The zone for a deal is non-regression on LPF (none of this blank cheque/hostage to fortune and lightning tariff stuff) and a 30-40% share of UK fish for UK boats with a 5-7 year transition. Gove is suggesting there that some EU fishermen may also be able to staff UK boats under UK control as well thereafter.
It should be enough. But Macron needs to row back too.
Honda and Ford have both announced UK plant closures in the past two years. Nissan in 2019 ditched plans to build additional models in its Sunderland factory. Ineos is building its new model 4x4 in France. Mini will make its Countryman in Germany from 2023.
And this is just the top-of-the-iceberg stuff.
Nissan cut back as part of a worldwide model review Ford is closing 6 plants in Europe Ineos have been bribed by MB to take their biggest problem off their hands - it will be a disaster Mini Contryman is produced in Austria and Netherlands atm
Really you know sod all about automotive.
So when a few years down the line we have seen all major pan-European manufacturing like automotive transferred from the UK into the EU will you be claiming that its all due to global factors and nothing to do with Brexit?
If we end up with no deal or a trade barriers deal we are going to be a unique experiment. What happens when you have a globalised industry and supply chain and voluntarily decide to impose barriers to trade? Does industry suck it up, respect the mandate, whistle Rule Britannia etc? Or relocate to a market where they don't have barriers to trade in the way that globalised industry has been doing for decades?
Would be a good time for a Brexity industrialist to be investing here in production. Get the great British brands made in Britain and exported cheaply thanks to our devalued currency. Or it would be if they weren't busy building their factories in foreign places that won't have the same barriers to trade as Britain does.
the crocodile tears for manufacturing come from the people who when Blair butchered our manufacturing sector cheer led the efforts because we were all going to be a service economy with fantastic financial services paying the bills. That went well.
If you give a shit about UK manufacturing Im afraid you're about 15 years too late.
Got it. So because Blair its only prudent for Johnson to destroy what is left. Will look great on the side of a bus parked outside the Nissan plant after the last shift. "TONY BLAIR SHUT YOUR FACTORY"
I work in manufacturing, most of what is being posted here is crap.
Stick to shopping
No wonder our manufacturing sector is in decline. Bit like those turkeys, I mean farmers, who voted for Christmas.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
Actually I heard that Macron surfs PB anonymously - looking for tips to deal with various internal discontents.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude.
They certainly can if they have orders to ram them or light them up with the 25 mil. I'm not 100% convinced Johnson has the guts for that. He does SFA about transmanche itinerants on pedalos every fucking day.
An Icelandic Coast Guard style net cutting operation might work but that would have a high pucker factor in the channel (as contrasted with North Atlantic) due to the presence of other marine traffic.
Silly. The UK could simply launch an identical case at the WTO in its own name.
Honestly, the inability of anyone who detests Brexit to see any merit in what the UK now does, or failing in what the EU does either, destroys their credibility.
It means the only audience they have is those who already vociferously agree with them.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
I'm sure he does and, if French fishermen can't legally fish at all, he has a bigger problem on his hands than if they can 100% for now but only at 75% of current levels in 5-7 years time.
Has anyone looked at the difference between vaccinating twice as many people with a single dose of the vaccine vs giving half as many people 2 doses?
Yes, there's a J&J trial looking into exactly this, to see whether one or two doses are necessary.
Yes, I'm thinking of the vaccines already approved - did anyone check how much protection a single dose offers, and whether it is more effective to vaccinate twice as many people with some reduction in protection, given that there aren't enough doses for everyone?
To some degree the Pfizer data that was sent to the MHRA and FDA has it but the approved dosage is two with a three week gap to reach the 90% efficacy. They'd need to run a new trial for a single dosage, it wouldn't be safe to widely roll it out without knowing. It's why the half/full dose regime from AZ might need another trial for approval on the over 55s as there isn't enough data. The rules on vaccine approval are very tight, for good reason too.
Ok. But it seems a decision was taken not to even check how much protection one dose offers, or at least not to allow approval for this. Which there might be good reasons for, but as there won't be anywhere near enough doses to vaccinate everyone (especially worldwide) for many months, it seems a questionable decision not to have the option of vaccinating twice as many people.
The zone for a deal is non-regression on LPF (none of this blank cheque/hostage to fortune and lightning tariff stuff) and a 30-40% share of UK fish for UK boats with a 5-7 year transition. Gove is suggesting there that some EU fishermen may also be able to staff UK boats under UK control as well thereafter.
It should be enough. But Macron needs to row back too.
But it's possible that deal doesn't work for the EU, and that they'd prefer to trade with the UK on whatever remote country terms you wish to call it.
