If we don't get a deal, and not having a deal is bad, then the responsibility for that is all Johnson's and the other Brexit cheerleaders.
They said a deal would be easy. They said life would be great without a deal.
Attempts to blame the EU are as risible as they are predictable.
What if life is great without a deal? What then?
You guys never seem to acknowledge that is a possibility.
You never seem to acknowledge the possibility that all your ramping for the past 4 years about how no deal is going to be brilliant might be complete bollocks.
🤷♂️
I've always acknowledged that no deal might not be a complete disaster.
The problem is time. We haven´t got any. So even if in, say, 3 years time significant advantages emerge, the utter disaster hitting the fan on Jan 1 is going to be the first experience of the post no-deal world.
The closer we get the worse no-deal is looking. It could be Suez, the fall of Singapore and the General Strike rolled into one. No government should survive that.
Given Phil's extraordinary expertise in all aspects of trade policy and negotiation, I am surprised he has time to post on here when he must be working flat out at the top end of the market for huge consultancy fees - especially now.
Have you ever seen him in the same room as David Frost? Just saying...
Hmm, Mr Raab saying on the telly that he doesn't recognise the figure of 5% food price increase as forecastg by the Tescos boss [edit] if there is a no deal.
"Of all the things that will be a challenge, I am not concerned about either supermarket cupboards running bare or the cost of food prices."
We've been warned: Tescos will now increase prices by 5%, regardless of whether it is warranted.....
Don't be silly. Everyone will be raising prices and by more than 5%! Firstly Tesco's chair was quoting an average - many products and sectors will have logistics / tariffs oncosts far larger than 5%. But for everything, even stuff that is 100% UK and not directly impacted by Brexit? Will still be impacted as the cost of "stuff" will go up due to the disruption. And very few things are 100% British and not affected - something will have a stake in Brexit even if it is just packaging or pallets.
Most of these supermarkets are in a pretty perilous financial state. They went into 2020 with a few years of flatlined demand and the only growth coming from inflation. Yet they have had to wage war against Aldi and Lidl as well as each other so there have been various rounds of competitive price cuts. So many products in so many sectors which dilute their overall profit margin below where it needs to be to deliver a net profit.
And then we have 2020. A massive year of costs - of emergency supply contingencies, of hiring additional staff to move stock and marshall shoppers, and a huge growth in online deliveries which loses them money with every delivery. So of course they will use Brexit to both recoup all of the oncosts of Brexit but also the costs incurred by Covid. Its safe to increase consumer prices when everyone is following suit. As they all will be. Every commercial contact that I have in every manufacturer in every sector has a price rise planned for early 2021 knowing that its effectively a free hit.
Yebbut fish fingers. Er, no, no cod! Graun feed has this ...
"In the Commons Duncan Baker, the Conservative MP for North Norfolk, says what is at stake in the talks is not the size of the fishing industry now; it is what it could be in the future. Under Brexit, the fishing sector has the chance to expand, he insists."
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
I don’t like the idea of no deal brexit. It frightens me. 😱
This isn’t outcome promised in 2016 or 2019.
If we wanted a no deal Brexit in 2016 by now we could have left and implemented far far better than it would be done with 3 weeks notice.
If we wanted a Brexit deal in 2016 by now we could have left and had a far far better deal than the one that is left available.
Whatever happens it is a remarkable and shameful negotiating performance by the UK and its leaders.
Brexit means Brexit, remember.
That line was indeed part of the absurb negotiating performance. May had a clear opportunity to define Brexit and chose to avoid a decision. Putting off making a decision for short term perceived Tory party gains has probably been our biggest mistake.
Wowsers. You actually believe there is no difference between a worked out mine shutting and being replaced and mines with huge coal stocks that make money being shut and replaced by Brazilian imports.
You Waffen-Tories really do like a scorched earth don't you?
For once @HYUFD is spot-on. The myth that Thatcher killed off the mining industry is exactly that, pure myth. If you can find a graph of output, or number of men employed, for the period 1950-2000, you will find a smooth decline where the Thatcher years are no different from the periods before or after. In fact, if anything, there was a slight slowdown in the decline. (There was a BBC website article on this a few years ago - the author was gobsmacked to find his prejudices not confirmed by reality!)
For that matter, find a similar graph for the mines of northern France. Presumably even the most rabidly anti-Thatcher prejudiced people won't try to blame her for the similar decline there.
Thatcher killed off the communities in the coal mining areas, which is much worse than shutting the mines. Many of those communitie are still suffering the consequences 35 years later. It was clear that many of the coal mines would have to be closed down, but they did not all have to be closed in such a short period. But the real scandal was not to manage the change of focus in those single industry communities, but rather just throw people on the unemployment heap, with no chance of retraining or even moving to areas which by the mid 80's were moving out of a multi year recession.
You're right that other countries have closed down much of their mining industry, but most other countires have managed the process hands on and gradually over 20 years or more.
So time to get on with negotiations but planes flying all civilised countries have between each other, the idea they'd stop planes from flying is madness. It would be a virtually an act of war and I'm glad you said they won't do it.
How many planes? This stuff is all about quotas and reciprocal landing rights.
In other words, it needs to be negotiated. And the EU (largely because of the tiresome experience they've had with Switzerland) doesn't want to negotiate a whole load of separate deals, they want an over-arching agreement which is stable and doesn't keep wasting their time with further haggling each year. Whether that is reasonable or not is irrelevant: since they are sovereign nations they can set whatever parameters they like for privileged access to their markets.
It really is incredibly simple: if Boris doesn't want to accept the deal on offer, then he doesn't have to accept it. Of course he will then be responsible for the effect on the UK.
Fine. So don't accept it and move on.
Whether the EU wants to negotiate a whole load of separate deals or not is immaterial. Unless they want to go to an economic war with us they will need to do so.
If Scotland joined their side, presumably you think that would be a sign 'we' were winning?
It sounds like even No Deal won’t make John Redwood happy:
Fisheries: A proposal for a Regulation to create the appropriate legal framework until 31 December 2021, or until a fisheries agreement with the UK has been concluded – whichever date is earlier – for continued reciprocal access by EU and UK vessels to each other's waters after 31 December 2020. In order to guarantee the sustainability of fisheries and in light of the importance of fisheries for the economic livelihood of many communities, it is necessary to facilitate the procedures of authorisation of fishing vessels.
How would UK agree to that fisheries plan? No chance..
The EU need to understand that Brexit means Brexit.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
What other nations get isn't relevant. That's the argument of a child. England was never going to get the same deal as other countries due to its size, proximity and already high degree of economic integration.
You're right we ought to be able to get a better one, not a worse one. But that's fine we can take the same.
Otherwise if you're saying its important not to be undercut by your neighbours why do you want a trade deal with a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? Presumably we should by that logic want protectionism against the EU until they meet our standards while seeking out preferential trade deals with further abroad instead.
That you can't see the hypocrisy is damning.
Where do you get the idea from that the minimum wage is an EU competence? A quick Google shows that each Member State sets its own minimum wage, ranging from €1.95 per hour in Bulgaria to €12.36 per hour in Luxembourg.
So as I said the minimum in the EU is €1.95
And they're supposed to be worried about us undercutting them? Are you seriously trying to take the piss? That is ridiculous.
You said "a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour". Does the bloc have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? No, it doesn't. One of its Member States does - Bulgaria.
Anyway, the whole idea that the Bulgaria's minimum wage is of any importance at all is itself absurd. God only knows why you're making such a big deal of it.
Yes as a bloc their minimum wage is €1.95 - minimum by definition means the minimum anywhere in the bloc not all of it.
The reason it is of importance is because quite self-evidently it is acceptable in a market for different countries to have different labour laws or standards. Which is why the UK should not sign the mad LPF provisions the EU want us to sign - they don't even have the same LPF as we do today.
You are being quite ridiculous. The LPF doesn't imply that every single law needs to be identical between the participants, just that a certain subset of them are. The minimum wage is not part of this subset. It is not part of the LPF, and I've no idea why you seem to think it should be.
Why shouldn't it?
