It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Has any country had to accept a level playing field arrangement simply to land their planes in another?
The EU has set out details of continuing reciprocal airspace rights. But it's all in the game absolutely. Might we want to put some human rights clauses in an FTA with China?
But this isn't a FTA. They want LPF only in exchange for keeping flights going. No other country in the world is subject to that requirement.
Isn't this LPF limited to aviation matters, though? Presumably it would cover things like pilot qualifications, etc, and would only be for a limited time. That doesn't seem too awful a thing for the UK to agree to in order to avoid the worst of the chaos.
I think that would be acceptable if the scope was very limited.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
Yes but the idea a fishing agreement can be deferred for 12 months is a complete non started
Absolutely. The French fishing industry can start handing out its redundancy notices on 1st January so far as I am concerned.
Ditto the manufacturing sector, particularly the car sector, in the UK.
I am not suggesting such a move is desirable, but you can keep factory workers making things for a long time by subsidising their employment. You can't keep fishing in another country's waters if they don't want you to.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
I see no problem with a LPF but absolutely not dynamic alignment
It won't be dynamic alignment. That means if they pass a measure we HAVE to pass it too. No way is this compatible with any reasonable meaning of Brexit. It would be like being a member but without a say.
No, it will be stay aligned for now and agree that we can diverge in the future - but if we do there may be a price to pay on market access if that divergence means us falling behind them on stuff like worker and environment and consumer protections.
With same applying the other way.
You'd go for that, I'm sure, reasonable person that you are. So imo will Johnson after a bit more tumbling around the ring.
Utter twat. No wonder the May manifesto imploded in flames on contact with air.
Is that Nicholas J Timothy, born March 1980, pontificating on British food pre-1973 ?
As I recall, that was actually a pretty good description of what we got to eat back then. (Though, tbf, I am from Yorkshire, and in my case that was school food.)
Re planes: I saw a video on this a while back, and I remember that this is all a bit complex, with countries having a nest of interlocking treaties, with (for example) legal minimums for third party insurance when flying to-and-from.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
I see no problem with a LPF but absolutely not dynamic alignment
It won't be dynamic alignment. That means if they pass a measure we HAVE to pass it too. No way is this compatible with any reasonable meaning of Brexit. It would be like being a member but without a say.
No, it will be stay aligned for now and agree that we can diverge in the future - but if we do there may be a price to pay on market access if that divergence means us falling behind them on stuff like worker and environment and consumer protections.
With same applying the other way.
You'd go for that, I'm sure, reasonable person that you are. So imo will Johnson after a bit more tumbling around the ring.
I absolutely would but as I understand it that is not the EU position.
If it is confirmed than a deal should happen quickly and I would be delighted
I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
Except you won't.
The supermarkets are not going to fill the shelves with coconuts because they can't get onions from Holland, and nobody would buy them if they did
Yes you are right. I had forgotten what an extraordinarily difficult vegetable onions are to cultivate. They will only grow if planted below sea level and fertilised by muck from Lakenvelder cattle.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
No these issues shouldn't be determined in international law. One of my whole reasons for voting for Brexit is that no Parliament should bind its successor and setting these issues in Europe means that eg Labour can pass a bad law and then eg the Tories can't reverse it - or vice-versa.
Being able to reverse your domestic laws is just as important as being able to pass them. They shouldn't be tied to international laws.
We can reverse them. I assume you disagree with the non-reversion from current levels that the UK government has apparently agreed to?
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
I see no problem with a LPF but absolutely not dynamic alignment
It won't be dynamic alignment. That means if they pass a measure we HAVE to pass it too. No way is this compatible with any reasonable meaning of Brexit. It would be like being a member but without a say.
No, it will be stay aligned for now and agree that we can diverge in the future - but if we do there may be a price to pay on market access if that divergence means us falling behind them on stuff like worker and environment and consumer protections.
With same applying the other way.
You'd go for that, I'm sure, reasonable person that you are. So imo will Johnson after a bit more tumbling around the ring.
The current proposals are if the EU decides they want to change regulations, either the UK changes or it gets slapped with tariffs.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
Yes but the idea a fishing agreement can be deferred for 12 months is a complete non started
Absolutely. The French fishing industry can start handing out its redundancy notices on 1st January so far as I am concerned.
Ditto the manufacturing sector, particularly the car sector, in the UK.
And of course the German, French and Italian car sectors too, yes. There are no winners in this game only losers but if the EU doesn't want to play then so be it.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
Some years ago a group of undergrads at my old college (Christ Church) tried to launch a rocket from Tom Quad. The objective of the mission was to look for signs of intelligent life in Oriel.
Needless to say it was unsuccessful, but principally because the rocket failed to leave the launch pad.
House undergrads taking the piss out of Oriel is a bit rich.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
I see no problem with a LPF but absolutely not dynamic alignment
It won't be dynamic alignment. That means if they pass a measure we HAVE to pass it too. No way is this compatible with any reasonable meaning of Brexit. It would be like being a member but without a say.
No, it will be stay aligned for now and agree that we can diverge in the future - but if we do there may be a price to pay on market access if that divergence means us falling behind them on stuff like worker and environment and consumer protections.
With same applying the other way.
You'd go for that, I'm sure, reasonable person that you are. So imo will Johnson after a bit more tumbling around the ring.
The current proposals are if the EU decides they want to change regulations, either the UK changes or it gets slapped with tariffs.
And vice versa. The ratchet clause version was less intrusive but the UK rejected that.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
What does the "expiry date" mean, and what effect does it have on the effectiveness of the PPE?