Even if that's irrational (and I'm not convinced it is in the long game) that's their Sovereign Right.
Meanwhile, Boris is off for a dinner where he can make concessions, and his opposite number can't.
Vaccine anecdote. My wife was talking with co-workers in the staff room yesterday and 3 out the 4 said they didnt want the vaccine. All were health care assistants rather than doctors or nurses but I still find this a bit worrying/surprising.
Yes, similar vibes in our staff break room. Mostly HCAs and admin, but often intelligent folk otherwise.
From all the media coverage, the main takeaway is the good news that we have a vaccine, the second takeaway is that this has been achieved in a fraction of the time normally devoted to development and testing. This latter point is bound to make some people nervous.
My wife was given paperwork yesterday to get her vaccine and she said most of her colleagues said they don't want it.
I really don't get it. Makes me very angry if we have a vaccine available and can't make this bloody virus go away because people who need it turn it down.
Nothing worse than people near the front of the queue whinging that they don't want the vaccine. If people don't want to have it, there's a simple solution - just punt them to priority group 11? after 18-50 yr olds that do want it but are otherwise last
I'm sure that they will be punted and the vaccine will go to someone else if they do refuse.
But the thing is these people are being offered it because they work where they can be key superspreaders. It isn't for their personal benefit they're being offered it and it's bloody reckless to continue in the job without a vaccine if one has been offered.
I agree. I would be minded to suspend them until the majority of their more vulnerable clients are immune.
I would sack them, 24 hours to reconsider and then unemployed.
If you sack the HCAs, who is going to wipe the patients' bottoms?
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
I'm sure he does and, if French fishermen can't legally fish at all, he has a bigger problem on his hands than if they can 100% for now but only at 75% of current levels in 5-7 years time.
This “commentary” has all the hallmarks of the hypothesis that the German car manufacturers were going to be banging on Merkel’s door demanding a deal.
The zone for a deal is non-regression on LPF (none of this blank cheque/hostage to fortune and lightning tariff stuff) and a 30-40% share of UK fish for UK boats with a 5-7 year transition. Gove is suggesting there that some EU fishermen may also be able to staff UK boats under UK control as well thereafter.
It should be enough. But Macron needs to row back too.
But it's possible that deal doesn't work for the EU, and that they'd prefer to trade with the UK on whatever remote country terms you wish to call it.
Even if that's irrational (and I'm not convinced it is in the long game) that's their Sovereign Right.
Meanwhile, Boris is off for a dinner where he can make concessions, and his opposite number can't.
Watch the actions, ignore the patter.
A Deal was imminent on Wednesday last week. The Times has some great insight on this - it's basically a Franco-German split, with the French-led group in the minority - the EU is not united:
"The ambush had been brewing in Brussels for a fortnight, exposing a serious rift between the EU powerplayers, France and Germany.
It began after Mr Barnier had to step back from the talks when one of his aides tested positive for coronavirus.
He had been due to continue to lead the talks remotely but the Frenchman, 69, struggled with computer and IT problems. “You wouldn’t believe the problems we had trying to get him to switch his computer on right or get his camera working for a video conference,” one EU official said.
During the time he was isolated, Ursula von der Leyen, his boss and the president of the European Commission, tightened her grip on the negotiations with Stéphanie Riso, her deputy chief of staff, taking the lead in contacts with the British. In this period, Ms Riso, 44, a gifted French official who had worked with Mr Barnier on the withdrawal treaty, began to make real progress — so much so that alarm bells rang in Paris and some other capitals.
Mr Barnier was not happy. On the Friday, before talks were to begin again in London, he briefed EU ambassadors and, one diplomatic source said, “guided member states” to areas where he thought too many concessions had been made. “He raised flags. It was masterful and subtle but everyone was aware that Barnier himself was not happy with the Von der Leyen and Riso approach of getting a deal ‘whatever’ it takes,” the source said. "
"Michael Clauss, the German ambassador, fought back, criticising the French, Dutch and others for being “a bit jittery”. The French were furious and built an alliance of countries, including Spain, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands to push back against the doves of Germany, Austria, Sweden and some central and Eastern European states.
It was pressure from this hardline bloc — and the threat of a veto — that forced the commission to toughen its stance unexpectedly with the UK last Thursday, not just on a level playing field but subsidy control and fishing too."
"This resulted in France somewhat softening demands for regulatory alignment to allow, as Mr Beaune put it on Sunday, “a system in which a divergence of standards would be allowed but beyond which corrective measures would be taken”.
This appears to have been enough to get the talks restarted after a call between the commission president and Mr Johnson. Yesterday both sides remained tight-lipped about progress and whether the French concession on a level playing field and a British move on fishing could unlock a compromise."