Why should any be but not that one? Other than that is what the EU wants, can you give a logical explanation why tax rates should be more a part of an LPF than a minimum wage?
The LPF is, by definition, what the EU says it is. It consists of the provisions that have been agreed by and on behalf of its Member States. Wishing it were otherwise is pointless. It is what it is, and we can sign up to it or not, as we choose. What we can't do is have any more say in determining what constitutes the LPF. That's because we are no longer a Member State.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
Whinging about 'respect' doesn't save jobs or avoid chaos at the borders. I don't blame them because they have no responsibility for the UK. The EU is a collection sovereign nations who decide their own priorities; it's very odd of Brexiteers to object to sovereign nations exercising their sovereignty. They don't owe us any special favours.
Don't want a special favour, just to be treated the same as other countries. Until then we can put up tariffs against their bloc - they have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour and a massive trade surplus with us so perhaps we need protectionism more than they do? Ever thought of that?
We can seek trade deals with the rest of the world in the mean time and when the EU are ready to be rational we can wait them out. Like the miners in the 80s.
The way you write it, 'we' is the subject in the second main clause in your first sentence. And therefore 'like the miners' applies to that pronoun. Not perhaps what you meant?
I meant miners can be waited out like "them" from the prior sentence. We can wait them out, like we waited the miners out.
Interesting that the miners don't count as "we" there. Our family collected food for the miners' families during the strike so if you want to set up a "we" that excludes the mining communities then you can leave me out of it too.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
Whinging about 'respect' doesn't save jobs or avoid chaos at the borders. I don't blame them because they have no responsibility for the UK. The EU is a collection sovereign nations who decide their own priorities; it's very odd of Brexiteers to object to sovereign nations exercising their sovereignty. They don't owe us any special favours.
Don't want a special favour, just to be treated the same as other countries. Until then we can put up tariffs against their bloc - they have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour and a massive trade surplus with us so perhaps we need protectionism more than they do? Ever thought of that?
We can seek trade deals with the rest of the world in the mean time and when the EU are ready to be rational we can wait them out. Like the miners in the 80s.
The way you write it, 'we' is the subject in the second main clause in your first sentence. And therefore 'like the miners' applies to that pronoun. Not perhaps what you meant?
I meant miners can be waited out like "them" from the prior sentence. We can wait them out, like we waited the miners out.
Interesting that the miners don't count as "we" there. Our family collected food for the miners' families during the strike so if you want to set up a "we" that excludes the mining communities then you can leave me out of it too.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
What other nations get isn't relevant. That's the argument of a child. England was never going to get the same deal as other countries due to its size, proximity and already high degree of economic integration.
You're right we ought to be able to get a better one, not a worse one. But that's fine we can take the same.
Otherwise if you're saying its important not to be undercut by your neighbours why do you want a trade deal with a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? Presumably we should by that logic want protectionism against the EU until they meet our standards while seeking out preferential trade deals with further abroad instead.
That you can't see the hypocrisy is damning.
Where do you get the idea from that the minimum wage is an EU competence? A quick Google shows that each Member State sets its own minimum wage, ranging from €1.95 per hour in Bulgaria to €12.36 per hour in Luxembourg.
So as I said the minimum in the EU is €1.95
And they're supposed to be worried about us undercutting them? Are you seriously trying to take the piss? That is ridiculous.
You said "a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour". Does the bloc have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? No, it doesn't. One of its Member States does - Bulgaria.
Anyway, the whole idea that the Bulgaria's minimum wage is of any importance at all is itself absurd. God only knows why you're making such a big deal of it.
Yes as a bloc their minimum wage is €1.95 - minimum by definition means the minimum anywhere in the bloc not all of it.
The reason it is of importance is because quite self-evidently it is acceptable in a market for different countries to have different labour laws or standards. Which is why the UK should not sign the mad LPF provisions the EU want us to sign - they don't even have the same LPF as we do today.
You are being quite ridiculous. The LPF doesn't imply that every single law needs to be identical between the participants, just that a certain subset of them are. The minimum wage is not part of this subset. It is not part of the LPF, and I've no idea why you seem to think it should be.
Why shouldn't it?
Why should any be but not that one? Other than that is what the EU wants, can you give a logical explanation why tax rates should be more a part of an LPF than a minimum wage?
The LPF is, by definition, what the EU says it is. It consists of the provisions that have been agreed by and on behalf of its Member States. Wishing it were otherwise is pointless. It is what it is, and we can sign up to it or not, as we choose. What we can't do is have any more say in determining what constitutes the LPF. That's because we are no longer a Member State.
If only there was a way where we could be in the single market but have also a say in deciding those rules, perhaps by sending elected officials to represent us, might that be a solution?
For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying, “This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.” Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
Denying the right to fish in waters without an agreement is what every sovereign country does.
Denying the righe to fly vaccines would be pretty unprecedented and tantamount to an act of war.
Is that seriously the path you or the EU want to go down?
I think this is something that Richard would consider an absolute moral outrage if the UK did it but entirely reasonable and understandable if the EU did.
Going back to the moon landing thing I agree that the USA spent vast sums of it national wealth on the pursuit of the moon, but I am sure a huge amount of that was spent on the testing and development of the technology. By 1969 they had the technology and it worked. Even when a manufacturing error caused an explosion on Apollo 13 the spacecraft was robust enough to get back to earth. So if they have the technoolgy why not just reproduce it. Surely using modern manufacturing methods it would be much cheaper to reproduce, and the command module could actually have a decent computer system in it rather that something more basic than a calculator. I just find it so odd that they had the technology to do it, but they no longer do. Just build the Saturn V rocket again, use the same design for the LEM with a decent computer system and away you go. I know thats simplistic but it seems logical.
The expertise required is 50 years old - a lot will have been forgotten and a lot of things will need to be replaced as the originals don't exist any more. Worse as you remove weight from one place, you need to either replace it or remove it from somewhere else as well.
It's easier to just start again.
And, in addition, the mission architecture that it was built around is a dead end. It's expensive and wasteful - but the quickest way to achieve it. If expense and waste are not drivers, but speed is, then you should follow that route. For a sustainable, cheaper, and more usable architecture, you have to go in a different direction, where reproducing exactly what was done before will be of little help.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
What other nations get isn't relevant. That's the argument of a child. England was never going to get the same deal as other countries due to its size, proximity and already high degree of economic integration.
You're right we ought to be able to get a better one, not a worse one. But that's fine we can take the same.
Otherwise if you're saying its important not to be undercut by your neighbours why do you want a trade deal with a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? Presumably we should by that logic want protectionism against the EU until they meet our standards while seeking out preferential trade deals with further abroad instead.
That you can't see the hypocrisy is damning.
Where do you get the idea from that the minimum wage is an EU competence? A quick Google shows that each Member State sets its own minimum wage, ranging from €1.95 per hour in Bulgaria to €12.36 per hour in Luxembourg.
So as I said the minimum in the EU is €1.95
And they're supposed to be worried about us undercutting them? Are you seriously trying to take the piss? That is ridiculous.
You said "a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour". Does the bloc have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? No, it doesn't. One of its Member States does - Bulgaria.
Anyway, the whole idea that the Bulgaria's minimum wage is of any importance at all is itself absurd. God only knows why you're making such a big deal of it.
Yes as a bloc their minimum wage is €1.95 - minimum by definition means the minimum anywhere in the bloc not all of it.
The reason it is of importance is because quite self-evidently it is acceptable in a market for different countries to have different labour laws or standards. Which is why the UK should not sign the mad LPF provisions the EU want us to sign - they don't even have the same LPF as we do today.
You are being quite ridiculous. The LPF doesn't imply that every single law needs to be identical between the participants, just that a certain subset of them are. The minimum wage is not part of this subset. It is not part of the LPF, and I've no idea why you seem to think it should be.
Why shouldn't it?
Why should any be but not that one? Other than that is what the EU wants, can you give a logical explanation why tax rates should be more a part of an LPF than a minimum wage?
The LPF is, by definition, what the EU says it is. It consists of the provisions that have been agreed by and on behalf of its Member States. Wishing it were otherwise is pointless. It is what it is, and we can sign up to it or not, as we choose. What we can't do is have any more say in determining what constitutes the LPF. That's because we are no longer a Member State.