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
The stocks could have been tested again and found to still be effective, thus warranting a new expiry date. And in the crunch in the spring, would you rather have old PPE or no PPE?
I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
Except you won't.
The supermarkets are not going to fill the shelves with coconuts because they can't get onions from Holland, and nobody would buy them if they did
Yes you are right. I had forgotten what an extraordinarily difficult vegetable onions are to cultivate. They will only grow if planted below sea level and fertilised by muck from Lakenvelder cattle.
Still, at least I'll get to try out my recipe for French Coconut Soup.
Re the Texas case before the Supreme Court: it requires five of the Justices to even agree to hear the case.
I can't see how they get there. Indeed, the Texas Attorney General has far less standing than the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case that SCOTUS refused to hear.
We could hear as soon as this afternoon that SCOTUS is not taking the case, or it could be tomorrow. But it's hard to see anything other than a one-line rejection.
I wondered about standing. Does it not have constitutional standing?
The psychology of No Deal are quite interesting. Many will see any No Deal exit as final proof of why Brexit was a stupid idea. Lots of people on here will think that.
Conversely I voted Leave, because I couldn’t see a future for the UK in an EU which must move towards full fiscal (and hence political) union, if the Euro is not to fatally undermine the long term productivity and social cohesion of the continent. But I did so thinking it was a shame and potentially risky to make a break with countries that were firm allies, given the external threats from Xi and Putin. And that at least we’d depart as friends, with close trading ties and pretty well aligned political interests.
But to be honest I must now put aside any earlier concerns I may have had about leaving. The EU’s apparent refusal to negotiate sensibly on a very basic goods-only free trade agreement is quite extraordinary, given: a) we start from a position of total alignment, b) the terms of goods trade are stacked firmly in the EU’s favour, c) the UK has honoured all financial obligations and arguably far above, d) Not only do we share criminal and security intelligence with each other, the UK and France have intimate military cooperation and exchange of commanding officers.
Given all this I have to believe this is all just stage management for voters and brinksmanship. Because whatever sarcastic replies Continuity Remain might make, this really should have been the easiest trade deal in history from both sides’ perspective.
But if it really can’t get done because of what to any impartial observer are quite obscene demands from the EU side, then goodbye and good riddance and don’t expect us to come calling for a deal again. I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
I find myself of this view at times. We're constantly told that we must align not to lower standards..when in most cases we have higher standards anyhow.
I don't like Brexit. I feel it makes us tremendously vulnerable during a period of change (i.e. rise of China). I also don't like the EU as a political construct, and it's stubborness to move on issues (though I understand entirely why they take this approach).
This is about the EUs survival as much as anything. Interestingly a commentator did make a point earlier that it is interesting to see the EU have concern over a large competitive neighbour and the fact it doesn't necessarily give off a sense of confidence over its own protectionist tendencies. There's probably some truth in that.
Yes, Continuity Remainers think the EU is negotiating from a position of immense strength.
It's actually fragile and very nervous, which is a sign of a lack of confidence and underlying weaknesss.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
I see no problem with a LPF but absolutely not dynamic alignment
It won't be dynamic alignment. That means if they pass a measure we HAVE to pass it too. No way is this compatible with any reasonable meaning of Brexit. It would be like being a member but without a say.
No, it will be stay aligned for now and agree that we can diverge in the future - but if we do there may be a price to pay on market access if that divergence means us falling behind them on stuff like worker and environment and consumer protections.
With same applying the other way.
You'd go for that, I'm sure, reasonable person that you are. So imo will Johnson after a bit more tumbling around the ring.
The current proposals are if the EU decides they want to change regulations, either the UK changes or it gets slapped with tariffs.
And vice versa. The ratchet clause version was less intrusive but the UK rejected that.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
What does the "expiry date" mean, and what effect does it have on the effectiveness of the PPE?
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
Yes, it seems rather odd. And even if the effectiveness is reduced, it's still presumably better than the alternative at the time: not having any protection at all.
Aside from the very conservative broad brush statements from the likes of Witty and Wear A Mask Next Winter Valance, has anyone come up with a sensible forecast of when the vaccination schedule will make a material hole in R and more importantly the hospitalisation data?
If the rollout goes to plan (and I've heard some interesting stories about that) we should make a huge dent in R by Easter.
It's ok. Macron will find out that Brexit means Brexit on 1st January.
Looks like new infections are back on an upward trajectory and hospital admissions are flattening in preparation for an upturn. Fatalities lagging, of course.
Unless the rules are tightened, the numbers are going to look terrible by year end, with the Christmas free for all the cherry on the cake.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
What does the "expiry date" mean, and what effect does it have on the effectiveness of the PPE?
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
The stocks could have been tested again and found to still be effective, thus warranting a new expiry date. And in the crunch in the spring, would you rather have old PPE or no PPE?
Bad PPE makes a situation worse with a respiratory pandemic.
Some Tories are now moaning that the EU isn’t going to compromise because they’re not looking at the economic arguments and instead this is being done because of politics when Brexit falls into the same category .
Which EU country is now going to even think of leaving . So job done for the EU . And as for the EU falling apart , quite the reverse has happened . Which Union looks in more danger now than it did 4 years ago .
I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
Except you won't.
The supermarkets are not going to fill the shelves with coconuts because they can't get onions from Holland, and nobody would buy them if they did
Yes you are right. I had forgotten what an extraordinarily difficult vegetable onions are to cultivate. They will only grow if planted below sea level and fertilised by muck from Lakenvelder cattle.
