Or he doesn't care about Londoners snuffing it (I can see the logic).
Thats still half the Wales infection rate, good old circuit breaker
The circuit break worked, what the useless clowns did AFTER is the problem. But don't let fact get in the way of your narrative.
No it didn't.....it didn't squash down infection rates anywhere near enough. It needed to be a lot longer, which was the whole argument in the first place.
The month in England probably wasn't enough, not if you want this hall pass at Christmas.
It has been accepted by "expert" analysis on nightly TV that the two weeks reduced the infection rate. Personally I believe it was too short and subsequently the exit was too weak. That said, attitudes in South Wales are back to December 2019. It is chaos.
Boris by contrast timed his Lockdown to Christmas perfection. New Year might not be so clever, however he saved Christmas. Hats off!
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Doesn't it in fact prove that we were right all along and that these things are important and a bad deal is worse than no deal?
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.
No, you promised the country sunlit uplands.
I think you'll find I said we should be preparing for no deal way back in 2017 when the May deal was taking shape and it looked crap. If only Hammond wasn't such an ideological fool and didn't block no deal planning by not allowing any budget for it.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
I'm not in the least bit indignant - how they negotiate is entirely their prerogative, how we respond is ours. At least neither the EU nor its fanboys on this site can apply a cloak of reasonability and wise forbearance to their actions now. It's just 'might is right'.
As I've consistently said, I'm excited about the prospects of not being tied in to an FTA with the EU, even more excited if it's something they're prepared to threaten a blockade to avoid - if it's going to be the outcome, let's get to it.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Doesn't it in fact prove that we were right all along and that these things are important and a bad deal is worse than no deal?
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.
Not really, it simply shows that Boris has boxed himself, and unfortunately the whole country, into an impossible position where all outcomes are bad or disastrous. The way things are going, in the best scenario we'll end up with all the constraints of a bad deal and most of the economic damage of no deal.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Or he doesn't care about Londoners snuffing it (I can see the logic).
Thats still half the Wales infection rate, good old circuit breaker
The circuit break worked, what the useless clowns did AFTER is the problem. But don't let fact get in the way of your narrative.
No it didn't.....it didn't squash down infection rates anywhere near enough. It needed to be a lot longer, which was the whole argument in the first place.
The month in England probably wasn't enough, not if you want this hall pass at Christmas.
It has been accepted by "expert" analysis on nightly TV that the two weeks reduced the infection rate. Personally I believe it was too short and subsequently the exit was too weak. That said, attitudes in South Wales are back to December 2019. It is chaos.
Boris by contrast timed his Lockdown to Christmas perfection. New Year might not be so clever, however he saved Christmas. Hats off!
FFS...of course it reduced infection rate, you don't need to be an "expert" to know that....nobody is arguing it didn't, but it didn't do anywhere near enough.
If you don't squash transmission far enough, rates grow really quickly when you release. That is why it was a failure. The same argument has been made about why the NW was hit so hard in autumn, that there was a failure to ever really squash down transmission at the right time, pressure released, and off to the races.
Or he doesn't care about Londoners snuffing it (I can see the logic).
Thats still half the Wales infection rate, good old circuit breaker
The circuit break worked, what the useless clowns did AFTER is the problem. But don't let fact get in the way of your narrative.
Thats a bit like saying to a speed cop that you were doing 30 mph before you did 100 mph
The analogies on here today. It's exactly like a surrealist film where there's an elephant in the room and nobody knows what an elephant is so they talk about every other animal under the sun instead.
But on this one, no. It's a bit like saying to that speed cop who catches you doing 100 that if it wasn't for Drakeford's firebreak you'd have been doing 125.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
But thats not the proposal which as I understand it we raise it to 21, then if nonesuchia doesn't we can apply tariffs. This then puts nonesuchia in a bind because it will apply nationally and not just to goods they trade with us and will have an impact on all their other trade.
That is the alternative proposal after we rejected the ratchet clause.
And it should be equally rejected as its one sided just as much as the ratchet clause was.
The ratchet clause isn't one sided, and neither is the alternative proposal, they are available equally to both parties.
In a flurry of announcements, the European commission said it would legislate to temporarily allow airlines from the UK to operate flights across its territory and keep roads open to British hauliers and buses.
The EU will also offer British fishermen access to its seas and open negotiations over quotas, if the UK government reciprocates. But the commission said the offer was for a limited period and it was only willing to act to avoid the worst disruption, including the risk of “public disorder”.
In a move that will only serve to irritate the British government in the context of the troubled talks on a future trade deal, the commission also insisted its offer depended on the UK having “equivalent” regulations....
Is this 'negotiating in good faith' or declaring war? It doesn't seem to be that clear cut any more.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Doesn't it in fact prove that we were right all along and that these things are important and a bad deal is worse than no deal?
