Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
If you had an unexpected bill six days before payday why not just phone the creditor up and tell them you'd be paying it six days late?
That can hit your credit record and future relationship with the creditor.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
If you had an unexpected bill six days before payday why not just phone the creditor up and tell them you'd be paying it six days late?
Lots of reasons, it would go on your credit file as a missed payment, it might take an hour to get through and actually speak to someone, (at the time) you might get charged quite a bit for the phone call.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
That would be Wonga, founded in October 2006, with a full market launch in July 2008. Are you high?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
If you had an unexpected bill six days before payday why not just phone the creditor up and tell them you'd be paying it six days late?
Direct debits are awkward to delay.
Agreed, but they shouldn't be unexpected.
However, on reflection my earlier post was crass. I don't know @Casino_Royale's circumstances and if he felt Wonga were the best option he must have been in a tough situation.
The level playing field is an illusion. There is no such thing.
So Germany, for example, has a vastly superior education system. Maybe not for their top 5% but for the bulk of their population. They are more productive. This is exacerbated by their tendency to invest much more than we do. The result is generally superior products at more competitive prices in the world market. Well done them.
Now you add the LPF illusion. What you are saying is that those advantages should be consolidated, that their competitive advantages should not be vulnerable to us having a more flexible labour market (lower employment standards), a willingness to tolerate some pollution to get jobs (lower environmental standards) and a willingness as a society to invest in an industry to remain competitive (government aid).
Which, if you are Germany , makes a lot of sense. You protect your competitive advantage, your trade surplus and you stop people competing with you in other ways that are categorised as "unfair".
If you are in a club of countries that are broadly at the same level as the EEC was this may be tolerable. The upsides may outweigh the downsides (such as a permanent and large trade deficit in our case). But when we are no longer in that club what exactly are the upsides? We have to trade off our uncompetitive trade and deficit for what exactly? Access to a market that we are not competitive in. Hmm...
Those UK businesses selling into the Single Market are clearly competitive within it. How do they and their employees benefit from having reduced access to it?
UK plc is not and has not been competitive in the SM since its origin and the price of those sales is more unemployment in this country and increasing foreign ownership of our assets. This is what people don't see. They look at jobs in Nissan and miss the fact that jobs are lost because the vast majority of our cars are BMWs, Audis, Renaults and Fiats, all of which are jobs lost to this country, purchasing power lost to this country and a lower standard of living as a result.
Every country will have deficits in some areas and surpluses in others. I do not deny the laws of competitive advantage. But the net situation really needs to balance and ours doesn't. We need to do something about that. Our government is being asked not to by the LPF provisions. They are being asked to commit to staying in the same position we have been in for the last 20 years.
Well we've made a pretty lousy start, then.
Pretty well the entirety of production of the new generation of cars, and the battery production that goes with it, will be built in Europe. The only large scale battery development which has been announced here is the 'Britishvolt' factory (which has just decided to relocate from Wales to Northumberland). Everything else in terms of production - Tesla, the Chinese and South Korean factories - are being built on the continent.
And many of those decisions about inward investment are strongly influenced by Brexit.
Why would any manufacturer invest in the U.K. right now unless it was to serve the domestic market?
Minford was “right”: Brexit will crush manufacturing. Except he saw that as a good thing.
I wonder if any governments had bet heavily on it?
EU placed an order for 300 million doses...it was their main bet.
...and? Everyone was blindfold and pinning the tail on the donkey, it just happens the UK Government made an inspired guess.
On something they have had control over, namely an EU trade deal they appear, so far, to be less inspired. Perhaps they should have "guessed" the trade deal too!
Yet we were treated to multiple pasted tweets telling us that the UK should join the EU vaccine scheme because it was going to be so much better than anything the UK could ever arrange.
I do not see those positions as incompatible. Failure to reach a trade deal between the UK and the EU will be a failure of statecraft for all concerned on both sides of the fence. But it is looking increasingly likely to occur. To infer that this is one side's fault is simplistic.
As a UK citizen and voter even if there is blame on both sides (there probably is but its not evenly shared), its pretty irrelevant to us. We can only hold accountable those we elect.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
If you had an unexpected bill six days before payday why not just phone the creditor up and tell them you'd be paying it six days late?
That can hit your credit record and future relationship with the creditor.
So Cameron was PM around 2250 days, and May for around 1100 days. Based on the progression Boris will be PM for around 530 days, which means he should be replaced in about a month or so. So no worries.
While the Sanofi/GSK COVID vaccine may only be delayed (insufficient immune response among older subjects), the Australia vaccine work has stopped (false positive HIV test returns):
Bloomberg mangling the language - "failure is now a real option". It's a possibility. Who would choose failure?
Boris has total freedom to chose a deal. If we have No Deal, he will have chosen failure.
Not in his eyes. Nor mine.