No the LPF is not "by definition" what the EU says it is since the EU is not our superior. The LPF is whatever the two sides agree to together.
If the EU want to put unreasonable demands in for its LPF then why shouldn't the UK do the same? Why should we accept their LPF demands where they can ratchet beyond us but not demand our own where we do the same?
I couldn't care less what the EU's LPF is since we will no longer be a Member State it won't apply to us anymore. What we're discussing is not the EU's LPF, it is any agreed EU/UK one - that is not the same thing. EG see the CETA Canada/EU LPF for instance. Or the Japan/UK one as another.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
Whinging about 'respect' doesn't save jobs or avoid chaos at the borders. I don't blame them because they have no responsibility for the UK. The EU is a collection sovereign nations who decide their own priorities; it's very odd of Brexiteers to object to sovereign nations exercising their sovereignty. They don't owe us any special favours.
Don't want a special favour, just to be treated the same as other countries. Until then we can put up tariffs against their bloc - they have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour and a massive trade surplus with us so perhaps we need protectionism more than they do? Ever thought of that?
We can seek trade deals with the rest of the world in the mean time and when the EU are ready to be rational we can wait them out. Like the miners in the 80s.
The way you write it, 'we' is the subject in the second main clause in your first sentence. And therefore 'like the miners' applies to that pronoun. Not perhaps what you meant?
I meant miners can be waited out like "them" from the prior sentence. We can wait them out, like we waited the miners out.
Interesting that the miners don't count as "we" there. Our family collected food for the miners' families during the strike so if you want to set up a "we" that excludes the mining communities then you can leave me out of it too.
Hear hear. I was born in a mining town too.
Not me, or my father for long, but for three or four generations before that......
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
What other nations get isn't relevant. That's the argument of a child. England was never going to get the same deal as other countries due to its size, proximity and already high degree of economic integration.
You're right we ought to be able to get a better one, not a worse one. But that's fine we can take the same.
Otherwise if you're saying its important not to be undercut by your neighbours why do you want a trade deal with a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? Presumably we should by that logic want protectionism against the EU until they meet our standards while seeking out preferential trade deals with further abroad instead.
That you can't see the hypocrisy is damning.
Where do you get the idea from that the minimum wage is an EU competence? A quick Google shows that each Member State sets its own minimum wage, ranging from €1.95 per hour in Bulgaria to €12.36 per hour in Luxembourg.
So as I said the minimum in the EU is €1.95
And they're supposed to be worried about us undercutting them? Are you seriously trying to take the piss? That is ridiculous.
You said "a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour". Does the bloc have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? No, it doesn't. One of its Member States does - Bulgaria.
Anyway, the whole idea that the Bulgaria's minimum wage is of any importance at all is itself absurd. God only knows why you're making such a big deal of it.
Yes as a bloc their minimum wage is €1.95 - minimum by definition means the minimum anywhere in the bloc not all of it.
The reason it is of importance is because quite self-evidently it is acceptable in a market for different countries to have different labour laws or standards. Which is why the UK should not sign the mad LPF provisions the EU want us to sign - they don't even have the same LPF as we do today.
You are being quite ridiculous. The LPF doesn't imply that every single law needs to be identical between the participants, just that a certain subset of them are. The minimum wage is not part of this subset. It is not part of the LPF, and I've no idea why you seem to think it should be.
Why shouldn't it?
Why should any be but not that one? Other than that is what the EU wants, can you give a logical explanation why tax rates should be more a part of an LPF than a minimum wage?
The LPF is, by definition, what the EU says it is. It consists of the provisions that have been agreed by and on behalf of its Member States. Wishing it were otherwise is pointless. It is what it is, and we can sign up to it or not, as we choose. What we can't do is have any more say in determining what constitutes the LPF. That's because we are no longer a Member State.
No the LPF is not "by definition" what the EU says it is since the EU is not our superior. The LPF is whatever the two sides agree to together.
If the EU want to put unreasonable demands in for its LPF then why shouldn't the UK do the same? Why should we accept their LPF demands where they can ratchet beyond us but not demand our own where we do the same?
I couldn't care less what the EU's LPF is since we will no longer be a Member State it won't apply to us anymore. What we're discussing is not the EU's LPF, it is any agreed EU/UK one - that is not the same thing. EG see the CETA Canada/EU LPF for instance. Or the Japan/UK one as another.
I've had enough of this stupid argument. OK, I get it, you feel we can't sign up to LPF provisions with the EU because Bulgaria's minimum wage is €1.95. Fine.
Fishing has a political importance beyond it’s economic importance, partly because it is a totemic issue for Scottish Tories. Selling out fishing means selling out the Scottish Tories, and potentially the major supporters of the union. Despite HYUFD’s ridiculous assertions, it is likely to result in an early independence referendum. P.S. Does anyone know how many HYUFDs can dance on the head of a pin?
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
Funny how you blame Boris but not von der Leyen or Macron etc
Boris's requests are entirely reasonable, he's requested no more respect than other nations get. If the EU wish to be unreasonable then it isn't unreasonable for Boris to stand up to them.
What other nations get isn't relevant. That's the argument of a child. England was never going to get the same deal as other countries due to its size, proximity and already high degree of economic integration.
You're right we ought to be able to get a better one, not a worse one. But that's fine we can take the same.
Otherwise if you're saying its important not to be undercut by your neighbours why do you want a trade deal with a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? Presumably we should by that logic want protectionism against the EU until they meet our standards while seeking out preferential trade deals with further abroad instead.
That you can't see the hypocrisy is damning.
Where do you get the idea from that the minimum wage is an EU competence? A quick Google shows that each Member State sets its own minimum wage, ranging from €1.95 per hour in Bulgaria to €12.36 per hour in Luxembourg.
So as I said the minimum in the EU is €1.95
And they're supposed to be worried about us undercutting them? Are you seriously trying to take the piss? That is ridiculous.
You said "a bloc with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour". Does the bloc have a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour? No, it doesn't. One of its Member States does - Bulgaria.
Anyway, the whole idea that the Bulgaria's minimum wage is of any importance at all is itself absurd. God only knows why you're making such a big deal of it.
Yes as a bloc their minimum wage is €1.95 - minimum by definition means the minimum anywhere in the bloc not all of it.
The reason it is of importance is because quite self-evidently it is acceptable in a market for different countries to have different labour laws or standards. Which is why the UK should not sign the mad LPF provisions the EU want us to sign - they don't even have the same LPF as we do today.
You are being quite ridiculous. The LPF doesn't imply that every single law needs to be identical between the participants, just that a certain subset of them are. The minimum wage is not part of this subset. It is not part of the LPF, and I've no idea why you seem to think it should be.
Why shouldn't it?
Why should any be but not that one? Other than that is what the EU wants, can you give a logical explanation why tax rates should be more a part of an LPF than a minimum wage?
The LPF is, by definition, what the EU says it is. It consists of the provisions that have been agreed by and on behalf of its Member States. Wishing it were otherwise is pointless. It is what it is, and we can sign up to it or not, as we choose. What we can't do is have any more say in determining what constitutes the LPF. That's because we are no longer a Member State.
No the LPF is not "by definition" what the EU says it is since the EU is not our superior. The LPF is whatever the two sides agree to together.
If the EU want to put unreasonable demands in for its LPF then why shouldn't the UK do the same? Why should we accept their LPF demands where they can ratchet beyond us but not demand our own where we do the same?
I couldn't care less what the EU's LPF is since we will no longer be a Member State it won't apply to us anymore. What we're discussing is not the EU's LPF, it is any agreed EU/UK one - that is not the same thing. EG see the CETA Canada/EU LPF for instance. Or the Japan/UK one as another.
I've had enough of this stupid argument. OK, I get it, you feel we can't sign up to LPF provisions with the EU because Bulgaria's minimum wage is €1.95. Fine.
Funny you call it a "stupid argument" when I've just comprehensively demolished your argument.
You seem to think the "LPF" is what the EU says it is, but EU rules don't apply to us. We will not be following the EU's LPF.