No one said we can't grow our own. In about three months time.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
What does the "expiry date" mean, and what effect does it have on the effectiveness of the PPE?
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
Yes, it seems rather odd. And even if the effectiveness is reduced, it's still presumably better than the alternative at the time: not having any protection at all.
With some of the PPE the seals lose their integrity, so rather than keeping you safe, it stays on the PPE kit longer, as it effectively sticks to it and thus you, more so than if you didn't wear PPE.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
What does the "expiry date" mean, and what effect does it have on the effectiveness of the PPE?
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
The stocks could have been tested again and found to still be effective, thus warranting a new expiry date. And in the crunch in the spring, would you rather have old PPE or no PPE?
That might be possible. The description provided along with the account does not suggest that was the case.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It is not a non regression thing though. If it was an agreement purely that neither would lower standards below that at the point of the deal I think it would have been done. What the EU is wanting though is that if they increase standards or introduce new ones that we have to implement them too....it is that which is unacceptable
No, we don't have to implement them too. If our standards diverge too much over time and either side thinks that is harming their economy then the affected party can apply tariffs. That is in order to protect their sovereign right to set their own laws in the future without that leading to them being undercut. It doesn't seem that outrageous a demand.
I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
Except you won't.
The supermarkets are not going to fill the shelves with coconuts because they can't get onions from Holland, and nobody would buy them if they did
Yes you are right. I had forgotten what an extraordinarily difficult vegetable onions are to cultivate. They will only grow if planted below sea level and fertilised by muck from Lakenvelder cattle.
No one said we can't grow our own. In about three months time.
Hopefully we can eke out the 450,000 tonnes we already grow.
Looks like new infections are back on an upward trajectory and hospital admissions are flattening in preparation for an upturn. Fatalities lagging, of course.
Unless the rules are tightened, the numbers are going to look terrible by year end, with the Christmas free for all the cherry on the cake.
Yes, looks like we will need another national lockdown for all of Jan and Feb. Even if the vaccines run to time we will not see any noticeable improvement on hospital admissions and deaths until March, although hopefully significant reduction by end March.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
What does the "expiry date" mean, and what effect does it have on the effectiveness of the PPE?
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
The stocks could have been tested again and found to still be effective, thus warranting a new expiry date. And in the crunch in the spring, would you rather have old PPE or no PPE?
Bad PPE makes a situation worse with a respiratory pandemic.
By being less effective at filtering? It's hard to imagine it being worse than no PPE, but I am only an armchair PPE expert.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
No these issues shouldn't be determined in international law. One of my whole reasons for voting for Brexit is that no Parliament should bind its successor and setting these issues in Europe means that eg Labour can pass a bad law and then eg the Tories can't reverse it - or vice-versa.
Being able to reverse your domestic laws is just as important as being able to pass them. They shouldn't be tied to international laws.
To be more realistic you should pose the question as to whether Labour could rectify a bad Tory law. But in any event the answer is yes. There may be a price in SM access (depending on what it is and the context and circumstances) but we will have that right.
If what you want and expect is both (i) great access to the SM and (ii) the total freedom to enact any measure domestically without any impact on that access, this was NEVER going to happen, not in a million years. I'm quite surprised you'd think otherwise. If you have been thinking otherwise I guess it does explain a few things.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It is not a non regression thing though. If it was an agreement purely that neither would lower standards below that at the point of the deal I think it would have been done. What the EU is wanting though is that if they increase standards or introduce new ones that we have to implement them too....it is that which is unacceptable
No, we don't have to implement them too. If our standards diverge too much over time and either side thinks that is harming their economy then the affected party can apply tariffs. That is in order to protect their sovereign right to set their own laws in the future without that leading to them being undercut. It doesn't seem that outrageous a demand.
And yet these terms aren't applied to trade deals with Japan or Canada by the EU.
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
What does the "expiry date" mean, and what effect does it have on the effectiveness of the PPE?
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
The stocks could have been tested again and found to still be effective, thus warranting a new expiry date. And in the crunch in the spring, would you rather have old PPE or no PPE?
That might be possible. The description provided along with the account does not suggest that was the case.
What does it suggest?
"We did receive some supplies that came from some early stock and the expiry dates were covered over with new dates, even though they had already expired. They put the new date on and said it was still safe."
Isn't that how a new expiry date would be affixed to the product, over the old one?
Pfizer vaccine results peer reviewed & published: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 ...This trial and its preliminary report have several limitations. With approximately 19,000 participants per group in the subset of participants with a median follow-up time of 2 months after the second dose, the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably. This report includes 2 months of follow-up after the second dose of vaccine for half the trial participants and up to 14 weeks’ maximum follow-up for a smaller subset. Therefore, both the occurrence of adverse events more than 2 to 3.5 months after the second dose and more comprehensive information on the duration of protection remain to be determined. Although the study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose, given the high vaccine efficacy, ethical and practical barriers prevent following placebo recipients for 2 years without offering active immunization, once the vaccine is approved by regulators and recommended by public health authorities. Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose. These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be reported later. Furthermore, given the high vaccine efficacy and the low number of vaccine breakthrough cases, potential establishment of a correlate of protection has not been feasible at the time of this report...
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
What does the "expiry date" mean, and what effect does it have on the effectiveness of the PPE?
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
The stocks could have been tested again and found to still be effective, thus warranting a new expiry date. And in the crunch in the spring, would you rather have old PPE or no PPE?