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
I'm sure he does and, if French fishermen can't legally fish at all, he has a bigger problem on his hands than if they can 100% for now but only at 75% of current levels in 5-7 years time.
This “commentary” has all the hallmarks of the hypothesis that the German car manufacturers were going to be banging on Merkel’s door demanding a deal.
You forgot the Italian procecco makers. I am disappointed that their role in the Brexit story seems to have been neglected of late.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
I'm sure he does and, if French fishermen can't legally fish at all, he has a bigger problem on his hands than if they can 100% for now but only at 75% of current levels in 5-7 years time.
This “commentary” has all the hallmarks of the hypothesis that the German car manufacturers were going to be banging on Merkel’s door demanding a deal.
Where am I wrong?
If there's No Deal then French boats have no legal rights to fish in UK waters ad infinitum. If there is a Deal it will be based on them transitioning (in 3, 5, 7 or 10 years time - take your pick) to a situation where they have fewer rights than before but still substantive ones.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
I'm sure he does and, if French fishermen can't legally fish at all, he has a bigger problem on his hands than if they can 100% for now but only at 75% of current levels in 5-7 years time.
This “commentary” has all the hallmarks of the hypothesis that the German car manufacturers were going to be banging on Merkel’s door demanding a deal.
Where am I wrong?
If there's No Deal then French boats have no legal rights to fish in UK waters ad infinitum. If there is a Deal it will be based on them transitioning (in 3, 5, 7 or 10 years time - take your pick) to a situation where they have fewer rights than before but still substantive ones.
Which one do you think would be worse for Macron?
The former, obviously. But maybe Macron has other priorities?
The fact is that moaning about the French position achieves nothing. It is what it is. This is Brexit, after all.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
But it's not about who is being reasonable and unreasonable.
Right now, it's about who has done a better job of counting and assessing the cards in their hand (the UK has some, but overall the EU's hand looks stronger) and who is playing their cards more effectively (the EU are being way more competent).
And whatever the long term destination (all but the most zealous on both sides know, deep down, that it's a slow crawl back up Barnier's staircase), it's hard not to point out when your government is doing a dumb (but sadly necessary) thing in the dumbest of ways.
In terms of his immediate political future a deal with reduced fishing rights is worse for him than no deal with no rights because no deal is the fault of the English but a shit deal will be his fault.
If he manages to beat les fashos in 2022 that calculation might change.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
Your argument is that the balance of advantage is 0/100. It isn't, as we've all explored on here - exhaustively -many times before.
If you don't want to engage with that reality, because you'd prefer to post on here like it's Twitter and not an intelligent discussion forum, then it's fruitless engaging with you further.
In terms of his immediate political future a deal with reduced fishing rights is worse for him than no deal with no rights because no deal is the fault of the English but a shit deal will be his fault.
If he manages to beat les fashos in 2022 that calculation might change.
I don't think that's true. It means in the eighteen months leading up to his re-election no French fishing boats can fish - at all.
They're unlikely to thank him for that. Alternatively, a 5-7yr transition deal means there's little change for years and they can prepare for what's coming.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
And this attitude held by the EU is why there won't be a deal.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
Your argument is that the balance of advantage is 0/100. It isn't, as we've all explored on here - exhaustively -many times before.
If you don't want to engage with that reality, because you'd prefer to post on here like it's Twitter and not an intelligent discussion forum, then it's fruitless engaging with you further.
I didn’t say anything about the balance of advantage was other than it being in the EU’s favour. You have however invariably missed the point entirely.
The fact is that whinging and moaning about “unreasonableness” achieves nothing. All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexit supporters.
You’re the one who is seemingly incapable of forming an intelligent retort other than continued bitching and whining so I will consider the point conceded.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
And this attitude held by the EU is why there won't be a deal.
Well of course. But who wants a deal more, us or the EU?
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
But it's not about who is being reasonable and unreasonable.
Right now, it's about who has done a better job of counting and assessing the cards in their hand (the UK has some, but overall the EU's hand looks stronger) and who is playing their cards more effectively (the EU are being way more competent).
And whatever the long term destination (all but the most zealous on both sides know, deep down, that it's a slow crawl back up Barnier's staircase), it's hard not to point out when your government is doing a dumb (but sadly necessary) thing in the dumbest of ways.
I think this is a miscalculation. If we're "out out" then the EU leverage reduces over time as the new status-quo becomes established, our rules and regulatory environment changes - which it will - and our economy and supply chain adapts.
