you want, Boris. But just so you know, if I fancy a trip up to my parents' and a bit of a drive around I'll damn well do it because I'm special."
Cummings should have been sacked though - you can't be an employee of an organisation and actively go against rules that organisation is publicly promoting. Burley is maybe a slightly more grey area as Sky don't have a public policy on this, as far as I know. I wouldn't expect my employer to sack me for breaking lock down rules. She should still go though because it makes it impossible for her to do her job - how does she challenge anyone over the rules or rule breaking when she ignores them herself?
Mr. kinabalu, the problem, I would assert, is that powers temporarily given to national governments by electorates are then granted in perpetuity with no or very difficult means of return to the EU.
A general two-speed approach would've been better, but the nature of the beast is consumption, of growth, of deepening integration. That's partly due to zealous ideologues and partly (perhaps mostly) due to the mechanical necessities of a confederation with so many members and a seemingly insatiable appetite for more.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
5.
Calling someone a hypocrite is not being "up in arms".
It depends. If you get animated in the process you are up in arms about the hypocrisy.
As here with Mr Blue. He was cool as you like about Cummings' hypocrisy but is now all over Burley for hers. Hence why he becomes the 5th person on here to have lost their integrity over this.
What is your position on Burley btw? I can't recall seeing it.
He doesn't look up in arms to me, he's laughing at the double standards. If I laugh at a Jimmy Carr sketch it doesn't mean I'm up in arms.
As for my position: She's a hypocrite, I've never liked her as a journalist, but I couldn't care less what she has done. Nothing that has come out has changed my opinion on her at all and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite.
People metaphorically up in arms about hypocrisy - as you two clearly are here with Burley - rarely use the actual words "metaphorically up in arms" because it's not cool to look like you're too bothered. So what they tend to say is they are merely "laughing at the double standards". Bit silly, but it's fine because it's obvious to the likes of me what is meant.
So, Burley = hypocrite. And Cummings = hypocrite too (in spades) with his Lockdown breaches and therefore for you to avoid loss of integrity you need to have said so at the time. Did you?
She's not a hypocrite for breaching the rules. Breaking rules doesn't make you a hypocrite it makes you a rule breaker.
She's a hypocrite for breaking the rules after showing zero tolerance to those like Cummings who broke them before her. As far as I'm aware Cummings never spent week ranting about others breaking the rules and calling for them to be fired from their jobs before he was outed for doing what he did.
My opinion has always been that everyone breaks rules from time to time and people should use their own judgement and do their best. That I don't especially care if a rule is broken from time to time. To me that applies equally to Burley and Cummings. I think firing someone for something as meaningless as this would be a gross overreaction - the same as I would say for Cummings or Patel etc.
Random thought - why is Johnson heading off to Brussels? You'd think, given that we hold all the cards, that von der Leyen would be hot-footing it over here to plead with Johnson.
Random thought - why is Johnson heading off to Brussels? You'd think, given that we hold all the cards, that von der Leyen would be hot-footing it over here to plead with Johnson.
The talks have alternated between Brussels and London for months. The last round of talks were held in London. The next round will be in Brussels.
The government and its supporters are trying to make out they got concession because of this?
Not only is that not going to work, this mere hor doeuvres is bad starter to the main course.
TBF, and we are where we are, Boris, and in a sense Boris alone, has the task of keeping simultaneously happy: UK industry, John Redwood and friends, Tory voters, One Nation Tories, the House of Lords, the ag and fish lobby, the general public - especially those who eat food, N Ireland, Ireland, the USA Irish lobby, the Chancellor and Carrie.
On the face of it not only can this not be done, it is literally and logically impossible. A prime impossibility is caused by the fact that membership of the EU and the peace process in Ireland were in practice, though not in theory, inseparable.
The Remain campaign never dared to campaign on the basis that in practical terms we are not really allowed to leave the EU, fearing that the UK voter told that would certainly vote to leave. The leave campaign underplayed the problem as well for their own equally obvious reasons.