Well, sorry to say it but you are a gullible fool then. The only diplomatic failure bigger than this would be war. Johnson has failed on everything he said he would deliver re Brexit since 2016. The man is a walking disaster area, and his apologists are even worse
I don't deny that the whole process looks like a failure of statecraft - by Brussels as well as by Cameron and May before Johnson. But given where he started Johnson's performance has not been a failure in my opinion. But then I'm a gullible fool in your eyes. You can think what you like.
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
Quite right. Boris gets away with a lot as a politician because of the charming-affable-buffoon-but-heart's-in-the-right-place persona he's honed to perfection over many years. No Deal will be an example of such bumbling haplessness that everyone will start to ask 'What really is the point of Boris?' There'll be no answer.
A useful clear description of the problem. Thank you. Two questions: I have often heard it said that in fact our farming standards are higher than those required in the EU as a whole. Is this true?
Secondly, with regard to "cheaper/nastier" products; some examples would be helpful. What sort of products, and cheaper and nastier in what sort of way is the EU fearing we will poison/kill/maim them with? The domestic pressures not to allow products that are useless, and labour force pressures not to allow slave labour should be enough?
On point 1: no, not systematically. I know most about animal welfare standards, though I believe the same applies to other areas. Like other European countries, we have chosen to raise required standards above the minimum EU level in various selective ways. Where the standard is not required, we have the full range of farms from excellent to almost disgusting, like all the other countries. It would be true to say we are in the best 25%, but individual products are produced in Britain in ways that would be unlawful in some European countries and this appears likely to increase - e.g. the EU is considering banning hen cages (convenient for the farmer so saves money, but cruel to the hen, who cannot perform natural behaviour), but Britain is currently not.
On point 2, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics on farms causes risks to human health. If you think your herd might be at risk from an illness, it's tempting to give them ALL antibiotics of types also used in humans. The antibiotics leak into the human supply chain and accelerate the tendency of bugs to resist antibiotics. Generally-accepted best practice (about to be mandatory in the EU) is only to give the antibiotic to animals who are in fact sick. Britain is so far resisting this reform, because indiscriminate use is commonplace in Britain, though the industry has made efforts to reduce it. (As a matter of interest, the US is even worse - an issue for trade talks.)
The issues are not yet enormous - up to this month the basic standards have, after all, been the same. But it's clearly going to be an issue, and our demand to be allowed to refuse to adopt new standards but still trade on equal terms is not viable in the long term.
If there isn't a mechanism for selective tariffs to respond to divergence in the agreement, then that will eventually lead to destabilisation of the whole agreement, i.e. threats to terminate the thing to try to force renegotiation. So the dynamic alignment measures can be thought of as a pressure valve that can keep the damage limited to particular areas and can keep the agreement going for longer.
If the divergence tariffs are used in bad faith, there still is the option of walking away from the agreement at that point.
I do not see those positions as incompatible. Failure to reach a trade deal between the UK and the EU will be a failure of statecraft for all concerned on both sides of the fence. But it is looking increasingly likely to occur. To infer that this is one side's fault is simplistic.
As a UK citizen and voter even if there is blame on both sides (there probably is but its not evenly shared), its pretty irrelevant to us. We can only hold accountable those we elect.
It might affect how much people choose to hold him to account, but I'd agree the effect is limited. Once Covid costs hit many governments I doubt they will avoid hits even where it was things beyond their control as an example. You punish what's in front of you.
I wonder if any governments had bet heavily on it?
EU placed an order for 300 million doses...it was their main bet.
...and? Everyone was blindfold and pinning the tail on the donkey, it just happens the UK Government made an inspired guess.
On something they have had control over, namely an EU trade deal they appear, so far, to be less inspired. Perhaps they should have "guessed" the trade deal too!
Yet we were treated to multiple pasted tweets telling us that the UK should join the EU vaccine scheme because it was going to be so much better than anything the UK could ever arrange.
Yes, I'm confused why it mattered if it was indeed just blind luck.
I wonder if any governments had bet heavily on it?
EU placed an order for 300 million doses...it was their main bet.
Imagine the number of Tweets from Scott if the UK Government had placed an order for the Sanofi vaccine
Vaccine support (and selection and, it seems, procurement) is one of the few areas this year in which I'm happy to say the government has done well. We've got Pfizer/BioNTech's already and we're well set to have good supplies of the cheap, easy and apparently sufficiently effective AZ/Oxford vaccine. Money well spent and we should applaud that.
However this ends I don’t appreciate having my livelihood and my children’s future being gambled like this.
You do that every time you vote Labour.
How are you feeling? Your hopes for EFTA, EEA and all that must seem like the distant dreams of childhood.
Very happy thankyou. Unlike Remoaners I don't consider it the end of the world and sulk when I don't get every single thing I want. It's called being an adult. Something the EUfanatics should try sometime.
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
Can you give me some evidence that Wonga even issued a loan while Blair was PM? According to my unimpeachable source (Wikipedia) the first year after incorporation (i.e. Aug 2006 to AUg 2007) was spent perfecting the software. Or am I missing something?