Bad PPE makes a situation worse with a respiratory pandemic.
By being less effective at filtering? It's hard to imagine it being worse than no PPE, but I am only an armchair PPE expert.
Out of date PPE stock was being re-tested, re-assessed and re-issued across Europe (at least) in the first wave.
There were some issue with this is France, IIRC.
Note that PPE doesn't just mean respirators/masks - gowns, gloves etc.
Re the Texas case before the Supreme Court: it requires five of the Justices to even agree to hear the case.
I can't see how they get there. Indeed, the Texas Attorney General has far less standing than the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case that SCOTUS refused to hear.
We could hear as soon as this afternoon that SCOTUS is not taking the case, or it could be tomorrow. But it's hard to see anything other than a one-line rejection.
I wondered about standing. Does it not have constitutional standing?
The Constitution is very clear that States get the right to choose the method by which they choose their electors. If a person in Wisconsin says "fraudulent votes have meant that I have been disadvantaged", then they have standing to challenge the election. But I don't see how the Texans can say "Wisconsin shouldn't be allowed to choose its own electors". Ultimately, they are not the party being damaged and therefore I don't see how they have standing.
I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
Except you won't.
The supermarkets are not going to fill the shelves with coconuts because they can't get onions from Holland, and nobody would buy them if they did
Yes you are right. I had forgotten what an extraordinarily difficult vegetable onions are to cultivate. They will only grow if planted below sea level and fertilised by muck from Lakenvelder cattle.
No one said we can't grow our own. In about three months time.
The current proposals are if the EU decides they want to change regulations, either the UK changes or it gets slapped with tariffs.
No they are not. They are proposing that IF the UK diverges substantially from EU levels of protection, and in a way which distorts competition, then they will have option of going to an independent adjudication panel (the members of which will have been agreed with the UK), and if that panel rules that the divergence is a substantial divergence affecting fair competition, then it will be possible for the EU to impose some selective tariffs. Of course, those hypothetical selective tariffs, in the unlikely even that they ever happened, would be massively less damaging than the Jan 1st across-the-board tariffs which the UK seems to prefer to this mechanism.
Pretty standard stuff for a trade agreement, TBH. The UK is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Cunard have just cancelled our planned transatlantic crossing for early May
Hardly a surprise but depressing nevertheless. Time to start planning 2022 holidays?
I hope it's up and running by the end of next year/start os 2022. Covid permitting we intend to move back to Connecticut and I want to take our two elder dogs (touch wood they're still around) on the QM2. I don't think they can fly.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
I think the point is this ultimately is about "what kind of a country are we." There is an analogy with the Falklands (I know, I know) which didn't really make any economic sense and was hugely risky, and which wise heads warned against. But we simply were not prepared to be nationally humiliated. I think this may be what this comes down to now if, indeed, there is a No deal.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It is not a non regression thing though. If it was an agreement purely that neither would lower standards below that at the point of the deal I think it would have been done. What the EU is wanting though is that if they increase standards or introduce new ones that we have to implement them too....it is that which is unacceptable
No, we don't have to implement them too. If our standards diverge too much over time and either side thinks that is harming their economy then the affected party can apply tariffs. That is in order to protect their sovereign right to set their own laws in the future without that leading to them being undercut. It doesn't seem that outrageous a demand.
And yet these terms aren't applied to trade deals with Japan or Canada by the EU.
Exports from the EU to the UK are 5x those to Japan and 8x those to Canada, might explain it.
The current proposals are if the EU decides they want to change regulations, either the UK changes or it gets slapped with tariffs.
No they are not. They are proposing that IF the UK diverges substantially from EU levels of protection, and in a way which distorts competition, then they will have option of going to an independent adjudication panel (the members of which will have been agreed with the UK), and if that panel rules that the divergence is a substantial divergence affecting fair competition, then it will be possible for the EU to impose some selective tariffs. Of course, those hypothetical selective tariffs, in the unlikely even that they ever happened, would be massively less damaging than the Jan 1st across-the-board tariffs which the UK seems to prefer to this mechanism.
Pretty standard stuff for a trade agreement, TBH. The UK is making a mountain out of a molehill.
It's not just if the UK diverges. If the EU diverges the UK can also be punished for not following suit. Are similar arrangements the same in the EU-Canada or EU-Japan deal?
I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
Except you won't.
The supermarkets are not going to fill the shelves with coconuts because they can't get onions from Holland, and nobody would buy them if they did
Yes you are right. I had forgotten what an extraordinarily difficult vegetable onions are to cultivate. They will only grow if planted below sea level and fertilised by muck from Lakenvelder cattle.
No one said we can't grow our own. In about three months time.
Hopefully we can eke out the 450,000 tonnes we already grow.
Or instead give someone like the Egypt, the world's third largest producer of onions, a fair crack at competing against the Dutch on level terms.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
It depends on the terms of trade, doesn't it? We've negotiated a pretty decent deal with Singapore, for example. That has mutually beneficial terms of trade, if the EU offer mutually beneficial terms I'm sure whoever is in charge will listen to said offer. If it includes a bunch of bullshit about LPFs and ratchet clauses designed to make the UK economy uncompetitive then they won't and we'll just live with WTO terms.
As I've been banging on about all week, once the UK gets back its territorial waters, the ability to diverge standards and regulations and post-action arbitration under WTO rules none of that will be given up again. Any future trading arrangement with the EU will have to abide by all of these principles.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
I think the point is this ultimately is about "what kind of a country are we." There is an analogy with the Falklands (I know, I know) which didn't really make any economic sense and was hugely risky, and which wise heads warned against. But we simply were not prepared to be nationally humiliated. I think this may be what this comes down to now if, indeed, there is a No deal.