If Boris pulls something off, the possible illegality in the process will immediately seem trivial in the light of something very like a miracle.
Reading through the thread it is so tiresome with the same polarised arguments and so many on both sides of the argument stuck in repeat
As far as I am concerned I hope for a deal but would expect in a no deal outcome some form of transition period would be agreed to allow both sides to adjust
Random thought - why is Johnson heading off to Brussels? You'd think, given that we hold all the cards, that von der Leyen would be hot-footing it over here to plead with Johnson.
Last night RTE were speculating it was so that he could gatecrash the EU Council meeting on Thursday for negotiations with individual EU leaders, bypassing the Commission.
This has long been an obsession in Number Ten, and indeed it was the direct negotiations with Varadker that led to Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. So it may yet be part of the denouement.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
OMG OMG how will PT survive the night after such treatment - almost as bad as being called out by Kinabalu for not drooling at Kay Burley's feet cos she's a great journalist. These are truly the end of days for those on the right!
Let's stay grounded and accurate. People are being called out for being hypocrites about hypocrisy. As evidenced by defending or downplaying that of PM Chief Political Advisor Dominic Cummings and yet calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley.
5 convicted so far with the verdict on Philip in the balance. We await his reply to my key question.
The evidence of east Lothian is that moving Edinburgh to Tier 2 will see cases rocket. Like they have in every area that has been moved to tier 2 without being at tiny levels of cases.
There is a risk, I accept that. There is also a price. At the moment Edinburgh's vibrant night time economy, which employs tens of thousands across the City is dead. I was in the Grassmarket last night at the back of 7.00pm. I was alone, completely alone. So many businesses have been destroyed, so many jobs lost, it will take a very, very long time to recover. This lunchtime I was down on Princes Street. Normally at this time of year it is difficult to move along the pavement, not today. Edinburgh is suffering economic devastation and it needs to stop.
There's certainly a perception (may or may not be justified) that Sturgeon is much tougher on Aberdeen and Edinburgh than on Glasgow.
Random thought - why is Johnson heading off to Brussels? You'd think, given that we hold all the cards, that von der Leyen would be hot-footing it over here to plead with Johnson.
The talks have alternated between Brussels and London for months. The last round of talks were held in London. The next round will be in Brussels.
And Varadkar came to Britain (just about) for the crunch talks last time round. Funny how the Commission President at the time wasn't
Reading through the thread it is so tiresome with the same polarised arguments and so many on both sides of the argument stuck in repeat
As far as I am concerned I hope for a deal but would expect in a no deal outcome some form of transition period would be agreed to allow both sides to adjust
No deal with transition would effectively just be an extension of the current transition? Unless both sides pinky-swear not to talk to each other during that time.
Reading through the thread it is so tiresome with the same polarised arguments and so many on both sides of the argument stuck in repeat
As far as I am concerned I hope for a deal but would expect in a no deal outcome some form of transition period would be agreed to allow both sides to adjust
To be fair I've heard you express that view quite a few times before.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
OMG OMG how will PT survive the night after such treatment - almost as bad as being called out by Kinabalu for not drooling at Kay Burley's feet cos she's a great journalist. These are truly the end of days for those on the right!
Let's stay grounded and accurate. People are being called out for being hypocrites about hypocrisy. As evidenced by defending or downplaying that of PM Chief Political Advisor Dominic Cummings and yet calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley.
5 convicted so far with the verdict on Philip in the balance. We await his reply to my key question.
You seem to live in a parallel universe, I have to to see anyone at all that is "calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley".
Random thought - why is Johnson heading off to Brussels? You'd think, given that we hold all the cards, that von der Leyen would be hot-footing it over here to plead with Johnson.
The talks have alternated between Brussels and London for months. The last round of talks were held in London. The next round will be in Brussels.
And Varadkar came to Britain (just about) for the crunch talks last time round. Funny how the Commission President at the time wasn't
Reading through the thread it is so tiresome with the same polarised arguments and so many on both sides of the argument stuck in repeat
As far as I am concerned I hope for a deal but would expect in a no deal outcome some form of transition period would be agreed to allow both sides to adjust
No deal with transition would effectively just be an extension of the current transition? Unless both sides pinky-swear not to talk to each other during that time.