The LPF that is being talked about is any potential EU/UK one, not any EU one. As such it is up for negotiation, that is exactly what is happening. Why we should negotiate to let them have a say in eg our tax rates but we don't have a say in eg their minimum wage you don't seem to have any valid argument for other than it is not what the EU wants.
Well what the EU wants isn't what the UK wants and it takes two to tango. So by your own logic QED we shouldn't accept the LPF since it is unwanted.
Back to the discussion on panic buying in the event of a brexit deal not being agreed by Sunday, it will coincide with the usual pre Christmas panic buying whereby people buy two weeks bread because the shops will be closed for one day. I wouldn’t want to be a supermarket manager!
It is looking very grim for a deal now. If we truly get to a no deal because there is no way - and never has been a way - of finding a compromise acceptable to both sides, it's an extraordinary failure of diplomacy that this has not been realised until the final hour. Both sides have expected the other to move and thought the other was bluffing. There has never been any evidence that the EU were bluffing. It seems that neither were bluffing.
If “no deal" was the inevitable outcome of each sides red lines then realising this at a much earlier stage and properly preparing for it was the solemn duty of this government. We are witnessing the final act of a tragedy. A catastrophe of political judgment, and failed diplomacy that history will rightly condemn.
The government could never admit that the other side (the EU) might be serious about their red lines. Their rhetoric was always that the EU were bluffing, and that they would back down when they realised that the UK was serious. It turns out that the EU was serious too. As a result, the government has done very little to prepare for no deal, as will be revealed in January 2021. The government was unable to separate reality from its own wishful thinking. This was because facing reality would have meant admitting to its own supporters that it made promises in the referendum and since then that are undeliverable.
If, as now seems likely we end up with a No Deal Brexit, it will be the biggest con perpetrated on the British Public in my lifetime. Hats off to the right wing Tories that have manoeuvred us into that position having repeatedly told us it wouldn't happen and that any suggestion that we would was Project Fear. We are going to end up with a Brexit that would never have won a referendum had we known it at the time. Sooner of later the Conservative Party is going to reap what it has sown.
The BBC has just announced that the EU has published interim proposals, in the event of No Deal. While the Commission will continue to do its utmost to reach a mutually beneficial agreement with the UK, there is now significant uncertainty whether a deal will be in place on 1 January 2021.
Among them are covering arrangements for air, road etc and fisheries. The fisheries one reads: 'A proposal for a Regulation to create the appropriate legal framework until 31 December 2021, or until a fisheries agreement with the UK has been concluded – whichever date is earlier – for continued reciprocal access by EU and UK vessels to each other's waters after 31 December 2020. In order to guarantee the sustainability of fisheries and in light of the importance of fisheries for the economic livelihood of many communities, it is necessary to facilitate the procedures of authorisation of fishing vessels.'
Some how I don't think that's what the fishing communities have in mind!
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
That does not work if you are having a continuous programme of Apollo-Saturn launches. No way could you restart instantly with a major technological change such as STS (the Shuttle) without having to stop and rebuild 39A and 39B but more importantly the VAB where the things were assembled, and the launch tower as well.
The analogy works only if you close that part of Cape Canaveral down for some years, or build a complete new assembly facility and launch pad elsewhere at Canaveral while the old one was running (or use the Soviet kit, which is what happened after STS was shut down).
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
The BBC has just announced that the EU has published interim proposals, in the event of No Deal. While the Commission will continue to do its utmost to reach a mutually beneficial agreement with the UK, there is now significant uncertainty whether a deal will be in place on 1 January 2021.
Among them are covering arrangements for air, road etc and fisheries. The fisheries one reads: 'A proposal for a Regulation to create the appropriate legal framework until 31 December 2021, or until a fisheries agreement with the UK has been concluded – whichever date is earlier – for continued reciprocal access by EU and UK vessels to each other's waters after 31 December 2020. In order to guarantee the sustainability of fisheries and in light of the importance of fisheries for the economic livelihood of many communities, it is necessary to facilitate the procedures of authorisation of fishing vessels.'
Some how I don't think that's what the fishing communities have in mind!
I just cannot see that being agreed and it does show remarkable blindness to the issue
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
That does not work if you are having a continuous programme of Apollo-Saturn launches. No way could you restart instantly with a major technological change such as STS (the Shuttle) without having to stop and rebuild 39A and 39B but more importantly the VAB where the things were assembled, and the launch tower as well.
The analogy works only if you close that part of Cape Canaveral down for some years, or build a complete new assembly facility and launch pad elsewhere at Canaveral while the old one was running (or use the Soviet kit, which is what happened after STS was shut down).
No deal is like using the Soviet kit. Not ideal but a fallback that we can get through until something better is available.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
We will not be no dealing.
Were it not for the fact that I don't like laying I would be following suit.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
If I was a child I'd be claiming a unicorn would arrive to make everything OK and it would all be easy and with no suffering and no tough choices.
I'm honest enough to acknowledge there will be difficulties. But I'm also honest enough to acknowledge real life always involves difficulties and and challenges.
Shame you can't respect that honesty. Seems you'd prefer it if I was saying it would all be easy sunlit uplands with no difficulty whatsoever?
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
It does sound idiotic and I for one am very concerned but I am not giving the EU a free pass on this
I expect chaos, both politically and at the ports, and have no idea how this will play out over the months and years ahead
My only consolation is if Boris and the conservatives do pay a heavy price we are not looking at a Corbyn government
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
If I was a child I'd be claiming a unicorn would arrive to make everything OK and it would all be easy and with no suffering and no tough choices.
I'm honest enough to acknowledge there will be difficulties. But I'm also honest enough to acknowledge real life always involves difficulties and and challenges.
Shame you can't respect that honesty. Seems you'd prefer it if I was saying it would all be easy sunlit uplands with no difficulty whatsoever?
It's all very well you saying that now. That is not what was said in 2016 though. Many people still believe that any talk of disruption is all "remainer" lies and that Brexit will be nothing but positives.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
That does not work if you are having a continuous programme of Apollo-Saturn launches. No way could you restart instantly with a major technological change such as STS (the Shuttle) without having to stop and rebuild 39A and 39B but more importantly the VAB where the things were assembled, and the launch tower as well.
The analogy works only if you close that part of Cape Canaveral down for some years, or build a complete new assembly facility and launch pad elsewhere at Canaveral while the old one was running (or use the Soviet kit, which is what happened after STS was shut down).
No deal is like using the Soviet kit. Not ideal but a fallback that we can get through until something better is available.
EU warns member states not to strike special deals with UK that might undermine single market
The European commission is also warning EU member states not to strike any unilateral deals with the UK in the event of there being no deal that would undermine the single market. In the 12-page document (pdf) summarising its plans, it says:
With regard to national measures [ie, any agreement between a member state and the UK], the commission will continue to engage with member states with the aim of ensuring that national measures do not fragment or undermine the single market.
Consequently, in the view of the commission, one core principle of national measures should be their temporary nature. A second principle is that the United Kingdom should not draw similar benefits from such measures as the ones offered by the union in the negotiations on the future agreement. National measures should also take into account the overarching priority with regard to the relationship of the union with any third country, in order to preserve the integrity of the single market, limit the risk of fragmentation and avoid unequal treatment of member states. In any event, national measures of any kind have to comply with EU law, including the principle of sincere cooperation.
At any rate, the EU collectively has a stronger bargaining power than each member state acting alone. This bargaining power benefits all member states. It must be used to ensure a level playing field between the EU and the United Kingdom
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
The BBC has just announced that the EU has published interim proposals, in the event of No Deal. While the Commission will continue to do its utmost to reach a mutually beneficial agreement with the UK, there is now significant uncertainty whether a deal will be in place on 1 January 2021.
Among them are covering arrangements for air, road etc and fisheries. The fisheries one reads: 'A proposal for a Regulation to create the appropriate legal framework until 31 December 2021, or until a fisheries agreement with the UK has been concluded – whichever date is earlier – for continued reciprocal access by EU and UK vessels to each other's waters after 31 December 2020. In order to guarantee the sustainability of fisheries and in light of the importance of fisheries for the economic livelihood of many communities, it is necessary to facilitate the procedures of authorisation of fishing vessels.'