No deal represents the failure and humiliation of our institutions, political class and national media.
I think the point is this ultimately is about "what kind of a country are we." There is an analogy with the Falklands (I know, I know) which didn't really make any economic sense and was hugely risky, and which wise heads warned against. But we simply were not prepared to be nationally humiliated. I think this may be what this comes down to now if, indeed, there is a No deal.
No Deal is the greatest National humiliation of our lifetimes.
That we might be a Country prepared to countenance it is why Brexit is currently unpopular, and why BoZo wouldn't last the year if he tried it
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
I think the point is this ultimately is about "what kind of a country are we." There is an analogy with the Falklands (I know, I know) which didn't really make any economic sense and was hugely risky, and which wise heads warned against. But we simply were not prepared to be nationally humiliated. I think this may be what this comes down to now if, indeed, there is a No deal.
The question is whether a deal is more humiliating than no deal will turn out to be. Let's see.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
It depends on the terms of trade, doesn't it? We've negotiated a pretty decent deal with Singapore, for example. That has mutually beneficial terms of trade, if the EU offer mutually beneficial terms I'm sure whoever is in charge will listen to said offer. If it includes a bunch of bullshit about LPFs and ratchet clauses designed to make the UK economy uncompetitive then they won't and we'll just live with WTO terms.
As I've been banging on about all week, once the UK gets back its territorial waters, the ability to diverge standards and regulations and post-action arbitration under WTO rules none of that will be given up again. Any future trading arrangement with the EU will have to abide by all of these principles.
Your first big go at negotiating a trade deal ends in no trade deal.
Not a ringing endorsement of your negotiating ability is it?
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It is not a non regression thing though. If it was an agreement purely that neither would lower standards below that at the point of the deal I think it would have been done. What the EU is wanting though is that if they increase standards or introduce new ones that we have to implement them too....it is that which is unacceptable
No, we don't have to implement them too. If our standards diverge too much over time and either side thinks that is harming their economy then the affected party can apply tariffs. That is in order to protect their sovereign right to set their own laws in the future without that leading to them being undercut. It doesn't seem that outrageous a demand.
And yet these terms aren't applied to trade deals with Japan or Canada by the EU.
Exports from the EU to the UK are 5x those to Japan and 8x those to Canada, might explain it.
Not really. It's their desire to ensure that the UK doesn't become a direct competitor for them in terms of global trade share.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
It depends on the terms of trade, doesn't it? We've negotiated a pretty decent deal with Singapore, for example. That has mutually beneficial terms of trade, if the EU offer mutually beneficial terms I'm sure whoever is in charge will listen to said offer. If it includes a bunch of bullshit about LPFs and ratchet clauses designed to make the UK economy uncompetitive then they won't and we'll just live with WTO terms.
As I've been banging on about all week, once the UK gets back its territorial waters, the ability to diverge standards and regulations and post-action arbitration under WTO rules none of that will be given up again. Any future trading arrangement with the EU will have to abide by all of these principles.
Your first big go at negotiating a trade deal ends in no trade deal.
Not a ringing endorsement of your negotiating ability is it?
Looks like new infections are back on an upward trajectory and hospital admissions are flattening in preparation for an upturn. Fatalities lagging, of course.
Unless the rules are tightened, the numbers are going to look terrible by year end, with the Christmas free for all the cherry on the cake.
R can change nationally even when R in each area is pretty steady. This is a simplification, of course, but it is quite a lot of the picture.
Day 1: Place A: Rate = 400, R = 0.8 Place B: Rate = 200, R = 1 Place C: Rate = 100, R = 1.25 Overall R = 0.91
Day 25: Place A: Rate = 100, R = 0.8 Place B: Rate = 200, R = 1 Place C: Rate = 400, R = 1.25 Overall R is now 1.12 with the identical local R rates.
Say A = Liverpool, B = Newcastle, C = Kent
A COVID lineage has here gained a temporary evolutionary advantage simply by living on the Thames Estuary, and this faster breeding line comes quickly to dominate.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
And yet it seems that they can sign FTAs with other countries without such qualms. We've been quietly rolling these over into our own bilateral agreements without any difficulty or LPF ratchets.
Perhaps the government believed quite reasonably that they would do the same for us, being our "friends".
I wonder if it would be different if we weren't negotiating with the EU commission but with the member countries directly. The two might not necessarily have the same objectives.
We are a big economy on their doorstep, fully integrated into the SM and now seeking to diverge. This is unique. If our government failed to appreciate this, and its ramifications on the position of their negotiating partner, I call this rank incompetence. But it's incompetence of such magnitude that I doubt they are guilty of it. I think they know the score and will be doing a deal.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
Or indeed the sausages for the chipolatas.
This analogy is going from bad to wurst.
I think Brexit is best thought of as the bread bit of a Frankfurter hot dog. In a wurst case scenario.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
Yes that's exactly correct. But it's clear the EU is not offering a trade deal, it seems intent on only offering a supplicant political and regulatory relationship.