And the EU has to be reasonable now (as does the UK) for a Deal to happen otherwise there won't be one. The UK isn't a supplicant. And nor will the EU prise apart its single market just to get one.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
And this attitude held by the EU is why there won't be a deal.
Well of course. But who wants a deal more, us or the EU?
It really depends on the deal. At the current price I think neither side wants the deal.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
I'm sure he does and, if French fishermen can't legally fish at all, he has a bigger problem on his hands than if they can 100% for now but only at 75% of current levels in 5-7 years time.
This “commentary” has all the hallmarks of the hypothesis that the German car manufacturers were going to be banging on Merkel’s door demanding a deal.
Where am I wrong?
If there's No Deal then French boats have no legal rights to fish in UK waters ad infinitum. If there is a Deal it will be based on them transitioning (in 3, 5, 7 or 10 years time - take your pick) to a situation where they have fewer rights than before but still substantive ones.
Which one do you think would be worse for Macron?
The former, obviously. But maybe Macron has other priorities?
The fact is that moaning about the French position achieves nothing. It is what it is. This is Brexit, after all.
You think I'm wrong that if there's No Deal then French boats have no legal right to fish in UK waters? You might want to do a bit more research on that.
I'm not moaning about it. I'm saying Brexit means Brexit applies on both sides.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
Your argument is that the balance of advantage is 0/100. It isn't, as we've all explored on here - exhaustively -many times before.
If you don't want to engage with that reality, because you'd prefer to post on here like it's Twitter and not an intelligent discussion forum, then it's fruitless engaging with you further.
Is anyone saying the balance is 0:100?
The question is more about what the rules of the game are. Let's say the balance is 70:30, but it could be 52:48. In some games, like PR, substantial second place gets you substantial input into what happens next. In others, like FPTP, it gets you the opportunity to suck it up.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
I'm sure he does and, if French fishermen can't legally fish at all, he has a bigger problem on his hands than if they can 100% for now but only at 75% of current levels in 5-7 years time.
This “commentary” has all the hallmarks of the hypothesis that the German car manufacturers were going to be banging on Merkel’s door demanding a deal.
Where am I wrong?
If there's No Deal then French boats have no legal rights to fish in UK waters ad infinitum. If there is a Deal it will be based on them transitioning (in 3, 5, 7 or 10 years time - take your pick) to a situation where they have fewer rights than before but still substantive ones.
Which one do you think would be worse for Macron?
The former, obviously. But maybe Macron has other priorities?
The fact is that moaning about the French position achieves nothing. It is what it is. This is Brexit, after all.
You think I'm wrong that if there's No Deal then French boats have no legal right to fish in UK waters? You might want to do a bit more research on that.
I'm not moaning about it. I'm saying Brexit means Brexit applies on both sides.
Eh? I’m agreeing with you. On both points.
I simply pointed out that maybe Macron has other priorities, for example Paris’s financial services industry, etc.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
Your argument is that the balance of advantage is 0/100. It isn't, as we've all explored on here - exhaustively -many times before.
If you don't want to engage with that reality, because you'd prefer to post on here like it's Twitter and not an intelligent discussion forum, then it's fruitless engaging with you further.
I didn’t say anything about the balance of advantage was other than it being in the EU’s favour. You have however invariably missed the point entirely.
The fact is that whinging and moaning about “unreasonableness” achieves nothing. All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexit supporters.
You’re the one who is seemingly incapable of forming an intelligent retort other than continued bitching and whining so I will consider the point conceded.
You said it literally doesn't make a difference what we think. You said it doesn't matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Those things only apply if the UK is a supplicant in both cases.
You seem to think that challenging your stated views is bitching and whining. I can't imagine why.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
And this attitude held by the EU is why there won't be a deal.
Well of course. But who wants a deal more, us or the EU?
It really depends on the deal. At the current price I think neither side wants the deal.
I think that’s correct. Based on what we know there cant be a compromise because both sides are too far apart.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
I'm sure he does and, if French fishermen can't legally fish at all, he has a bigger problem on his hands than if they can 100% for now but only at 75% of current levels in 5-7 years time.
This “commentary” has all the hallmarks of the hypothesis that the German car manufacturers were going to be banging on Merkel’s door demanding a deal.
Where am I wrong?
If there's No Deal then French boats have no legal rights to fish in UK waters ad infinitum. If there is a Deal it will be based on them transitioning (in 3, 5, 7 or 10 years time - take your pick) to a situation where they have fewer rights than before but still substantive ones.
Which one do you think would be worse for Macron?
The former, obviously. But maybe Macron has other priorities?
The fact is that moaning about the French position achieves nothing. It is what it is. This is Brexit, after all.