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.
No, you promised the country sunlit uplands.
I think you'll find I said we should be preparing for no deal way back in 2017 when the May deal was taking shape and it looked crap. If only Hammond wasn't such an ideological fool and didn't block no deal planning by not allowing any budget for it.
Not *you* specifically, I mean you as in the wider Leaver movement who during the referendum promised the country nothing but sunlit uplands, and denounced Project Reality as Project Fear.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Doesn't it in fact prove that we were right all along and that these things are important and a bad deal is worse than no deal?
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.
Not really, it simply shows that Boris has boxed himself, and unfortunately the whole country, into an impossible position where all outcomes are bad or disastrous. The way things are going, in the best scenario we'll end up with all the constraints of a bad deal and most of the economic damage of no deal.
No, Theresa May and Philip Hammond boxed us in, they decided to not plan for a worst case scenario even after commissioning a bunch of reports on it. Hammond choked off funding for no deal planning on a ideological basis and we are where we are.
Also, your last sentence is why no deal is going to happen. If we're going to take the economic damage of no deal, why bother with any kind of deal?
The psychology of No Deal are quite interesting. Many will see any No Deal exit as final proof of why Brexit was a stupid idea. Lots of people on here will think that.
Conversely I voted Leave, because I couldn’t see a future for the UK in an EU which must move towards full fiscal (and hence political) union, if the Euro is not to fatally undermine the long term productivity and social cohesion of the continent. But I did so thinking it was a shame and potentially risky to make a break with countries that were firm allies, given the external threats from Xi and Putin. And that at least we’d depart as friends, with close trading ties and pretty well aligned political interests.
But to be honest I must now put aside any earlier concerns I may have had about leaving. The EU’s apparent refusal to negotiate sensibly on a very basic goods-only free trade agreement is quite extraordinary, given: a) we start from a position of total alignment, b) the terms of goods trade are stacked firmly in the EU’s favour, c) the UK has honoured all financial obligations and arguably far above, d) Not only do we share criminal and security intelligence with each other, the UK and France have intimate military cooperation and exchange of commanding officers.
Given all this I have to believe this is all just stage management for voters and brinksmanship. Because whatever sarcastic replies Continuity Remain might make, this really should have been the easiest trade deal in history from both sides’ perspective.
But if it really can’t get done because of what to any impartial observer are quite obscene demands from the EU side, then goodbye and good riddance and don’t expect us to come calling for a deal again. I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
You do know that the "national living wage" is just the national minimum wage with a new and less accurate name, right? The same minimum wage whose introduction the Tories resisting tooth and nail (I look back fondly on my first job, in the early 1990s, that paid £1.50 an hour).
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that in many countries in the EU, their minimum wage is considerably lower than ours??
That's why countries like France resisted EU enlargement, while the UK was a vocal supporter. Minimum wages aren't an EU competency anyway and so aren't covered by the LPF provisions.
The Working Time Directive weren't enforcible on us either until Abracadabra the rules were manipulated.
If you trust the EU, you will get BFONTed (in the words of John McKane). It's just what happens.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
But thats not the proposal which as I understand it we raise it to 21, then if nonesuchia doesn't we can apply tariffs. This then puts nonesuchia in a bind because it will apply nationally and not just to goods they trade with us and will have an impact on all their other trade.
The real problem comes when the issues are not symmetric or direct. Otherwise setting tariffs would be trivial and the WTO barely needed.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Plus all the Leave-inclined people who pointed out that the trouble with the Remain campaign was that it was all about rationality and money, and there's more to life than that.
The infection rate across Wales now stands at 326.8 per 100,000 people based on the seven days up to December 5. This is an increase from 308.3 on Monday. However, PHW said that due to a lag in receiving data, the most recent incidence is likely to be an underestimate
Yep, 382 now as per reporting date. And that still has a half a week of delay from the actual testing due to the averaging over a week. And of course the testing itself has a week or so of delay from infection.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Doesn't it in fact prove that we were right all along and that these things are important and a bad deal is worse than no deal?
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.
No, you promised the country sunlit uplands.
I think you'll find I said we should be preparing for no deal way back in 2017 when the May deal was taking shape and it looked crap. If only Hammond wasn't such an ideological fool and didn't block no deal planning by not allowing any budget for it.
Not *you* specifically, I mean you as in the wider Leaver movement who during the referendum promised the country nothing but sunlit uplands, and denounced Project Reality as Project Fear.
Wasn't Project Fear things like Osborne's punishment budget?
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
A good analogy for the failure of circuit breaker is with antibiotics.
You decide to only take half the prescribed course, as you feel like the infection has got a lot better, but no real idea if it has worked or not, and then it returns a week or two after you stopped taking them (because you haven't actually killed off the underlying cause fully).