Not really. It would have to be a no deal with recognition that a lead in period is required
Reading through the thread it is so tiresome with the same polarised arguments and so many on both sides of the argument stuck in repeat
As far as I am concerned I hope for a deal but would expect in a no deal outcome some form of transition period would be agreed to allow both sides to adjust
To be fair I've heard you express that view quite a few times before.
The evidence of east Lothian is that moving Edinburgh to Tier 2 will see cases rocket. Like they have in every area that has been moved to tier 2 without being at tiny levels of cases.
There is a risk, I accept that. There is also a price. At the moment Edinburgh's vibrant night time economy, which employs tens of thousands across the City is dead. I was in the Grassmarket last night at the back of 7.00pm. I was alone, completely alone. So many businesses have been destroyed, so many jobs lost, it will take a very, very long time to recover. This lunchtime I was down on Princes Street. Normally at this time of year it is difficult to move along the pavement, not today. Edinburgh is suffering economic devastation and it needs to stop.
There's certainly a perception (may or may not be justified) that Sturgeon is much tougher on Aberdeen and Edinburgh than on Glasgow.
Doubt it. The early Aberdeen lockdown was linked to plenty of evidence, visual and analytical, of misbehaviour, remember those pubs? And much of the western/middle Centrat Belt has had generally harsher lockdowns than Edinburgh (Tier 4 and longer Tier 3 etc).
Comments
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
As for my position: She's a hypocrite, I've never liked her as a journalist, but I couldn't care less what she has done. Nothing that has come out has changed my opinion on her at all and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite.
Edinburgh stays in level 3.
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/1336298315487567873
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
No we didn't you ignoramus. The Joint Committee were at an impasse without an agreement.
Now the Joint Committee have reached an agreement.
If you don't understand the difference then great - we can leave WTO terms in 23 days and still "have a deal" according to you.
I gave a citation for that, like you asked for. Now you're trying to shift the goal posts.
There were two claims I made that I gave the citation for, do you agree or disagree with these?
That we have implemented Brexit shows quite clearly we were always sovereign.
You've made it clear that you can't do either of those things so yep: meaningless dross.
We were sovereign. We have exercised that sovereignty by quitting and moving on. What's your problem with that?
Prior to the IMB we had an agreed deal.
The IMB threatened to renege on that deal.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
You're adding "Why" into it, it wasn't in my post and it wasn't in Scott's post. Keep moving those goalposts.
So do you accept there was an impasse and now there isn't so there is a meaningful change? We can debate the why afterwards but do you accept that baseline?
Not only is that not going to work, this mere hor doeuvres is bad starter to the main course.
Clearly any "impasse" has been broken, seemingly by the UK simply signing up to what it had already agreed to sign up to.
However if you're aware of any concessions the UK has been able to "extract" from the EU in order to make the agreement palatable then please share.
Your argument seems to be that the "EU didn't want a deal in the first place and now we have a deal" but you've provided zero evidence for that assumption.
Have you no confidence in your country, man?
Given how Eurosceptic it has become I don't see how the party will sit back and accept the sort of deal we appear to be looking at.
Whatever else, get your popcorn ready.
The UK had agreed to sign up to the Joint Committee resolving these issues, but the Joint Committee was failing to do so. So the UK took these powers in the IMB in case the Joint Committee failed.
Now the Joint Committee has reached an agreement. That was categorically NOT there before. It is a meaningful change, previously we had an agreement to let the Joint Committee sort it out but the Joint Committee was refusing to, now the Joint Committee has done so, so that is different.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
Oh do keep up Dan!
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement?
2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
Inverclyde, Falkirk and Angus will move from level three to level two,
https://news.stv.tv/politics/scotlands-toughest-coronavirus-regions-eased-on-friday?top
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
This whole chain since you started asking for citations has been about no more than whether there is a new agreement or not. The why is for another discussion if you want to have that but only after its accepted there is a new agreement.