Some how I don't think that's what the fishing communities have in mind!
I just cannot see that being agreed and it does show remarkable blindness to the issue
They're acting in their own interest which is obviously the point, but it does suggest that even after four years they don't understand or don't want to understand the UK's concerns. Whether the UK's concerns are justified to the extent of no deal is another question.
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
We will not be no dealing.
Were it not for the fact that I don't like laying I would be following suit.
The problem for many is our wealth and future prospects are already tied up on deal without any betting. That is why their is a false price.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
If I was a child I'd be claiming a unicorn would arrive to make everything OK and it would all be easy and with no suffering and no tough choices.
I'm honest enough to acknowledge there will be difficulties. But I'm also honest enough to acknowledge real life always involves difficulties and and challenges.
Shame you can't respect that honesty. Seems you'd prefer it if I was saying it would all be easy sunlit uplands with no difficulty whatsoever?
It's all very well you saying that now. That is not what was said in 2016 though. Many people still believe that any talk of disruption is all "remainer" lies and that Brexit will be nothing but positives.
It's shameless.
It isn't different to what I said in 2016 though. I was a Remainer at the start of 2016. I have always thought leaving the EU would involve disruption. Nothing has changed my mind on that.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
If I was a child I'd be claiming a unicorn would arrive to make everything OK and it would all be easy and with no suffering and no tough choices.
I'm honest enough to acknowledge there will be difficulties. But I'm also honest enough to acknowledge real life always involves difficulties and and challenges.
Shame you can't respect that honesty. Seems you'd prefer it if I was saying it would all be easy sunlit uplands with no difficulty whatsoever?
It's all very well you saying that now. That is not what was said in 2016 though. Many people still believe that any talk of disruption is all "remainer" lies and that Brexit will be nothing but positives.
It's shameless.
Yep it's very slippery. This was not the message sent out at the time and we're not just talking about 'difficulties and challenges.' We're talking about a short-term crisis, a medium-term slump and only later a potential long-term benefit. I continue to think that even then the latter will not come close to the benefit we had when in the EU.
But let's not kid ourselves either. This was never about econonics. It was about the nutjobs on the Far Right who had ideological opposition to what they saw Britain's participation in a federalising Europe. Philip was prepared to accept a return of the Northern Ireland Troubles as a price worth paying for political purity.
EU warns member states not to strike special deals with UK that might undermine single market
The European commission is also warning EU member states not to strike any unilateral deals with the UK in the event of there being no deal that would undermine the single market. In the 12-page document (pdf) summarising its plans, it says:
With regard to national measures [ie, any agreement between a member state and the UK], the commission will continue to engage with member states with the aim of ensuring that national measures do not fragment or undermine the single market.
Consequently, in the view of the commission, one core principle of national measures should be their temporary nature. A second principle is that the United Kingdom should not draw similar benefits from such measures as the ones offered by the union in the negotiations on the future agreement. National measures should also take into account the overarching priority with regard to the relationship of the union with any third country, in order to preserve the integrity of the single market, limit the risk of fragmentation and avoid unequal treatment of member states. In any event, national measures of any kind have to comply with EU law, including the principle of sincere cooperation.
At any rate, the EU collectively has a stronger bargaining power than each member state acting alone. This bargaining power benefits all member states. It must be used to ensure a level playing field between the EU and the United Kingdom
Extraordinary statement and lacking confidence in itself
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
Is this with Smarkets?
You need to be careful with rules. No Deal is defined as "The UK and EU have not signed a trade deal at any point on or before 31 December 2020".
You think there WILL be a trade deal before that date. But will it be signed?
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You used the word "game" not me.
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
We will not be no dealing.
Were it not for the fact that I don't like laying I would be following suit.
Wahay. Although I never doubted YOU for a second. Or did I? No, let's say I didn't.
Still, the likes of Redwood, Cash & Bone will be tingling with anticipation now.
40 odd years of hurt, never stopped them dreaming ...
What do you think explains the volatility of your views?
I can see both sides in the argument. There are costs and benefits to all options. No decision is cost-free.
I thought the EU was economically worthwhile long-term and that the political costs were worthwhile. I was convinced during the referendum (primarily by Richard Tyndall, Casino Royale and Michael Gove) that a better future could be achieved outside the EU so I changed my mind then - but I never considered it to be an easy option.
Remember when S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt used to be talked of as a potential tory leader? It was for about 20 minutes between Tom Tugendaht and talk of a possible bid by Grant Shapp's toupée.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You used the word "game" not me.
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
I quite like the fact that you want to leave the EU because it would allow us to negotiate our own trade deals.
Well, Philip, this is what negotiating our own trade deals looks like. And in fact you are encouraging us to walk away from the negotiations.
Remember when S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt used to be talked of as a potential tory leader? It was for about 20 minutes between Tom Tugendaht and talk of a possible bid by Grant Shapp's toupée.
And she would be much better than the clown we got instead
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
Is this with Smarkets?
You need to be careful with rules. No Deal is defined as "The UK and EU have not signed a trade deal at any point on or before 31 December 2020".
You think there WILL be a trade deal before that date. But will it be signed?
They are the only ones doing it, I think? And yes, I do need to check the t&cs. Also need to open an account.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
I'm not treating it as a game, I'm treating it as politics.
Any suffering that may occur is a shame. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it and help people through it.
Do you think there's a magic wand to prevent all suffering? Do you think the government can or should make sure nobody ever suffers? We can live in a land of perpetual rainbows and unicorns and nothing bad happens to anyone ever? No wonder you supported Magic Grandpa Corbyn.
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
We will not be no dealing.
Were it not for the fact that I don't like laying I would be following suit.
The problem for many is our wealth and future prospects are already tied up on deal without any betting. That is why their is a false price.
You mean people backing No Deal as a hedge against the damage to their own prospects and finances?
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
I'm not treating it as a game, I'm treating it as politics.
Any suffering that may occur is a shame. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it and help people through it.
Do you think there's a magic wand to prevent all suffering? Do you think the government can or should make sure nobody ever suffers? We can live in a land of perpetual rainbows and unicorns and nothing bad happens to anyone ever? No wonder you supported Magic Grandpa Corbyn.
You've literally highlighted your own hypocrisy. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it. Unfortunately that hasn't happened.
If the government was not treating this as a game then we would have asked for an extension to get through COVID and to ensure we were actually ready for "no deal".
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
It does matter if the EU is being unreasonable because as you say we can either accept that or walk away.
If the EU is being reasonable we should strive to get an agreement, if its possible.
If the EU is being unreasonable then that gives more justification to walking away.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
With the greatest of respect nobody is treating this as a game and as far as I am concerned the EU carry as much responsibility as HMG to resolve this serious situation
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
Is this with Smarkets?
You need to be careful with rules. No Deal is defined as "The UK and EU have not signed a trade deal at any point on or before 31 December 2020".
You think there WILL be a trade deal before that date. But will it be signed?
They are the only ones doing it, I think? And yes, I do need to check the t&cs. Also need to open an account.
Where are you btw? You expecting a No Deal now?
No - I think there will be a last hour deal.
But, there may be issues kicked in long grass (fishing rights?). And it may not be formally signed by 31 Dec.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
I'm not treating it as a game, I'm treating it as politics.
Any suffering that may occur is a shame. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it and help people through it.
Do you think there's a magic wand to prevent all suffering? Do you think the government can or should make sure nobody ever suffers? We can live in a land of perpetual rainbows and unicorns and nothing bad happens to anyone ever? No wonder you supported Magic Grandpa Corbyn.
You've literally highlighted your own hypocrisy. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it. Unfortunately that hasn't happened.
If the government was not treating this as a game then we would have asked for an extension to get through COVID and to ensure we were actually ready for "no deal".
None of that has happened.
What hypocrisy?
I have said before why I believe that kicking the can with an extension without an agreement first would make things worse not better.
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
We will not be no dealing.
Were it not for the fact that I don't like laying I would be following suit.