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
The infection rate across Wales now stands at 326.8 per 100,000 people based on the seven days up to December 5. This is an increase from 308.3 on Monday. However, PHW said that due to a lag in receiving data, the most recent incidence is likely to be an underestimate
Yep, 382 now as per reporting date. And that still has a half a week of delay from the actual testing due to the averaging over a week. And of course the testing itself has a week or so of delay from infection.
This is why we have cancelled our Christmas gathering of 10 and and will spend Christmas day on our own
Todays trip for Personalised Christmas cards has been cancelled and all have been bought on line
I have just spent £300 with Amazon on gift vouchers and will continue to ensure hands face space is strictly followed
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
I see no problem with a LPF but absolutely not dynamic alignment
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Doesn't it in fact prove that we were right all along and that these things are important and a bad deal is worse than no deal?
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.
No, you promised the country sunlit uplands.
I think you'll find I said we should be preparing for no deal way back in 2017 when the May deal was taking shape and it looked crap. If only Hammond wasn't such an ideological fool and didn't block no deal planning by not allowing any budget for it.
Not *you* specifically, I mean you as in the wider Leaver movement who during the referendum promised the country nothing but sunlit uplands, and denounced Project Reality as Project Fear.
Wasn't Project Fear things like Osborne's punishment budget?
I'm talking about things like tariffs and delays on goods, foods shortages/price increases, that sort of stuff.
Oh and the financial services sector taking a massive hit when we leave the aegises of the EU.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes they've said that and we have said we are not accepting those terms. Clearly and unequivocally.
Now they could have said there is no deal then but they haven't, negotiations are still ongoing. In which case it's possible they'll change their mind in which case a deal is viable.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
The truly inexplicable (OK, not truly inexplicable... I'll come back to this) thing is that, even if the EU caved entirely this afternoon, and gave the UK exactly the deal it wanted, the UK still wouldn't really be in a position to make it happen on the ground from the start of next month. Not only are we not prepared for the worst-case scenario, we're not ready for our Plan A. Even though, as nice Mr Gove pointed out in his speech "It'll all be your fault", many of the preparations are identical.
The only explanation I can come up with (apart from howling incompetence, but that's boring) is that the political optics of FTA Brexit are too grim to show the public. That if the necessary systems were visible or described, that would be enough to give the project a further knock sufficient to risk its completion.
A good analogy for the failure of circuit breaker is with antibiotics.
You decide to only take half the prescribed course, as you feel like the infection has got a lot better, but no real idea if it has worked or not, and then it returns a week or two after you stopped taking them (because you haven't actually killed off the underlying cause fully).
Wasn't the circuit breaker a relative success it was the fact that when it ended they allowed groups of 15 to meet up?
That's like taking a course of antibiotics to cure a dose of the clap and then once your todger looks fine having bareback sex with a hooker?
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
A good analogy for the failure of circuit breaker is with antibiotics.
You decide to only take half the prescribed course, as you feel like the infection has got a lot better, but no real idea if it has worked or not, and then it returns a week or two after you stopped taking them (because you haven't actually killed off the underlying cause fully).
Wasn't the circuit breaker a relative success it was the fact that when it ended they allowed groups of 15 to meet up?
That's like taking a course of antibiotics to cure a dose of the clap and then once your todger looks fine having bareback sex with a hooker?
(Sorry Nigel for the analogy.)
The circuit breaker never got rates down anywhere near enough, even before the stupid nationwide relaxation. There were two areas in particular that had very high rates and 2 weeks was nowhere near enough to tackle those.
We know by now that if it is high in a concentrated area it can take a hell of a long time to really change the tide. As I say, I am not sure even a month was long enough in the UK.
To add weight to my point, NI, didn't go for the post 2 week antibiotic hooker sess and still ended up back in a lockdown a few weeks later.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
Yes, exactly. And to make it worse, if we didn't want a reasonably comprehensive trade deal, we could have said so four years ago, or even one year ago, and concentrated on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, over a reasonable timescale, instead of the maximum-chaos version we're currently heading for.
This is a big point. The EU core position is utterly predictable, as is the fact they will not budge from it. Around the margins, yes, fish and the like, but not on LPF and SM. So if we were not going to play ball on that central issue, a No Deal should have been clear to us ages ago and could have been planned for and to some extent mitigated. Two possibilities flow from this -
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
And yet it seems that they can sign FTAs with other countries without such qualms. We've been quietly rolling these over into our own bilateral agreements without any difficulty or LPF ratchets.
Perhaps the government believed quite reasonably that they would do the same for us, being our "friends".
I wonder if it would be different if we weren't negotiating with the EU commission but with the member countries directly. The two might not necessarily have the same objectives.