By end of 2023, we might be full members of TPP, with Biden's administration working to joining too. It will prove an historic miscalculation if the EU forces the UK out of its economy and political orbit and quite a sad one. But not much we can do about that.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
It depends on the terms of trade, doesn't it? We've negotiated a pretty decent deal with Singapore, for example. That has mutually beneficial terms of trade, if the EU offer mutually beneficial terms I'm sure whoever is in charge will listen to said offer. If it includes a bunch of bullshit about LPFs and ratchet clauses designed to make the UK economy uncompetitive then they won't and we'll just live with WTO terms.
As I've been banging on about all week, once the UK gets back its territorial waters, the ability to diverge standards and regulations and post-action arbitration under WTO rules none of that will be given up again. Any future trading arrangement with the EU will have to abide by all of these principles.
Your first big go at negotiating a trade deal ends in no trade deal.
Not a ringing endorsement of your negotiating ability is it?
Depends who is on the other side.
Fantastic. Too tough to handle we walk away. Singapore? Piece of p*ss. Japan? Worse than the deal via the EU we already had. Large economic bloc such as the EU? Run a mile.
Apparently the UK-Canada deal may not be ready by Jan 1st, so we will end up trading with them on WTO terms... We can't even get a Canada style deal with Canada, it seems.
Re the Texas case before the Supreme Court: it requires five of the Justices to even agree to hear the case.
I can't see how they get there. Indeed, the Texas Attorney General has far less standing than the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case that SCOTUS refused to hear.
We could hear as soon as this afternoon that SCOTUS is not taking the case, or it could be tomorrow. But it's hard to see anything other than a one-line rejection.
I wondered about standing. Does it not have constitutional standing?
The Constitution is very clear that States get the right to choose the method by which they choose their electors. If a person in Wisconsin says "fraudulent votes have meant that I have been disadvantaged", then they have standing to challenge the election. But I don't see how the Texans can say "Wisconsin shouldn't be allowed to choose its own electors". Ultimately, they are not the party being damaged and therefore I don't see how they have standing.
"Texans", I agree.
"Texas", I wondering about. Are there special rules for the states?
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It is not a non regression thing though. If it was an agreement purely that neither would lower standards below that at the point of the deal I think it would have been done. What the EU is wanting though is that if they increase standards or introduce new ones that we have to implement them too....it is that which is unacceptable
No, we don't have to implement them too. If our standards diverge too much over time and either side thinks that is harming their economy then the affected party can apply tariffs. That is in order to protect their sovereign right to set their own laws in the future without that leading to them being undercut. It doesn't seem that outrageous a demand.
And yet these terms aren't applied to trade deals with Japan or Canada by the EU.
Exports from the EU to the UK are 5x those to Japan and 8x those to Canada, might explain it.
No it doesn't explain it. They have 5x to 8x the benefits from agreeing a deal then. 🤷🏻♂️
Doesn't change it from being a net positive to a net negative.
There should be a notification clause for termination of the agreement. If the EU feel that we have sufficiently diverged from them that they wish to end the agreement and start putting in tariffs they ought to be able to invoke the termination clause of the agreement - the Article 50 so to speak. No need for an in-built ratchet.
Cunard have just cancelled our planned transatlantic crossing for early May
Hardly a surprise but depressing nevertheless. Time to start planning 2022 holidays?
I hope it's up and running by the end of next year/start os 2022. Covid permitting we intend to move back to Connecticut and I want to take our two elder dogs (touch wood they're still around) on the QM2. I don't think they can fly.
Things may be more fluid in these days of COVID, but in the past I've seen on the British Expats board I'm on people reporting the QM's pet slots filling up a couple of years in advance!
Are people in Wales just getting unlucky in the shops, or is it half a scotch egg with 10 pints of lager that's infecting them all ?
Ironically, the Scots don't seem to be getting infected by scotch eggs, with or without 10 pints of heavy, to the same degree. Something different yet again. Steady application of established tiering?
I actually agree with you and that is Drakeford's big failure together with not having some restrictions when we came out of lockdown
Drakeford has been a disaster for Wales and not just on covid
Eloquent on the restrictions though.
"Don't just ask whether you can do something. Ask yourselves whether you should do it."
Very important message, that. Johnson & Co should take a leaf.
Apparently the UK-Canada deal may not be ready by Jan 1st, so we will end up trading with them on WTO terms... We can't even get a Canada style deal with Canada, it seems.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
Yes that's exactly correct. But it's clear the EU is not offering a trade deal, it seems intent on only offering a supplicant political and regulatory relationship.
By end of 2023, we might be full members of TPP, with Biden's administration working to joining too. It will prove an historic miscalculation if the EU forces the UK out of its economy and political orbit and quite a sad one. But not much we can do about that.
Apparently the UK-Canada deal may not be ready by Jan 1st, so we will end up trading with them on WTO terms... We can't even get a Canada style deal with Canada, it seems.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
It depends on the terms of trade, doesn't it? We've negotiated a pretty decent deal with Singapore, for example. That has mutually beneficial terms of trade, if the EU offer mutually beneficial terms I'm sure whoever is in charge will listen to said offer. If it includes a bunch of bullshit about LPFs and ratchet clauses designed to make the UK economy uncompetitive then they won't and we'll just live with WTO terms.
As I've been banging on about all week, once the UK gets back its territorial waters, the ability to diverge standards and regulations and post-action arbitration under WTO rules none of that will be given up again. Any future trading arrangement with the EU will have to abide by all of these principles.
Your first big go at negotiating a trade deal ends in no trade deal.
Not a ringing endorsement of your negotiating ability is it?
Depends who is on the other side.
Fantastic. Too tough to handle we walk away. Singapore? Piece of p*ss. Japan? Worse than the deal via the EU we already had. Large economic bloc such as the EU? Run a mile.