You think I'm wrong that if there's No Deal then French boats have no legal right to fish in UK waters? You might want to do a bit more research on that.
I'm not moaning about it. I'm saying Brexit means Brexit applies on both sides.
Eh? I’m agreeing with you. On both points.
I simply pointed out that maybe Macron has other priorities, for example Paris’s financial services industry, etc.
Good, well that's progress then. Thank you.
I look forward to you gracefully withdrawing your post where you attacked my "commentary" as a fantastic hypothesis then.
If we're "out out" then the EU leverage reduces over time as the new status-quo becomes established
No
When we are out the EU rules become more important for trade, and we have no say in them at all
The UK will adjust to trading with them on WTO terms. That's what I'm saying.
Of course, you might take the view that our economy will be so crippled and damaged, with political disintegration to match, but that's one heck of a gamble.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
And this attitude held by the EU is why there won't be a deal.
Well of course. But who wants a deal more, us or the EU?
It really depends on the deal. At the current price I think neither side wants the deal.
I think Germany and central/eastern Europe does but not the French-led bloc.
If there weren't an EU we'd have trade deals with all those countries already and be feverishly haggling with France for years.
No Deal is the ultimate destination of the Brexiteer fantasy.
If we never get there, they will whine forever about what could have been.
It will be a disaster economically, but politically it would the best thing for the country.
We can expunge the madness and move on.
Little chance of No Deal imo but yes there is that argument for it. Brexit means Brexit. If you don't do it properly it's always there as the promised land.
I don't think that's true. It means in the eighteen months leading up to his re-election no French fishing boats can fish - at all.
Macron's game is obvious: force a no deal then get a better deal from a humbled England in the spring once they've had a taste of no deal. I'm not saying it'll work or it's good idea but he's clearly trying to engineer it.
This would be a big win for him as it has the added bonus of demonstrating that leaving the EU is to be cast into the outer darkness. Les fashos had a policy of FRORTIE for years and, although they have rowed back from it as Brexit unfolded, Macron can taint them by association.
Remember Macron is a high stakes gambler; from fucking his piano teacher to forming En Marche and that behaviour will repeat in how he handles Brexit.
Science and Technology Committee and Health and Social Care Committee Witness(es): Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Adviser; Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England; Dr Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Department for Health and Social Care; Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, Medical and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
I don't think that's true. It means in the eighteen months leading up to his re-election no French fishing boats can fish - at all.
Macron's game is obvious: force a no deal then get a better deal from a humbled England in the spring once they've had a taste of no deal. I'm not saying it'll work or it's good idea but he's clearly trying to engineer it.
This would be a big win for him as it has the added bonus of demonstrating that leaving the EU is to be cast into the outer darkness. Les fashos had a policy of FRORTIE for years and, although they have rowed back from it as Brexit unfolded, Macron can taint them by association.
Remember Macron is a high stakes gambler; from fucking his piano teacher to forming En Marche and that behaviour will repeat in how he handles Brexit.
it's certainly possible - especially as it would help him outflank le Pen in the next presidential election.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
And this attitude held by the EU is why there won't be a deal.
Well of course. But who wants a deal more, us or the EU?
I suspect the EU WANT'S it more. But, however much Johnson, Gove etc huff and puff, we, the British, NEED it more. After all the EU 'management' has other things it wants to deal with, and which, in it's collective mind are as important. We need to get the thing done because pretty well everything has been log-jammed by Brexit (and, more recently Covid, to be fair) for the past four or five years.
SOUTHAMPTON, England, Dec. 9, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Cunard, a part of Carnival Corporation & plc (NYSE/LSE: CCL; NYSE: CUK), the world's largest cruise company, announced today it has extended its pause in operations due to the ongoing travel constraints in place across the world.
Voyages departing on board Queen Mary 2 up to and including May 28, 2021, and on board Queen Elizabeth up to and including June 4, 2021, are now cancelled. Departures on Queen Victoria remain unaffected and are scheduled to resume May 17, 2021.
It won't, because fundamentally the EU have a problem (and an emotional reaction) to us doing anything differently from them. Look at the petulant reaction to us approving Pfizer early.
I fear it's not something they'll be able to work through in time to reach a practical deal, because they're too insecure - their prime goal is to deter other member states leaving, and try and bind Britain into them so it doesn't prove to be a credible alternative competitor in future.
Britain wants to retain market privileges and still do things differently, simply because we think of ourselves as important. That was never going to work, and there was no moral reason known why they ever should have accepted it.
The inability of those who oppose Brexit to see anything unreasonable in any position the EU adopts is truly something to behold.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
It doesn’t matter if the EU is unreasonable or not. Don’t you get it? This is all a consequence of Brexit and the power imbalance. It literally doesn’t make a difference what we think.