Are people in Wales just getting unlucky in the shops, or is it half a scotch egg with 10 pints of lager that's infecting them all ?
Ironically, the Scots don't seem to be getting infected by scotch eggs, with or without 10 pints of heavy, to the same degree. Something different yet again. Steady application of established tiering?
The psychology of No Deal are quite interesting. Many will see any No Deal exit as final proof of why Brexit was a stupid idea. Lots of people on here will think that.
Conversely I voted Leave, because I couldn’t see a future for the UK in an EU which must move towards full fiscal (and hence political) union, if the Euro is not to fatally undermine the long term productivity and social cohesion of the continent. But I did so thinking it was a shame and potentially risky to make a break with countries that were firm allies, given the external threats from Xi and Putin. And that at least we’d depart as friends, with close trading ties and pretty well aligned political interests.
But to be honest I must now put aside any earlier concerns I may have had about leaving. The EU’s apparent refusal to negotiate sensibly on a very basic goods-only free trade agreement is quite extraordinary, given: a) we start from a position of total alignment, b) the terms of goods trade are stacked firmly in the EU’s favour, c) the UK has honoured all financial obligations and arguably far above, d) Not only do we share criminal and security intelligence with each other, the UK and France have intimate military cooperation and exchange of commanding officers.
Given all this I have to believe this is all just stage management for voters and brinksmanship. Because whatever sarcastic replies Continuity Remain might make, this really should have been the easiest trade deal in history from both sides’ perspective.
But if it really can’t get done because of what to any impartial observer are quite obscene demands from the EU side, then goodbye and good riddance and don’t expect us to come calling for a deal again. I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
I find myself of this view at times. We're constantly told that we must align not to lower standards..when in most cases we have higher standards anyhow.
I don't like Brexit. I feel it makes us tremendously vulnerable during a period of change (i.e. rise of China). I also don't like the EU as a political construct, and it's stubborness to move on issues (though I understand entirely why they take this approach).
This is about the EUs survival as much as anything. Interestingly a commentator did make a point earlier that it is interesting to see the EU have concern over a large competitive neighbour and the fact it doesn't necessarily give off a sense of confidence over its own protectionist tendencies. There's probably some truth in that.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
Isn't that because the other countries do the paperwork well in advance of cancelling the previous bumf?
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
You're making this up. The contingency plan in case of a no deal published by the EU today says quite the opposite. It has two clauses on making sure that our airlines can still operate on the continent for the next six months, presumably during which time future arrangements will be sorted. There is no threat, neither implicit nor explicit.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
The best I’m hoping for now is an amicable no-deal scenario where the PM and VDL agree that they can’t agree terms at this time but to avoid chaos on Jan 1st they’ll agree to suspend most checks for six months (basically what the EU suggested) and since Johnson isn’t planning to do anything other than Covid recovery until June he’ll accept the LPF clause until then. That’s not unreasonable gets us into a position where trade talks can possibly continue on a more limited basis and avoids the lorry park disaster.
I doubt there was much "agreeing", more instructed otherwise your fired. If they continue to get full pay, I don't think people will be very happy about that. It has been reported the staff at Sky News are very pissed at them.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Has any country had to accept a level playing field arrangement simply to land their planes in another?
Are people in Wales just getting unlucky in the shops, or is it half a scotch egg with 10 pints of lager that's infecting them all ?
Ironically, the Scots don't seem to be getting infected by scotch eggs, with or without 10 pints of heavy, to the same degree. Something different yet again. Steady application of established tiering?
I actually agree with you and that is Drakeford's big failure together with not having some restrictions when we came out of lockdown
Drakeford has been a disaster for Wales and not just on covid
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Those actively wanting no free trade agreement are I would say on the fringe. This does not mean that people would rather sign up to ludicrous demands just to get one. Dynamic regulatory alignment and giving up 80% of fishing resources for example.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
AIUI, without some sort of agreement to replace the agreements that automatically lapse on 31 December, EU planes won't be able to enter our airspace, and our planes won't be able to enter theirs. It may be that the same applies to other non-EU countries, given that we will no longer be party to the EU aviation agreements. In short, we need an agreement of some sort, otherwise no planes with be leaving or entering the country.
The best I’m hoping for now is an amicable no-deal scenario where the PM and VDL agree that they can’t agree terms at this time but to avoid chaos on Jan 1st they’ll agree to suspend most checks for six months (basically what the EU suggested) and since Johnson isn’t planning to do anything other than Covid recovery until June he’ll accept the LPF clause until then. That’s not unreasonable gets us into a position where trade talks can possibly continue on a more limited basis and avoids the lorry park disaster.
LPF clauses for six months, what's the point. Just how many regulations do they think will be implemented and will take effect before that has elapsed?