The EU have a very strong motivation to play hardball. It's more politics than economics with this deal.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It is not a non regression thing though. If it was an agreement purely that neither would lower standards below that at the point of the deal I think it would have been done. What the EU is wanting though is that if they increase standards or introduce new ones that we have to implement them too....it is that which is unacceptable
No, we don't have to implement them too. If our standards diverge too much over time and either side thinks that is harming their economy then the affected party can apply tariffs. That is in order to protect their sovereign right to set their own laws in the future without that leading to them being undercut. It doesn't seem that outrageous a demand.
And yet these terms aren't applied to trade deals with Japan or Canada by the EU.
Actually, I kind of understand and accept the EU wanting and needing a bit of it (we are a very large competitor right on their doorstep) but that should be confined to a common baseline of standards with "parameters" for joint and equitable review if and when we or they decide to diverge. That's what friendly partners do.
There's no excuse for them to be quite so cunty about it, which they are.
Apparently the UK-Canada deal may not be ready by Jan 1st, so we will end up trading with them on WTO terms... We can't even get a Canada style deal with Canada, it seems.
It has been agreed and signed.
Not ratified by Canada yet.
Hence the delay in implementation. But to say we can't get a deal with Canada is not true.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
It depends on the terms of trade, doesn't it? We've negotiated a pretty decent deal with Singapore, for example. That has mutually beneficial terms of trade, if the EU offer mutually beneficial terms I'm sure whoever is in charge will listen to said offer. If it includes a bunch of bullshit about LPFs and ratchet clauses designed to make the UK economy uncompetitive then they won't and we'll just live with WTO terms.
As I've been banging on about all week, once the UK gets back its territorial waters, the ability to diverge standards and regulations and post-action arbitration under WTO rules none of that will be given up again. Any future trading arrangement with the EU will have to abide by all of these principles.
Your first big go at negotiating a trade deal ends in no trade deal.
Not a ringing endorsement of your negotiating ability is it?
Depends who is on the other side.
Fantastic. Too tough to handle we walk away. Singapore? Piece of p*ss. Japan? Worse than the deal via the EU we already had. Large economic bloc such as the EU? Run a mile.
Being confident enough to walk away is a sign of strength not weakness.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
Or indeed the sausages for the chipolatas.
This analogy is going from bad to wurst.
I think Brexit is best thought of as the bread bit of a Frankfurter hot dog. In a wurst case scenario.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It is not a non regression thing though. If it was an agreement purely that neither would lower standards below that at the point of the deal I think it would have been done. What the EU is wanting though is that if they increase standards or introduce new ones that we have to implement them too....it is that which is unacceptable
No, we don't have to implement them too. If our standards diverge too much over time and either side thinks that is harming their economy then the affected party can apply tariffs. That is in order to protect their sovereign right to set their own laws in the future without that leading to them being undercut. It doesn't seem that outrageous a demand.
And yet these terms aren't applied to trade deals with Japan or Canada by the EU.
Exports from the EU to the UK are 5x those to Japan and 8x those to Canada, might explain it.
No it doesn't explain it. They have 5x to 8x the benefits from agreeing a deal then. 🤷🏻♂️
Doesn't change it from being a net positive to a net negative.
There should be a notification clause for termination of the agreement. If the EU feel that we have sufficiently diverged from them that they wish to end the agreement and start putting in tariffs they ought to be able to invoke the termination clause of the agreement - the Article 50 so to speak. No need for an in-built ratchet.
So you are not OK with them being able to apply selective tariffs but you are OK with them applying tariffs on everything? It's a view, as they say...
We have our winter varieties of onions and garlic growing in our organic Ayrshire allotment. Although we are not below sea level, we are close enough to be able to use seaweed as fertiliser.
Re the Texas case before the Supreme Court: it requires five of the Justices to even agree to hear the case.
I can't see how they get there. Indeed, the Texas Attorney General has far less standing than the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case that SCOTUS refused to hear.
We could hear as soon as this afternoon that SCOTUS is not taking the case, or it could be tomorrow. But it's hard to see anything other than a one-line rejection.
I wondered about standing. Does it not have constitutional standing?
The Constitution is very clear that States get the right to choose the method by which they choose their electors. If a person in Wisconsin says "fraudulent votes have meant that I have been disadvantaged", then they have standing to challenge the election. But I don't see how the Texans can say "Wisconsin shouldn't be allowed to choose its own electors". Ultimately, they are not the party being damaged and therefore I don't see how they have standing.
"Texans", I agree.
"Texas", I wondering about. Are there special rules for the states?
"Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis to bring the suit.
“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said."
Oh Hancock, please. Changing your statistical definition of a contact doesn't automatically make your contact tracing better. At least try to defend that change.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Agreed. I think if it's No Deal, that's it. We'll acclimatise politically and economically and won't have any interest in coming back to this. Their leverage will diminish, not increase. And I think that even applies to Starmer if he wins in GE2024 - our interests and advantages as a nation will have shifted decisively by then.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
No interest in coming back to a trade deal with Europe?
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
Yes that's exactly correct. But it's clear the EU is not offering a trade deal, it seems intent on only offering a supplicant political and regulatory relationship.
By end of 2023, we might be full members of TPP, with Biden's administration working to joining too. It will prove an historic miscalculation if the EU forces the UK out of its economy and political orbit and quite a sad one. But not much we can do about that.
I mean it's called a negotiation.