The problem for many is our wealth and future prospects are already tied up on deal without any betting. That is why their is a false price.
You mean people backing No Deal as a hedge against the damage to their own prospects and finances?
Yes, absolutely and people not backing deal because they are already "on" through equities, pensions, lower future prices on goods and the need for a job!
I think the odds are crazy and bet on anything and everything but I am already heavily on deal without a bet so wont be involved.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
I'm not treating it as a game, I'm treating it as politics.
Any suffering that may occur is a shame. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it and help people through it.
Do you think there's a magic wand to prevent all suffering? Do you think the government can or should make sure nobody ever suffers? We can live in a land of perpetual rainbows and unicorns and nothing bad happens to anyone ever? No wonder you supported Magic Grandpa Corbyn.
Very easy words in the abstract. The fact is that the government has chosen to make life tougher for many millions of UK citizens, having already chosen to make them and UK businesses less free than they are now. It has yet to explain, let alone demonstrate, how and when we will all benefit from this.
Wow. NO DEAL is 1.84. Big move from 2.57 following what sounds like a disappointing dinner date last night. John Redwood will be getting very excited (!) this morning.
I should think he'll be exhausted, after dreaming about controlling fish all night.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
With the greatest of respect nobody is treating this as a game and as far as I am concerned the EU carry as much responsibility as HMG to resolve this serious situation
We are in this situation entirely out of our own choice. Nobody is to blame other than the May government, the Johnson government, and their supporters.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You used the word "game" not me.
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
I quite like the fact that you want to leave the EU because it would allow us to negotiate our own trade deals.
Well, Philip, this is what negotiating our own trade deals looks like. And in fact you are encouraging us to walk away from the negotiations.
Enjoy because this is it in future.
Absolutely. We have trade deals signed all over the globe already - and more on the way too.
If we can't get this one over the line yet then walk away. In a few years time we might.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You used the word "game" not me.
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
I quite like the fact that you want to leave the EU because it would allow us to negotiate our own trade deals.
Well, Philip, this is what negotiating our own trade deals looks like. And in fact you are encouraging us to walk away from the negotiations.
Enjoy because this is it in future.
Absolutely. We have trade deals signed all over the globe already - and more on the way too.
If we can't get this one over the line yet then walk away. In a few years time we might.
Trade deals we already had. We have not moved forwards, we are merely not as far backwards as we were.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
I'm not treating it as a game, I'm treating it as politics.
Any suffering that may occur is a shame. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it and help people through it.
Do you think there's a magic wand to prevent all suffering? Do you think the government can or should make sure nobody ever suffers? We can live in a land of perpetual rainbows and unicorns and nothing bad happens to anyone ever? No wonder you supported Magic Grandpa Corbyn.
Very easy words in the abstract. The fact is that the government has chosen to make life tougher for many millions of UK citizens, having already chosen to make them and UK businesses less free than they are now. It has yet to explain, let alone demonstrate, how and when we will all benefit from this.
Demonstration will only happen in the many years to come after Brexit.
Brexit is for life not just for Christmas. As I said, it is lopsided as the worst of the pain is upfront but he benefits may not materialise for years. Doesn't mean it is not worthwhile to do, we'd never invest in anything new if we only concentrated on short term pleasure.
What do you think explains the volatility of your views?
I can see both sides in the argument. There are costs and benefits to all options. No decision is cost-free.
I thought the EU was economically worthwhile long-term and that the political costs were worthwhile. I was convinced during the referendum (primarily by Richard Tyndall, Casino Royale and Michael Gove) that a better future could be achieved outside the EU so I changed my mind then - but I never considered it to be an easy option.
Short term pain for long term gain.
You can see both sides, but apparently not at the same time.
Remember when S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt used to be talked of as a potential tory leader? It was for about 20 minutes between Tom Tugendaht and talk of a possible bid by Grant Shapp's toupée.
And she would be much better than the clown we got instead
Really? The clown has, at least, some form of entertainment value even if very low...
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You used the word "game" not me.
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
I quite like the fact that you want to leave the EU because it would allow us to negotiate our own trade deals.
Well, Philip, this is what negotiating our own trade deals looks like. And in fact you are encouraging us to walk away from the negotiations.
Enjoy because this is it in future.
Absolutely. We have trade deals signed all over the globe already - and more on the way too.
If we can't get this one over the line yet then walk away. In a few years time we might.
Trade deals we already had. We have not moved forwards, we are merely not as far backwards as we were.
Not a bad starting point. It makes sense to start off by rolling over old ones first.
New ones will inevitably take longer to negotiate - whether that be potentially joining the CPTPP or potentially getting a clean new agreement from the EU.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
It does matter if the EU is being unreasonable because as you say we can either accept that or walk away.
If the EU is being reasonable we should strive to get an agreement, if its possible.
If the EU is being unreasonable then that gives more justification to walking away.
Do you disagree with that philosophy?
I have always said our choice is to accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or to walk away with no deal. It's not a philosophical point, it's a practical one grounded entirely in cold hard reality. Politically, the government will clearly seek to blame the EU for the failure of the negotiation and that may well work for a few news cycles. We will then move to the delivery of the triumphant outcome from a no deal that the government has promised us.
When do we think the panic buying will start/resume?
Sunday? Saturday?
I’m topping up my supermarket order today. Ha.
I’ve become inured to all of this. Corona has been financially challenging for my household although we have survived.
If the future looks like tinned mackerel and beans on toast we will survive.
I shall put in a repeat request for my January asthma medication late December, and for February's as soon as possible in January.
Do you not have it on repeat.
I have my medication on six month automatic repeat and I get a text from Boots each month to collect it
Blimey. How did you get six months repeat out of the system? The most I have ever been allowed for my family's meds is two months. Every time there is some minor change the IT system defaults it back to one month and I have to phone up and remonstrate about it again.
Both my wife and I have been on six month repeats for years
Maybe it is a Wales NHS policy
In England I think the default is two months, with a new Dr approval needed once a year.
Only one of mine is really tightly policed - and that is sensors for my Freestyle Libre, which is the blood glucose monitor that Theresa May used to wear.
Fairly easy to knock off on doorframes, and I have yet to persuade my Doc to give me a spare on those occasions, so it is back to finger sticks for a few days on those occasions.
However the things are expensive, at £30-ish every 2 weeks.
Very surprised that Wales allows six months supply of medicines, if that is what Mr G is saying. All the evidence shows, or did when I dealt with this sort off thing daily, that lengthy repeat stocks in patients houses were a major contributor to waste. The norm in my day was monthly prescriptions, although there were, and I think still are, arrangements whereby GP's could issue batches of 6 x 1 month, and patients could collect every month, without the bother of asking for another piece of paper.
Edit. Just seen Mr G's latest post on the subject. Thought it would be the same as the English (and IIRC Scots) scheme.
I'm curious. Do pharmacists get annoyed by prescription for 28 days rather than 30? My GP has recently, with no explanation, changed from handing out 30 days worth to 28 days. I've noticed that the meds we have all come in boxes of 30 from the manufacturer. So the poor pharmacist must have to take two tablets out of each box and relabel.
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
The constant failure to assume that the EU might choose to exploit negotiations to get a favourable deal for the EU is one of the more baffling assumptions Brexiteers make.
One might have thought with a PM with much experience of divorce negotiations we might have understood that a rational fair and balanced deal is not always on offer after a divorce.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You used the word "game" not me.
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
I quite like the fact that you want to leave the EU because it would allow us to negotiate our own trade deals.
Well, Philip, this is what negotiating our own trade deals looks like. And in fact you are encouraging us to walk away from the negotiations.
Enjoy because this is it in future.
Absolutely. We have trade deals signed all over the globe already - and more on the way too.
If we can't get this one over the line yet then walk away. In a few years time we might.
Have we any trade deals with countries that are a lot larger than us?
Should say not a chance on fisheries. Certainly not for fisheries to be for longer than other ones that is crazy.
Depends whether the UK wants to be able to fly those vaccines in, doesn't it?
They are independent proposals, aren't they?