I doubt there was much "agreeing", more instructed otherwise your fired. If they continue to get full pay, I don't think people will be very happy about that. It has been reported the staff at Sky News are very pissed at them.
I cannot see anyway back for them - it is the Cummings effect
17,622 cases in England today, up from 11,992 last Thursday. Not good when the lockdown only ended five days ago and hence shouldn't affect numbers yet. I'd love to see evidence that this is due to tracing or lateral flow testing finding more cases, but I doubt it.
I doubt there was much "agreeing", more instructed otherwise your fired. If they continue to get full pay, I don't think people will be very happy about that. It has been reported the staff at Sky News are very pissed at them.
I cannot see anyway back for them - it is the Cummings effect
It is going to be rather hard to return to their usual shtick of haranguing politicians. That been said, Piers Moron somehow managed it.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
No these issues shouldn't be determined in international law. One of my whole reasons for voting for Brexit is that no Parliament should bind its successor and setting these issues in Europe means that eg Labour can pass a bad law and then eg the Tories can't reverse it - or vice-versa.
Being able to reverse your domestic laws is just as important as being able to pass them. They shouldn't be tied to international laws.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
You're making this up. The contingency plan in case of a no deal published by the EU today says quite the opposite. It has two clauses on making sure that our airlines can still operate on the continent for the next six months, presumably during which time future arrangements will be sorted. There is no threat, neither implicit nor explicit.
The threat is the LPF clause, which will give them 6 months to dream up as many harmful regulations as they can think of. If it was just non-regression then that would be fine.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
AIUI, without some sort of agreement to replace the agreements that automatically lapse on 31 December, EU planes won't be able to enter our airspace, and our planes won't be able to enter theirs. It may be that the same applies to other non-EU countries, given that we will no longer be party to the EU aviation agreements. In short, we need an agreement of some sort, otherwise no planes with be leaving or entering the country.
Feel free to correct me on this.
I am sure you are correct but a complete closure of European airspace would be madness by both the EU and UK
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
Isn't that because the other countries do the paperwork well in advance of cancelling the previous bumf?
You know that isn't the case - that part of the agreement will be fully written up, and could not have been done before now - it could not have been included in the WDA. The threat to withhold that basic arrangement unless they can shove the the least palatable parts of their negotiating position in with it is sheer blackmail, and you know it.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
AIUI, without some sort of agreement to replace the agreements that automatically lapse on 31 December, EU planes won't be able to enter our airspace, and our planes won't be able to enter theirs. It may be that the same applies to other non-EU countries, given that we will no longer be party to the EU aviation agreements. In short, we need an agreement of some sort, otherwise no planes with be leaving or entering the country.
Feel free to correct me on this.
I am sure you are correct but a complete closure of European airspace would be madness by both the EU and UK
Indeed. There is no reason why the EU shouldn't sign a permanent airspace agreement even for a no deal scenario in the next few days.
And if they threaten to shut us down then we're in the middle of a global pandemic. Say OK and shut them out of our air space too - but that would never happen because they're never in a million years going to shut down airspace because it is an insane suggestion like nuking Brussels or bricking up the Chunnel.
Time to be grown ups and agree what can be agreed on air space etc - and kick other issues on to the "no deal for now" pile.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Has any country had to accept a level playing field arrangement simply to land their planes in another?
The EU has set out details of continuing reciprocal airspace rights. But it's all in the game absolutely. Might we want to put some human rights clauses in an FTA with China?
Aside from the very conservative broad brush statements from the likes of Witty and Wear A Mask Next Winter Valance, has anyone come up with a sensible forecast of when the vaccination schedule will make a material hole in R and more importantly the hospitalisation data?
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
Perhaps because its up to the people of this country what they want in terms of legislation on workers rights not some foreign civil servant. If for example people wanted to vote for a party that reduced vat on electric and gas to 0% then they should be able to and not be told they can't.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
But the point of the ratchet clause is the new non regression point is based on *our own laws passed by our own parliament* and if we then choose to regress *we can* but the EU can defend itself using tariffs. Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws. It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
It is not a non regression thing though. If it was an agreement purely that neither would lower standards below that at the point of the deal I think it would have been done. What the EU is wanting though is that if they increase standards or introduce new ones that we have to implement them too....it is that which is unacceptable
Now what was I just saying about a month not being long enough....and we are going to go balls to the wall with the Christmas hall pass....
Yeah if they wanted to do the Christmas thing they needed to keep the lockdown in play until Dec 23rd. It’s another mistake in a litany of mistakes. Meanwhile Scotland’s numbers seem to be falling less dramatically but are still coming down (Zoe shows it in a gentle decline). I suspect that might be due to the L4 restrictions being in place across half the population so we’ll see what happens when Glasgow comes out into T3 on Friday.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Has any country had to accept a level playing field arrangement simply to land their planes in another?