The relevant questions are:
1: Pre-IMB did the Joint Committee have an agreement in principle? Yes or no.
2: Today does the Joint Committee have an agreement in principle? Yes or no.
It can't be debated why the agreement in principle was reached unless if it isn't even accepted that one has been reached.
The only really bad thing though would be any sort of EU sovereignty over the UK. I don't see him agreeing to that.
Bits and pieces of bad things aren't going to really hurt, and almost certainly there will be bits and pieces of good things too.
I'm fairly sure 'no deal' will be the outcome, but of course it's actually quite a lot of mini-deals in itself. The political damage to the EU from no deal will be far worse than that to the UK. The economic damage will hit the UK quite hard, and there will be all sorts of problems logistically. That'll pass though.
France, already a tinder-keg, is going to be the most outward sign of this failure.
(Good luck with that and exams)
So, Burley = hypocrite. And Cummings = hypocrite too (in spades) with his Lockdown breaches and therefore for you to avoid loss of integrity you need to have said so at the time. Did you?
Thank you!
https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1336328497061482497?s=20
You know how people can be.
The 'being rubbish' thing may well have been mostly in the UKs court at times, but at the death of these negotiations I think that the EU find themselves mostly owning the meme.
Of course there's no comfort to be had on either side. This'll be quite bad, and if the French play stupid afterwards then it'll be very bad indeed.
If they're overcautious, it's probably due to letting things get out of control (again) in September and October. Or maybe they're just trying to delay the case increase resulting from level 2 to after Christmas.
Hmmm
Of course Europe is divided, although perhaps surprisingly not very much. Seemingly just the two camps.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1336333922200764425
Cummings should have been sacked though - you can't be an employee of an organisation and actively go against rules that organisation is publicly promoting. Burley is maybe a slightly more grey area as Sky don't have a public policy on this, as far as I know. I wouldn't expect my employer to sack me for breaking lock down rules. She should still go though because it makes it impossible for her to do her job - how does she challenge anyone over the rules or rule breaking when she ignores them herself?
A general two-speed approach would've been better, but the nature of the beast is consumption, of growth, of deepening integration. That's partly due to zealous ideologues and partly (perhaps mostly) due to the mechanical necessities of a confederation with so many members and a seemingly insatiable appetite for more.
She's a hypocrite for breaking the rules after showing zero tolerance to those like Cummings who broke them before her. As far as I'm aware Cummings never spent week ranting about others breaking the rules and calling for them to be fired from their jobs before he was outed for doing what he did.
My opinion has always been that everyone breaks rules from time to time and people should use their own judgement and do their best. That I don't especially care if a rule is broken from time to time. To me that applies equally to Burley and Cummings. I think firing someone for something as meaningless as this would be a gross overreaction - the same as I would say for Cummings or Patel etc.
So I'm being consistent. Thank you.
'Physician, heal thyself. Whatsoever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in thine own country.'
On the face of it not only can this not be done, it is literally and logically impossible. A prime impossibility is caused by the fact that membership of the EU and the peace process in Ireland were in practice, though not in theory, inseparable.
The Remain campaign never dared to campaign on the basis that in practical terms we are not really allowed to leave the EU, fearing that the UK voter told that would certainly vote to leave. The leave campaign underplayed the problem as well for their own equally obvious reasons.
If Boris pulls something off, the possible illegality in the process will immediately seem trivial in the light of something very like a miracle.
As far as I am concerned I hope for a deal but would expect in a no deal outcome some form of transition period would be agreed to allow both sides to adjust
This has long been an obsession in Number Ten, and indeed it was the direct negotiations with Varadker that led to Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. So it may yet be part of the denouement.
5 convicted so far with the verdict on Philip in the balance. We await his reply to my key question.
https://twitter.com/nathansldennis/status/1336337319935107075?s=20
All week it’s almost like they think they can say what they want, not what they need to be saying 😟