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
And this attitude held by the EU is why there won't be a deal.
Well of course. But who wants a deal more, us or the EU?
I suspect the EU WANT'S it more. But, however much Johnson, Gove etc huff and puff, we, the British, NEED it more. After all the EU 'management' has other things it wants to deal with, and which, in it's collective mind are as important. We need to get the thing done because pretty well everything has been log-jammed by Brexit (and, more recently Covid, to be fair) for the past four or five years.
And that takes us back to the psychodrama aspect.
Has Boris ever been in a situation where he needed something, rather than wanting it? Does he understand the difference?
Thinking of his predecessors, Major and before would have known the difference, because of when they grew up. Probably Blair as well. Brown and May would have had sufficiently humble and pious backgrounds to be clear about it. Cameron had his experience with his son to teach him.
Stupid Byzantine organisation. Thank goodness we are leaving.
If you want a negotiation to succeed get the key principles who can determine it into the room together.
The key principals include 27 Sovereign Parliaments, some regional assemblies, and the EU Parliament. All have to approve. It would need to be a big room.
The reality is that Barnier is their chosen negotiator, and has always been consistent and open in his position, which is the one agreed by the wider group.
This is not a place for wheeler dealers, but rather for people good at detail. Not a very accurate resume of BoZo.
You don't need everyone in the room, just the people who can make decisions. In the UK that is Boris, he can make a decision then take it to Parliament. Who is that in the EU?
He's talking to von der Leyen but then she apparently lacks the authority to actually make a decision, only the 27 can. So why not have the 27 there? Or if the 27 don't want to be in the room then they should pick someone they trust and give them the authority to make whatever compromises they see fit. That way VDL would actually be able to negotiate with Boris.
If afterwards someone is unhappy with what is negotiated and vetoes it so be it. Just as Parliament vetoed May's deal. But at least give her authority to try.
To say we are only sending one person in but that one person can't actually compromise, how is that better than Boris talking to an empty room?
Over 600,000 people taking part/have taken part in studies in the UK into COVID recovery - thanks to NHS, MRC, MHRA & Academia - Professor Chris Whitty.
This is also a global problem of shipping imbalances and delays, but the UK is likely to be affected more than most. The addition of whatever inflexibilities are forced on us in January will be painful.
Totally O/t but maybe a bit of light relief. I've just had one of THOSE phone calls. Very un-Kevin voice said "My name is Kevin and I'm calling you from the Government department of"' At that point I laughed and said "That's a new one. Haven't had that before!" And 'Kevin', in a resigned tone said "Oh, Okay' And rang off!
Totally O/t but maybe a bit of light relief. I've just had one of THOSE phone calls. Very un-Kevin voice said "My name is Kevin and I'm calling you from the Government department of"' At that point I laughed and said "That's a new one. Haven't had that before!" And 'Kevin', in a resigned tone said "Oh, Okay' And rang off!
My favourites are the ones from "Microsoft Windows centre" "About my Mac?"
Totally O/t but maybe a bit of light relief. I've just had one of THOSE phone calls. Very un-Kevin voice said "My name is Kevin and I'm calling you from the Government department of"' At that point I laughed and said "That's a new one. Haven't had that before!" And 'Kevin', in a resigned tone said "Oh, Okay' And rang off!
My favourites are the ones from "Microsoft Windows centre" "About my Mac?"
If I've nothing better to do I string them along for a while before saying; 'that's not on my Mac.' Or something like that. Haven't had a 'Microsoft' call for a while though. Had a spate of 'BT' ones, and, as I posted a day or so ago, they've recently been abusive.
Whenever the Scottish nationalists start talking about ‘fairness’, you know someone’s getting shafted. . . . Today a Scottish education gives every child, no matter how rich or poor, the chance to benefit from a system as unimaginative for itself as it is unambitious for its pupils. You can’t say fairer than that.
SOUTHAMPTON, England, Dec. 9, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Cunard, a part of Carnival Corporation & plc (NYSE/LSE: CCL; NYSE: CUK), the world's largest cruise company, announced today it has extended its pause in operations due to the ongoing travel constraints in place across the world.
Voyages departing on board Queen Mary 2 up to and including May 28, 2021, and on board Queen Elizabeth up to and including June 4, 2021, are now cancelled. Departures on Queen Victoria remain unaffected and are scheduled to resume May 17, 2021.
Quel surprise, Mackay had zero experience of anything and trusting him to run a bath would have been crazy. Luckily he managed to get himself chucked out.
Two can play that game though: the Royal Navy can patrol our waters and eject any French fishermen who intrude. If they can't fish at all then Macron will have a big problem for his 2022 re-election campaign.