The EU has set out details of continuing reciprocal airspace rights. But it's all in the game absolutely. Might we want to put some human rights clauses in an FTA with China?
But this isn't a FTA. They want LPF only in exchange for keeping flights going. No other country in the world is subject to that requirement.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
Isn't that because the other countries do the paperwork well in advance of cancelling the previous bumf?
You know that isn't the case - that part of the agreement will be fully written up, and could not have been done before now - it could not have been included in the WDA. The threat to withhold that basic arrangement unless they can shove the the least palatable parts of their negotiating position in with it is sheer blackmail, and you know it.
Oh really? Like "it's not fair of my ex-wife to demand half of my salary when she hasn'tr already given me the dog and hamster"?
Aside from the very conservative broad brush statements from the likes of Witty and Wear A Mask Next Winter Valance, has anyone come up with a sensible forecast of when the vaccination schedule will make a material hole in R and more importantly the hospitalisation data?
If the rollout goes to plan (and I've heard some interesting stories about that) we should make a huge dent in R by Easter.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Has any country had to accept a level playing field arrangement simply to land their planes in another?
The EU has set out details of continuing reciprocal airspace rights. But it's all in the game absolutely. Might we want to put some human rights clauses in an FTA with China?
But this isn't a FTA. They want LPF only in exchange for keeping flights going. No other country in the world is subject to that requirement.
Just imagine how bad it would be if the UK didn't hold all the cards.
Some years ago a group of undergrads at my old college (Christ Church) tried to launch a rocket from Tom Quad. The objective of the mission was to look for signs of intelligent life in Oriel.
Needless to say it was unsuccessful, but principally because the rocket failed to leave the launch pad.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
Aside from the very conservative broad brush statements from the likes of Witty and Wear A Mask Next Winter Valance, has anyone come up with a sensible forecast of when the vaccination schedule will make a material hole in R and more importantly the hospitalisation data?
If the rollout goes to plan (and I've heard some interesting stories about that) we should make a huge dent in R by Easter.
I thought the more excitable forecasts are that pretty much all over 60s and vulnerable groups would be done by then? Maybe it takes to Easter for R to come down to a tiny number but I’d have hoped given the focus on doing the over 80s this calendar year, we’d have very good news on hospitals numbers before then wouldn’t we?
Aside from the very conservative broad brush statements from the likes of Witty and Wear A Mask Next Winter Valance, has anyone come up with a sensible forecast of when the vaccination schedule will make a material hole in R and more importantly the hospitalisation data?
If the rollout goes to plan (and I've heard some interesting stories about that) we should make a huge dent in R by Easter.
I thought the more excitable forecasts are that pretty much all over 60s and vulnerable groups would be done by then? Maybe it takes to Easter for R to come down to a tiny number but I’d have hoped given the focus on doing the over 80s this calendar year, we’d have very good news on hospitals numbers before then wouldn’t we?
The government unfortunately have got this arse backwards.
They really should have vaccinated NHS and care home staff and key workers first.
Aside from the very conservative broad brush statements from the likes of Witty and Wear A Mask Next Winter Valance, has anyone come up with a sensible forecast of when the vaccination schedule will make a material hole in R and more importantly the hospitalisation data?
The NS did but now I can’t bloody find it. Long and short of it is they can probably reduce casualty rates by 40% if they can vaccinate all over 80s by mid January. It was a good analysis.
Some years ago a group of undergrads at my old college (Christ Church) tried to launch a rocket from Tom Quad. The objective of the mission was to look for signs of intelligent life in Oriel.
Needless to say it was unsuccessful, but principally because the rocket failed to leave the launch pad.
Was the return going to be a splashdown in the goldfish pond in Tom Quad?
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
No Deal is not just some abstract concept. It means the absence of a deal. Hence airspace, widgets, financial services, you name it.
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
Has any country had to accept a level playing field arrangement simply to land their planes in another?
The EU has set out details of continuing reciprocal airspace rights. But it's all in the game absolutely. Might we want to put some human rights clauses in an FTA with China?
But this isn't a FTA. They want LPF only in exchange for keeping flights going. No other country in the world is subject to that requirement.
Isn't this LPF limited to aviation matters, though? Presumably it would cover things like pilot qualifications, etc, and would only be for a limited time. That doesn't seem too awful a thing for the UK to agree to in order to avoid the worst of the chaos.
Re the Texas case before the Supreme Court: it requires five of the Justices to even agree to hear the case.
I can't see how they get there. Indeed, the Texas Attorney General has far less standing than the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case that SCOTUS refused to hear.
We could hear as soon as this afternoon that SCOTUS is not taking the case, or it could be tomorrow. But it's hard to see anything other than a one-line rejection.