Unclear, but if things get very acrimonious, they will get acrimonious. Boris is taking us into the very worst of all possible worst worlds.
So is the EU by their unreasonable eleventh hour demands via Macron, and refusal to negotiate which you are blind to seeing any issues with.
There haven't been any eleventh hour demands, they've mostly been tediously consistent since 2016, although they have compromised on a lot of the detail (for example, they dropped the demand that the ECJ should be the arbiter).
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
Yes, they are - you need to look at how The Times reported the tightening last Thursday when a deal looked imminent - Macron led the charge against what Germany/Sweden/Austria and the Central and Eastern European states all had virtually sewn up with Ursula VDR. This new hard position included virtually no movement on fish above 15-18% (rather than comprising), an unbalanced approach to State Aid rules (we can, you can't) and a right to unilateral lightning tariffs in future without limit if they increased or changed LPF standards and we declined to follow suit, rather than just agreeing regression clauses on current standards now and agreeing to jointly reviewing the applicability and scope of the deal in future if either side wants to change them.
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
I suspect Richard's position - which happens to be mine, so I may be projecting (and apologies to him if I am) - is that it does not matter whether the EU's position is reasonable or not, it is what it is: the EU's position. We either accept that and work to get an agreement within the parameters it sets or we walk away. That has always been the choice, as it will be in any negotiation in which one party has a stronger hand than the other one.
It does matter if the EU is being unreasonable because as you say we can either accept that or walk away.
If the EU is being reasonable we should strive to get an agreement, if its possible.
If the EU is being unreasonable then that gives more justification to walking away.
Do you disagree with that philosophy?
I have always said our choice is to accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or to walk away with no deal. It's not a philosophical point, it's a practical one grounded entirely in cold hard reality. Politically, the government will clearly seek to blame the EU for the failure of the negotiation and that may well work for a few news cycles. We will then move to the delivery of the triumphant outcome from a no deal that the government has promised us.
Absolutely that is the choice but which choice we should make depends in part upon whether the EU is being unreasonable or not. If the EU is entirely reasonable then there will be little reason not to reach a deal - if the EU is unreasonable then so be it and facing "cold hard reality" for a few years may be worthwhile.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
I'm not treating it as a game, I'm treating it as politics.
Any suffering that may occur is a shame. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it and help people through it.
Do you think there's a magic wand to prevent all suffering? Do you think the government can or should make sure nobody ever suffers? We can live in a land of perpetual rainbows and unicorns and nothing bad happens to anyone ever? No wonder you supported Magic Grandpa Corbyn.
Very easy words in the abstract. The fact is that the government has chosen to make life tougher for many millions of UK citizens, having already chosen to make them and UK businesses less free than they are now. It has yet to explain, let alone demonstrate, how and when we will all benefit from this.
Demonstration will only happen in the many years to come after Brexit.
Brexit is for life not just for Christmas. As I said, it is lopsided as the worst of the pain is upfront but he benefits may not materialise for years. Doesn't mean it is not worthwhile to do, we'd never invest in anything new if we only concentrated on short term pleasure.
What do you think explains the volatility of your views?
I can see both sides in the argument. There are costs and benefits to all options. No decision is cost-free.
I thought the EU was economically worthwhile long-term and that the political costs were worthwhile. I was convinced during the referendum (primarily by Richard Tyndall, Casino Royale and Michael Gove) that a better future could be achieved outside the EU so I changed my mind then - but I never considered it to be an easy option.
Short term pain for long term gain.
You can see both sides, but apparently not at the same time.
I can at the same time. That is why I acknowledge that there will be costs to Brexit.
I'm not claiming unicorns or sunlit uplands or easy decisions.
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You used the word "game" not me.
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
I quite like the fact that you want to leave the EU because it would allow us to negotiate our own trade deals.
Well, Philip, this is what negotiating our own trade deals looks like. And in fact you are encouraging us to walk away from the negotiations.
Enjoy because this is it in future.
Absolutely. We have trade deals signed all over the globe already - and more on the way too.
If we can't get this one over the line yet then walk away. In a few years time we might.
Have we any trade deals with countries that are a lot larger than us?
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
Nobody is treating this as a game
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
@Philip_Thompson is treating it as a game. The Government is treating this as a game.
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
With the greatest of respect nobody is treating this as a game and as far as I am concerned the EU carry as much responsibility as HMG to resolve this serious situation
We are in this situation entirely out of our own choice. Nobody is to blame other than the May government, the Johnson government, and their supporters.
Of course there are many to blame including all those ex Labour mps who bitterly regret not backing TM deal and in the process lost their seats
Also Corbyn was a disaster in the process and I am of the opinion had Starmer led the Labour party we would already be out and trading with the EU, most probably in the single market
Maybe you need to accept others contributed to where we are and not just the extreme ERG in the conservative party
I think a clean Brexit, getting through any disruption and then all sides in a couple of years time beginning talks afresh may be the best thing to happen now.
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
This isn't a game you know. People might very well suffer in the meantime.
C'est la vie.
Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't give a f*ck.
Why should I?
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
It just says a lot about you as a person.
That I'm not a child?
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
You clearly are a child as your entire argument is childish.
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
A difference in view is the essence of pb but calling a poster a child is childish itself
Treating serious issues as a "game" with no regard to the actual effects on the suffering of real people, real families, and real communities is the very definition of childish.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You used the word "game" not me.
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
I quite like the fact that you want to leave the EU because it would allow us to negotiate our own trade deals.
Well, Philip, this is what negotiating our own trade deals looks like. And in fact you are encouraging us to walk away from the negotiations.
Enjoy because this is it in future.
Absolutely. We have trade deals signed all over the globe already - and more on the way too.
If we can't get this one over the line yet then walk away. In a few years time we might.
Have we any trade deals with countries that are a lot larger than us?
Considering we are a G7 nation there aren't many economies a lot larger than us at all, anywhere on the world.
Comments
The closer we get the worse no-deal is looking. It could be Suez, the fall of Singapore and the General Strike rolled into one. No government should survive that.
Just saying...
"In the Commons Duncan Baker, the Conservative MP for North Norfolk, says what is at stake in the talks is not the size of the fishing industry now; it is what it could be in the future. Under Brexit, the fishing sector has the chance to expand, he insists."
https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/serie/001784644#Graphique
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9038461/Police-charge-32-men-West-Yorkshire-150-child-sex-offences.html
For a sustainable, cheaper, and more usable architecture, you have to go in a different direction, where reproducing exactly what was done before will be of little help.
If the EU want to put unreasonable demands in for its LPF then why shouldn't the UK do the same? Why should we accept their LPF demands where they can ratchet beyond us but not demand our own where we do the same?
I couldn't care less what the EU's LPF is since we will no longer be a Member State it won't apply to us anymore. What we're discussing is not the EU's LPF, it is any agreed EU/UK one - that is not the same thing. EG see the CETA Canada/EU LPF for instance. Or the Japan/UK one as another.
https://twitter.com/DomWalsh13/status/1336993079224578050?s=19
A bit like SpaceX beginning afresh rather than using Saturn rocket technology.
Trying to retrofit EU rules into a post-Brexit agreement isn't working. Have a clean break, let cooler heads come together in the future with a clean blank piece of paper.
In any case, so what if their demands are unreasonable, or seem so to us? They didn't ask the UK to impose economic sanctions on itself, quite the reverse. That choice was entirely ours, and the decision as to whether to accept the terms on offer (which are exactly in line with what was known in 2016), or plunge the country into chaos, is entirely that of the UK government. No-one else is responsible for that.
As David Gauke points out, the UK's objections to the proposed LPF clauses make zero sense anyway. On the off-chance that a fire might break out at some unspecified time in the future, we are proposing to burn the house down now.
P.S. Does anyone know how many HYUFDs can dance on the head of a pin?
You seem to think the "LPF" is what the EU says it is, but EU rules don't apply to us. We will not be following the EU's LPF.
The LPF that is being talked about is any potential EU/UK one, not any EU one. As such it is up for negotiation, that is exactly what is happening. Why we should negotiate to let them have a say in eg our tax rates but we don't have a say in eg their minimum wage you don't seem to have any valid argument for other than it is not what the EU wants.