This should be made clear to him.
I think Macron understands French politics better than you mate
These guys live in a dream , any hassles with RN and French fishermen will block Calais and scupper England totally.
The sad truth is that it is the poisonous snakes in the SNP that are more likely to bring Murrell down than any opposing party. They know where the bodies are buried and they are incredibly vicious.
The zone for a deal is non-regression on LPF (none of this blank cheque/hostage to fortune and lightning tariff stuff) and a 30-40% share of UK fish for UK boats with a 5-7 year transition. Gove is suggesting there that some EU fishermen may also be able to staff UK boats under UK control as well thereafter.
It should be enough. But Macron needs to row back too.
You mean it is total capitulation , even these brass necked idiots must be getting red in the face by now.
Comments
It should be enough. But Macron needs to row back too.
I think he goes by @Sunil_Prasannan .
An Icelandic Coast Guard style net cutting operation might work but that would have a high pucker factor in the channel (as contrasted with North Atlantic) due to the presence of other marine traffic.
Honestly, the inability of anyone who detests Brexit to see any merit in what the UK now does, or failing in what the EU does either, destroys their credibility.
It means the only audience they have is those who already vociferously agree with them.
Even if that's irrational (and I'm not convinced it is in the long game) that's their Sovereign Right.
Meanwhile, Boris is off for a dinner where he can make concessions, and his opposite number can't.
Watch the actions, ignore the patter.
It doesn't earn you any audience with those who you might seek to influence. And nor does it advance your ultimate objective - rejoining.
"The ambush had been brewing in Brussels for a fortnight, exposing a serious rift between the EU powerplayers, France and Germany.
It began after Mr Barnier had to step back from the talks when one of his aides tested positive for coronavirus.
He had been due to continue to lead the talks remotely but the Frenchman, 69, struggled with computer and IT problems. “You wouldn’t believe the problems we had trying to get him to switch his computer on right or get his camera working for a video conference,” one EU official said.
During the time he was isolated, Ursula von der Leyen, his boss and the president of the European Commission, tightened her grip on the negotiations with Stéphanie Riso, her deputy chief of staff, taking the lead in contacts with the British. In this period, Ms Riso, 44, a gifted French official who had worked with Mr Barnier on the withdrawal treaty, began to make real progress — so much so that alarm bells rang in Paris and some other capitals.
Mr Barnier was not happy. On the Friday, before talks were to begin again in London, he briefed EU ambassadors and, one diplomatic source said, “guided member states” to areas where he thought too many concessions had been made. “He raised flags. It was masterful and subtle but everyone was aware that Barnier himself was not happy with the Von der Leyen and Riso approach of getting a deal ‘whatever’ it takes,” the source said. "
"Michael Clauss, the German ambassador, fought back, criticising the French, Dutch and others for being “a bit jittery”. The French were furious and built an alliance of countries, including Spain, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands to push back against the doves of Germany, Austria, Sweden and some central and Eastern European states.
It was pressure from this hardline bloc — and the threat of a veto — that forced the commission to toughen its stance unexpectedly with the UK last Thursday, not just on a level playing field but subsidy control and fishing too."
"This resulted in France somewhat softening demands for regulatory alignment to allow, as Mr Beaune put it on Sunday, “a system in which a divergence of standards would be allowed but beyond which corrective measures would be taken”.
This appears to have been enough to get the talks restarted after a call between the commission president and Mr Johnson. Yesterday both sides remained tight-lipped about progress and whether the French concession on a level playing field and a British move on fishing could unlock a compromise."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-an-ambush-brewed-in-brussels-derailed-brexit-talks-3tgklvw9x
I am disappointed that their role in the Brexit story seems to have been neglected of late.
If there's No Deal then French boats have no legal rights to fish in UK waters ad infinitum. If there is a Deal it will be based on them transitioning (in 3, 5, 7 or 10 years time - take your pick) to a situation where they have fewer rights than before but still substantive ones.
Which one do you think would be worse for Macron?
All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexiteers - “easiest deal in the world” etc etc.
There’s no “goal” to rejoin here. There’s no expectation to rejoin. We can simply make the best of it.
Moaning about “unreasonableness” is not going to get you anywhere.
The fact is that moaning about the French position achieves nothing. It is what it is. This is Brexit, after all.
Right now, it's about who has done a better job of counting and assessing the cards in their hand (the UK has some, but overall the EU's hand looks stronger) and who is playing their cards more effectively (the EU are being way more competent).