Aside from the very conservative broad brush statements from the likes of Witty and Wear A Mask Next Winter Valance, has anyone come up with a sensible forecast of when the vaccination schedule will make a material hole in R and more importantly the hospitalisation data?
The NS did but now I can’t bloody find it. Long and short of it is they can probably reduce casualty rates by 40% if they can vaccinate all over 80s by mid January. It was a good analysis.
Aside from the very conservative broad brush statements from the likes of Witty and Wear A Mask Next Winter Valance, has anyone come up with a sensible forecast of when the vaccination schedule will make a material hole in R and more importantly the hospitalisation data?
Wales with its rather limited restrictions up to last Friday seemed to have an R of 1.5, so to push that below 1.0 you'd need a third of the population to be vaccinated.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
Some years ago a group of undergrads at my old college (Christ Church) tried to launch a rocket from Tom Quad. The objective of the mission was to look for signs of intelligent life in Oriel.
Needless to say it was unsuccessful, but principally because the rocket failed to leave the launch pad.
Where was the proposed landing site? Anywhere near Staircase 1 and they would definitely have struggled...
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Quite so. I'm not sure why so many on here make it seem more complicated than it really is. We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose. Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
No, it isn't that simple, because now the EU is saying if we don't sign up for an FTA with them (or an agreement with all the obligations of one) they prevent our airlines etc. from operating on the continent - something that no other country, FTA or otherwise, is subjected to. Hardly 'take it or leave it' - it's 'take it or take it'. We should thank them for demonstrating what utter bullshit they are, and get on with life outside.
On my flight radar most all European flights over fly our airspace
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
Yes, the one thing worse than a No Deal Brexit is a hostile No Deal Brexit...
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
Comments
Boris by contrast timed his Lockdown to Christmas perfection. New Year might not be so clever, however he saved Christmas. Hats off!
As I've consistently said, I'm excited about the prospects of not being tied in to an FTA with the EU, even more excited if it's something they're prepared to threaten a blockade to avoid - if it's going to be the outcome, let's get to it.
Lacking in respect....
We chose to leave the EU club. Now we want an FTA with them. The EU says - well, you've left the club so these are our conditions for an FTA. Like it or lump it. We say - that's not fair. The EU says - well we didn't ask you to leave, you chose to. So, if you want an FTA with us that doesn't jeopardise the single market, these are our terms. You choose.
Isn't it as simple as that? The fact that the EU may be cutting off its nose to spite its face is neither here nor there. We made the big choice in 2016.
If you don't squash transmission far enough, rates grow really quickly when you release. That is why it was a failure. The same argument has been made about why the NW was hit so hard in autumn, that there was a failure to ever really squash down transmission at the right time, pressure released, and off to the races.
But on this one, no. It's a bit like saying to that speed cop who catches you doing 100 that if it wasn't for Drakeford's firebreak you'd have been doing 125.
Also, your last sentence is why no deal is going to happen. If we're going to take the economic damage of no deal, why bother with any kind of deal?
Conversely I voted Leave, because I couldn’t see a future for the UK in an EU which must move towards full fiscal (and hence political) union, if the Euro is not to fatally undermine the long term productivity and social cohesion of the continent. But I did so thinking it was a shame and potentially risky to make a break with countries that were firm allies, given the external threats from Xi and Putin. And that at least we’d depart as friends, with close trading ties and pretty well aligned political interests.
But to be honest I must now put aside any earlier concerns I may have had about leaving. The EU’s apparent refusal to negotiate sensibly on a very basic goods-only free trade agreement is quite extraordinary, given:
a) we start from a position of total alignment,
b) the terms of goods trade are stacked firmly in the EU’s favour,
c) the UK has honoured all financial obligations and arguably far above,
d) Not only do we share criminal and security intelligence with each other, the UK and France have intimate military cooperation and exchange of commanding officers.
Given all this I have to believe this is all just stage management for voters and brinksmanship. Because whatever sarcastic replies Continuity Remain might make, this really should have been the easiest trade deal in history from both sides’ perspective.
But if it really can’t get done because of what to any impartial observer are quite obscene demands from the EU side, then goodbye and good riddance and don’t expect us to come calling for a deal again. I’ll happily buy my imports and holiday in the rest of the world thank you very much.
If you trust the EU, you will get BFONTed (in the words of John McKane). It's just what happens.
This was part of the issue with the EU we could only vote for things they approved off. A lot of labour's manifesto in 2019 would have had the eu saying no you can't do that for example.