Well what the EU wants isn't what the UK wants and it takes two to tango. So by your own logic QED we shouldn't accept the LPF since it is unwanted.
While the Commission will continue to do its utmost to reach a mutually beneficial agreement with the UK, there is now significant uncertainty whether a deal will be in place on 1 January 2021.
Among them are covering arrangements for air, road etc and fisheries. The fisheries one reads:
'A proposal for a Regulation to create the appropriate legal framework until 31 December 2021, or until a fisheries agreement with the UK has been concluded – whichever date is earlier – for continued reciprocal access by EU and UK vessels to each other's waters after 31 December 2020. In order to guarantee the sustainability of fisheries and in light of the importance of fisheries for the economic livelihood of many communities, it is necessary to facilitate the procedures of authorisation of fishing vessels.'
Some how I don't think that's what the fishing communities have in mind!
The analogy works only if you close that part of Cape Canaveral down for some years, or build a complete new assembly facility and launch pad elsewhere at Canaveral while the old one was running (or use the Soviet kit, which is what happened after STS was shut down).
Any omelette involves breaking a few eggs. Any change can result in suffering.
If you're to petrified to ever make a decision then long term that causes far more suffering.
They're coming home, they're coming home, they're coming ... fish are coming home.
In fact forget the fish, No Deal is the full fat "sovereignty" (per the noddy definition of the word) outcome. If Johnson shocks me and does it, I will have no complaints, despite considering it against the national interest and driven almost exclusively by tawdry and primitive sentiment. We voted for Brexit and this would in no uncertain terms be Brexit. It's intellectually coherent and democratically valid - June 16 plus Dec 19 says so.
But c'mon. Step back. Let's stay cool and think about it.
Trading on basic WTO terms inc full panoply of tariffs with the EU bloc from 1st Jan with Northern Ireland effectively remaining in the bloc and thus to most intents and purposes leaving the UK and becoming a foreign country without even a referendum - this, unbelievably, is right now the betting FAVOURITE in a 2 horse race.
I use the word "unbelievably" for a very precise reason. I don't believe it.
1.84.
Time to put my money where my mouth is and lay it.
That I understand poltics involves hard choices sometimes?
Regardless, the Brexit campaign did not inform people that suffering might be required. We were told it was nothing but extra money for the NHS and greener pastures. The lies and deceit will not be forgotten by those who suffer.
Were it not for the fact that I don't like laying I would be following suit.
I'm honest enough to acknowledge there will be difficulties. But I'm also honest enough to acknowledge real life always involves difficulties and and challenges.
Shame you can't respect that honesty. Seems you'd prefer it if I was saying it would all be easy sunlit uplands with no difficulty whatsoever?
I expect chaos, both politically and at the ports, and have no idea how this will play out over the months and years ahead
My only consolation is if Boris and the conservatives do pay a heavy price we are not looking at a Corbyn government
It's shameless.
The European commission is also warning EU member states not to strike any unilateral deals with the UK in the event of there being no deal that would undermine the single market. In the 12-page document (pdf) summarising its plans, it says:
With regard to national measures [ie, any agreement between a member state and the UK], the commission will continue to engage with member states with the aim of ensuring that national measures do not fragment or undermine the single market.
Consequently, in the view of the commission, one core principle of national measures should be their temporary nature. A second principle is that the United Kingdom should not draw similar benefits from such measures as the ones offered by the union in the negotiations on the future agreement. National measures should also take into account the overarching priority with regard to the relationship of the union with any third country, in order to preserve the integrity of the single market, limit the risk of fragmentation and avoid unequal treatment of member states. In any event, national measures of any kind have to comply with EU law, including the principle of sincere cooperation.
At any rate, the EU collectively has a stronger bargaining power than each member state acting alone. This bargaining power benefits all member states. It must be used to ensure a level playing field between the EU and the United Kingdom
Your position (because you disagree so vociferously with the original Brexit vote) is that everything the EU does is reasonable and everything the UK does is unreasonable. You are worth listening to on virtually every issue - where we agree on almost everything - but on Brexit you simply become a LD'y Remoaner turned up to 11.
You never bother to delve into the specifics and nuances, so you're not interesting to listen to as a result. Brexit has happened. It's a reality. Both the UK and EU should be interested in forging a sustainable long-term relationship. You need to be able to exercise the dispassionate judgement on the respective negotiating positions of both sides to reflect that reality and be able to assess if they reasonable, sensible and constructive. Or what you say on the subject will simply be ignored.
Look at David Herdson's example to see how a Conservative Remainer is still able to see the flaws of the EU position. Learn from him.
But let's not kid ourselves either. This was never about econonics. It was about the nutjobs on the Far Right who had ideological opposition to what they saw Britain's participation in a federalising Europe. Philip was prepared to accept a return of the Northern Ireland Troubles as a price worth paying for political purity.
Brexit was, and is, stupidity.
And of course such attitude is rife amongst the Conservative Party.
You need to be careful with rules. No Deal is defined as "The UK and EU have not signed a trade deal at any point on or before 31 December 2020".
You think there WILL be a trade deal before that date. But will it be signed?
I do have regard to the real suffering that may occur. I acknowledge it and don't deny it. What more do you want?
Brexiteers cling ever more strongly to the idea, the more stupid it proves to be...
Strong views are expressed on both sides and things are said but childish, no
Still, the likes of Redwood, Cash & Bone will be tingling with anticipation now.
40 odd years of hurt, never stopped them dreaming ...
I thought the EU was economically worthwhile long-term and that the political costs were worthwhile. I was convinced during the referendum (primarily by Richard Tyndall, Casino Royale and Michael Gove) that a better future could be achieved outside the EU so I changed my mind then - but I never considered it to be an easy option.
Short term pain for long term gain.
Well, Philip, this is what negotiating our own trade deals looks like. And in fact you are encouraging us to walk away from the negotiations.
Enjoy because this is it in future.
Where are you btw? You expecting a No Deal now?
The suffering of families, people, and communities is treated as unimportant and meaningless when compared to the ultimate goal achieving a fantasy land Brexit.
They do not care if we all end up poorer as a result as long as they get what they want.
Any suffering that may occur is a shame. We should acknowledge it and take steps to minimise it and help people through it.
Do you think there's a magic wand to prevent all suffering? Do you think the government can or should make sure nobody ever suffers? We can live in a land of perpetual rainbows and unicorns and nothing bad happens to anyone ever? No wonder you supported Magic Grandpa Corbyn.
It was his vehicle to become World King.
Fuck the plebs who got hurt along the way...
If the government was not treating this as a game then we would have asked for an extension to get through COVID and to ensure we were actually ready for "no deal".
None of that has happened.
If the EU is being reasonable we should strive to get an agreement, if its possible.
If the EU is being unreasonable then that gives more justification to walking away.
Do you disagree with that philosophy?
But, there may be issues kicked in long grass (fishing rights?). And it may not be formally signed by 31 Dec.
So I`m not playing.
I have said before why I believe that kicking the can with an extension without an agreement first would make things worse not better.
I think the odds are crazy and bet on anything and everything but I am already heavily on deal without a bet so wont be involved.
Anything else is gaslighting or victim blaming.
If we can't get this one over the line yet then walk away. In a few years time we might.
Brexit is for life not just for Christmas. As I said, it is lopsided as the worst of the pain is upfront but he benefits may not materialise for years. Doesn't mean it is not worthwhile to do, we'd never invest in anything new if we only concentrated on short term pleasure.
New ones will inevitably take longer to negotiate - whether that be potentially joining the CPTPP or potentially getting a clean new agreement from the EU.
This seems bonkers to me.
One might have thought with a PM with much experience of divorce negotiations we might have understood that a rational fair and balanced deal is not always on offer after a divorce.
I'm not claiming unicorns or sunlit uplands or easy decisions.
Also Corbyn was a disaster in the process and I am of the opinion had Starmer led the Labour party we would already be out and trading with the EU, most probably in the single market
Maybe you need to accept others contributed to where we are and not just the extreme ERG in the conservative party