And whatever the long term destination (all but the most zealous on both sides know, deep down, that it's a slow crawl back up Barnier's staircase), it's hard not to point out when your government is doing a dumb (but sadly necessary) thing in the dumbest of ways.
If he manages to beat les fashos in 2022 that calculation might change.
If you don't want to engage with that reality, because you'd prefer to post on here like it's Twitter and not an intelligent discussion forum, then it's fruitless engaging with you further.
They're unlikely to thank him for that. Alternatively, a 5-7yr transition deal means there's little change for years and they can prepare for what's coming.
The fact is that whinging and moaning about “unreasonableness” achieves nothing. All it does is highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and delusion of Brexit supporters.
You’re the one who is seemingly incapable of forming an intelligent retort other than continued bitching and whining so I will consider the point conceded.
And the EU has to be reasonable now (as does the UK) for a Deal to happen otherwise there won't be one. The UK isn't a supplicant. And nor will the EU prise apart its single market just to get one.
Hence, compromise.
If we never get there, they will whine forever about what could have been.
It will be a disaster economically, but politically it would the best thing for the country.
We can expunge the madness and move on.
I'm not moaning about it. I'm saying Brexit means Brexit applies on both sides.
When we are out the EU rules become more important for trade, and we have no say in them at all
The question is more about what the rules of the game are. Let's say the balance is 70:30, but it could be 52:48. In some games, like PR, substantial second place gets you substantial input into what happens next. In others, like FPTP, it gets you the opportunity to suck it up.
I simply pointed out that maybe Macron has other priorities, for example Paris’s financial services industry, etc.
You seem to think that challenging your stated views is bitching and whining. I can't imagine why.
I look forward to you gracefully withdrawing your post where you attacked my "commentary" as a fantastic hypothesis then.
F1: Haas' new signing for next year, Nikita Mazepin, is trending on Twitter. And not in a good way...
Of course, you might take the view that our economy will be so crippled and damaged, with political disintegration to match, but that's one heck of a gamble.
If there weren't an EU we'd have trade deals with all those countries already and be feverishly haggling with France for years.
This would be a big win for him as it has the added bonus of demonstrating that leaving the EU is to be cast into the outer darkness. Les fashos had a policy of FRORTIE for years and, although they have rowed back from it as Brexit unfolded, Macron can taint them by association.
Remember Macron is a high stakes gambler; from fucking his piano teacher to forming En Marche and that behaviour will repeat in how he handles Brexit.
Witness(es): Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Adviser; Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England; Dr Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Department for Health and Social Care; Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, Medical and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7e1ba243-bb12-4050-a510-dde5ecd00f3b
After all the EU 'management' has other things it wants to deal with, and which, in it's collective mind are as important.
We need to get the thing done because pretty well everything has been log-jammed by Brexit (and, more recently Covid, to be fair) for the past four or five years.
Voyages departing on board Queen Mary 2 up to and including May 28, 2021, and on board Queen Elizabeth up to and including June 4, 2021, are now cancelled. Departures on Queen Victoria remain unaffected and are scheduled to resume May 17, 2021.
https://www.carnivalcorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cunard-extends-pause-operations-0
Has Boris ever been in a situation where he needed something, rather than wanting it? Does he understand the difference?
Thinking of his predecessors, Major and before would have known the difference, because of when they grew up. Probably Blair as well. Brown and May would have had sufficiently humble and pious backgrounds to be clear about it. Cameron had his experience with his son to teach him.
But Boris?
And with that, I need to get some work done.
He's talking to von der Leyen but then she apparently lacks the authority to actually make a decision, only the 27 can. So why not have the 27 there? Or if the 27 don't want to be in the room then they should pick someone they trust and give them the authority to make whatever compromises they see fit. That way VDL would actually be able to negotiate with Boris.
If afterwards someone is unhappy with what is negotiated and vetoes it so be it. Just as Parliament vetoed May's deal. But at least give her authority to try.
To say we are only sending one person in but that one person can't actually compromise, how is that better than Boris talking to an empty room?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55237791
This is also a global problem of shipping imbalances and delays, but the UK is likely to be affected more than most.
The addition of whatever inflexibilities are forced on us in January will be painful.
I've just had one of THOSE phone calls. Very un-Kevin voice said "My name is Kevin and I'm calling you from the Government department of"'
At that point I laughed and said "That's a new one. Haven't had that before!"
And 'Kevin', in a resigned tone said "Oh, Okay' And rang off!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/business/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazeneca.html
Haven't had a 'Microsoft' call for a while though. Had a spate of 'BT' ones, and, as I posted a day or so ago, they've recently been abusive.
https://twitter.com/business/status/1336623983358251008?s=20
Professor Lindsay Paterson was impressively damning on R4 this morning.