The other major problem was also that politicians used it to make an end run around their own electorates and get laws passed that they wanted that they wouldn't get through their national bodies such as admitted here
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-used-bypass-national-democracy-home-office-minister-admits-a6680341.html
You decide to only take half the prescribed course, as you feel like the infection has got a lot better, but no real idea if it has worked or not, and then it returns a week or two after you stopped taking them (because you haven't actually killed off the underlying cause fully).
(i) Rank incompetence from this Boris Johnson government.
(ii) We WILL be accepting LPF and doing the deal.
I say (ii).
Todays trip for Personalised Christmas cards has been cancelled and all have been bought on line
I have just spent £300 with Amazon on gift vouchers and will continue to ensure hands face space is strictly followed
Oh and the financial services sector taking a massive hit when we leave the aegises of the EU.
Now they could have said there is no deal then but they haven't, negotiations are still ongoing. In which case it's possible they'll change their mind in which case a deal is viable.
in Walesjust getting unlucky in the shops, or is it half a scotch egg with 10 pints of lager that's infecting them all ?The only explanation I can come up with (apart from howling incompetence, but that's boring) is that the political optics of FTA Brexit are too grim to show the public. That if the necessary systems were visible or described, that would be enough to give the project a further knock sufficient to risk its completion.
That's like taking a course of antibiotics to cure a dose of the clap and then once your todger looks fine having bareback sex with a hooker?
(Sorry Nigel for the analogy.)
If the EU want to play stupid games it does not take much imagination to see a response
We don't get to have just a few things because they are in a state of non-existence until they are negotiated. We don't get them because we are British damnit.
No deal means our trading relationship is not there and the two countries are approaching this from scratch. Of course we have agreements which might or might not be used as a basis for any future agreement.
That is what no dealers want.
And they might get it. Good and hard.
We know by now that if it is high in a concentrated area it can take a hell of a long time to really change the tide. As I say, I am not sure even a month was long enough in the UK.
To add weight to my point, NI, didn't go for the post 2 week antibiotic hooker sess and still ended up back in a lockdown a few weeks later.
The supermarkets are not going to fill the shelves with coconuts because they can't get onions from Holland, and nobody would buy them if they did
Perhaps the government believed quite reasonably that they would do the same for us, being our "friends".
I wonder if it would be different if we weren't negotiating with the EU commission but with the member countries directly. The two might not necessarily have the same objectives.
I don't like Brexit. I feel it makes us tremendously vulnerable during a period of change (i.e. rise of China). I also don't like the EU as a political construct, and it's stubborness to move on issues (though I understand entirely why they take this approach).
This is about the EUs survival as much as anything. Interestingly a commentator did make a point earlier that it is interesting to see the EU have concern over a large competitive neighbour and the fact it doesn't necessarily give off a sense of confidence over its own protectionist tendencies. There's probably some truth in that.
Without that right, the EU might be forced to lower its regulations to match ours or face its firms going out of business. So all they are doing is protecting *their* right to set their own laws.
It seems like a reasonable protection of their sovereignty that leaves ours intact. It's a strange hill to die on.
Drakeford has been a disaster for Wales and not just on covid
Fortunately vdL has a proposal on a mini dead to keep the planes flying and lorries rolling.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1336973232159776769?s=09
Utter twat. No wonder the May manifesto imploded in flames on contact with air.
The gross miscalculation Macron is making is that he thinks come April the UK will come crawling back for a deal on punitive terms it won’t accept now and that a deal can be signed off in 2022 on any terms the EU likes. This wouldn’t make any sense for the UK, given any disruption to supply chains and relocation of staff / headquarters would already have occurred and likely not be reversed even with a deal implemented. And it also misunderstands the British psyche and more importantly that of Conservative Party members, who faced with such provocation are more likely to replace the PM with an ultra Brexiteer than one of the few Remainers left in the Parliamentary Party.
Feel free to correct me on this.
Being able to reverse your domestic laws is just as important as being able to pass them. They shouldn't be tied to international laws.
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1337070822788304907
What a bizarre notion.
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1337071119950602242
https://twitter.com/a_n_s/status/1336741871977115649
And if they threaten to shut us down then we're in the middle of a global pandemic. Say OK and shut them out of our air space too - but that would never happen because they're never in a million years going to shut down airspace because it is an insane suggestion like nuking Brussels or bricking up the Chunnel.
Time to be grown ups and agree what can be agreed on air space etc - and kick other issues on to the "no deal for now" pile.
Needless to say it was unsuccessful, but principally because the rocket failed to leave the launch pad.
They really should have vaccinated NHS and care home staff and key workers first.
I can't see how they get there. Indeed, the Texas Attorney General has far less standing than the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case that SCOTUS refused to hear.
We could hear as soon as this afternoon that SCOTUS is not taking the case, or it could be tomorrow. But it's hard to see anything other than a one-line rejection.
https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1337068311834669060
Dunno how plausible it is.