A negotiation only succeeds if all parties feel they want to sign it.
Right now that's not the case. We have fundamentally different objectives. OK fair enough, the mature thing to do then is to shake hands and walk away. Maybe in a couple of years they'll want to resume talks more to our liking.
Comments
No, it will be stay aligned for now and agree that we can diverge in the future - but if we do there may be a price to pay on market access if that divergence means us falling behind them on stuff like worker and environment and consumer protections.
With same applying the other way.
You'd go for that, I'm sure, reasonable person that you are. So imo will Johnson after a bit more tumbling around the ring.
As I recall, that was actually a pretty good description of what we got to eat back then.
(Though, tbf, I am from Yorkshire, and in my case that was school food.)
If it is confirmed than a deal should happen quickly and I would be delighted
I assume you disagree with the non-reversion from current levels that the UK government has apparently agreed to?
Some Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplied to hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic had expired, a committee of MPs has heard.
Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, medical representatives from the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association described how some stock had been rebranded with new use-by date stickers that gave a different expiry date to the one they saw underneath.
Dr Emily McWhirter, a retired nurse from the RCN, told the committee that expiry dates on stock she received at her hospital had lapsed and new dates were stuck over them to replace them.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-expired-ppe-stock-covered-over-with-new-dates-while-one-box-was-full-of-insects-mps-told-12156956
I've had these questions since March, I'm still not clear.
It's actually fragile and very nervous, which is a sign of a lack of confidence and underlying weaknesss.
Hardly a surprise but depressing nevertheless. Time to start planning 2022 holidays?
Unless the rules are tightened, the numbers are going to look terrible by year end, with the Christmas free for all the cherry on the cake.
Which EU country is now going to even think of leaving . So job done for the EU . And as for the EU falling apart , quite the reverse has happened . Which Union looks in more danger now than it did 4 years ago .
In about three months time.
This really is last chance saloon for the EU if they want us to be in anything like a symbiotic relationship with them.
The description provided along with the account does not suggest that was the case.
From case data
From hospitalisation data
If what you want and expect is both (i) great access to the SM and (ii) the total freedom to enact any measure domestically without any impact on that access, this was NEVER going to happen, not in a million years. I'm quite surprised you'd think otherwise. If you have been thinking otherwise I guess it does explain a few things.
"We did receive some supplies that came from some early stock and the expiry dates were covered over with new dates, even though they had already expired. They put the new date on and said it was still safe."
Isn't that how a new expiry date would be affixed to the product, over the old one?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
...This trial and its preliminary report have several limitations. With approximately 19,000 participants per group in the subset of participants with a median follow-up time of 2 months after the second dose, the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably. This report includes 2 months of follow-up after the second dose of vaccine for half the trial participants and up to 14 weeks’ maximum follow-up for a smaller subset. Therefore, both the occurrence of adverse events more than 2 to 3.5 months after the second dose and more comprehensive information on the duration of protection remain to be determined. Although the study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose, given the high vaccine efficacy, ethical and practical barriers prevent following placebo recipients for 2 years without offering active immunization, once the vaccine is approved by regulators and recommended by public health authorities. Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose. These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be reported later. Furthermore, given the high vaccine efficacy and the low number of vaccine breakthrough cases, potential establishment of a correlate of protection has not been feasible at the time of this report...
Aren't we Brexiting to be able to negotiate trade deals?
There were some issue with this is France, IIRC.
Note that PPE doesn't just mean respirators/masks - gowns, gloves etc.
Pretty standard stuff for a trade agreement, TBH. The UK is making a mountain out of a molehill.
As I've been banging on about all week, once the UK gets back its territorial waters, the ability to diverge standards and regulations and post-action arbitration under WTO rules none of that will be given up again. Any future trading arrangement with the EU will have to abide by all of these principles.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1337079954023075841
That we might be a Country prepared to countenance it is why Brexit is currently unpopular, and why BoZo wouldn't last the year if he tried it
Not a ringing endorsement of your negotiating ability is it?
Day 1:
Place A: Rate = 400, R = 0.8
Place B: Rate = 200, R = 1
Place C: Rate = 100, R = 1.25
Overall R = 0.91
Day 25:
Place A: Rate = 100, R = 0.8
Place B: Rate = 200, R = 1
Place C: Rate = 400, R = 1.25
Overall R is now 1.12 with the identical local R rates.
Say A = Liverpool, B = Newcastle, C = Kent
A COVID lineage has here gained a temporary evolutionary advantage simply by living on the Thames Estuary, and this faster breeding line comes quickly to dominate.
BoZo's is a genius...
By end of 2023, we might be full members of TPP, with Biden's administration working to joining too. It will prove an historic miscalculation if the EU forces the UK out of its economy and political orbit and quite a sad one. But not much we can do about that.
"Texas", I wondering about. Are there special rules for the states?
Doesn't change it from being a net positive to a net negative.
There should be a notification clause for termination of the agreement. If the EU feel that we have sufficiently diverged from them that they wish to end the agreement and start putting in tariffs they ought to be able to invoke the termination clause of the agreement - the Article 50 so to speak. No need for an in-built ratchet.
"Don't just ask whether you can do something. Ask yourselves whether you should do it."
Very important message, that. Johnson & Co should take a leaf.
There's no excuse for them to be quite so cunty about it, which they are.
“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said."
Right now that's not the case. We have fundamentally different objectives. OK fair enough, the mature thing to do then is to shake hands and walk away. Maybe in a couple of years they'll want to resume talks more to our liking.