So Cameron was PM around 2250 days, and May for around 1100 days. Based on the progression Boris will be PM for around 530 days, which means he should be replaced in about a month or so. So no worries.
That's just science, people.
Though that does mean that Johnson's successor will fail to last out 2021, and we will need an infinite number of Prime Ministers for 2022.
Geometric decay is sometimes as bad as exponential growth.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Bloomberg mangling the language - "failure is now a real option". It's a possibility. Who would choose failure?
Boris has total freedom to chose a deal. If we have No Deal, he will have chosen failure.
Not in his eyes. Nor mine.
Well, sorry to say it but you are a gullible fool then. The only diplomatic failure bigger than this would be war. Johnson has failed on everything he said he would deliver re Brexit since 2016. The man is a walking disaster area, and his apologists are even worse
I don't deny that the whole process looks like a failure of statecraft - by Brussels as well as by Cameron and May before Johnson. But given where he started Johnson's performance has not been a failure in my opinion. But then I'm a gullible fool in your eyes. You can think what you like.
If we wanted no deal why not start preparing for it properly as soon he took over?
If he wanted a deal he would have got a better one with a less confrontational approach and he would have got it earlier which would have saved tens of thousands of jobs and stopped hundreds of billions leaving the UK.
Steve Hay, from Bournemouth, arrived in Lanzarote on Thursday evening for a seven-day break with his family.
They now face cutting it short to avoid a quarantine period that could potentially run until New Year's Eve - effectively cancelling their Christmas plans in the UK.
"How will we do our Christmas shopping?" Mr Hay said. "I think it's shocking and doesn't appear much thought has gone into it.
"Why is it being implemented so quick, this only gives us tomorrow to get back.
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
So Cameron was PM around 2250 days, and May for around 1100 days. Based on the progression Boris will be PM for around 530 days, which means he should be replaced in about a month or so. So no worries.
That's just science, people.
Though that does mean that Johnson's successor will fail to last out 2021, and we will need an infinite number of Prime Ministers for 2022.
Geometric decay is sometimes as bad as exponential growth.
No no no. What happens is his successor takes over for a few months to a snap election, then that next person from a new party starts the cycle all over.
It works perfectly as a rule so long as no one looks at the historical data.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
That's a terrific soundbite HYUFD. I am sure that the Tories will be using it to shoot down anyone who quotes Turnbull - espcially given they appointed the bloke Turnbull replaced as a trade guru.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Did Abbott and Morrison win 'big' majorities? Majorities certainly, but Morrisons was pretty tight as majorities go wasnt it?
Bloomberg mangling the language - "failure is now a real option". It's a possibility. Who would choose failure?
Boris has total freedom to chose a deal. If we have No Deal, he will have chosen failure.
Not in his eyes. Nor mine.
Well, sorry to say it but you are a gullible fool then. The only diplomatic failure bigger than this would be war. Johnson has failed on everything he said he would deliver re Brexit since 2016. The man is a walking disaster area, and his apologists are even worse
I don't deny that the whole process looks like a failure of statecraft - by Brussels as well as by Cameron and May before Johnson. But given where he started Johnson's performance has not been a failure in my opinion. But then I'm a gullible fool in your eyes. You can think what you like.
If we wanted no deal why not start preparing for it properly as soon he took over?
If he wanted a deal he would have got a better one with a less confrontational approach and he would have got it earlier which would have saved tens of thousands of jobs and stopped hundreds of billions leaving the UK.
Indecision is the root of the failure.
Indeed.
Either he wanted a deal, but has failed to achieve one. Which is a failure that will hurt us all.
Or he never wanted a deal. In which case he has been dishonest, and reckless, by failing to prepare.
I do not see those positions as incompatible. Failure to reach a trade deal between the UK and the EU will be a failure of statecraft for all concerned on both sides of the fence. But it is looking increasingly likely to occur. To infer that this is one side's fault is simplistic.
Of course it isn't. We have by far the most to lose. We've had more than four years to prepare, and the timetable - following on from triggering A50 - was ours to choose. We were promised an easy deal preserving current benefits including frictionless trade. We had the option of buying more time, at any stage. And we're doing the whole thing voluntarily. It would be a massive failure.
Exactly, so the Leaver Blame game really wont wash. It is also why Johnson is on a very slippery slope. He can try to do his Bulldog act but Tory MPs are going to start panicking if the Spring elections are the kind of massacre that is now well in prospect. So 21 departure for BoZo looks like the favourite.
I think the Spring elections will be more mixed.
The county council elections where the Tories had an 11% lead when the seats were last up in 2017 will likely see significant Tory losses to Labour given current polls now have the main parties tied, as will the Mayoral and Assembly elections in Remain heavy London.
However the District and Metropolitan and Unitary elections last up in 2016 saw Labour have a 1% lead so are likely to be relatively much better for the Tories. In Scotland too the Tories only got 22% in the 2016 Holyrood elections but 25% in Scotland at the 2019 general election and in Wales the Tories only got 21% at the 2016 Senedd elections but the Tories got 36% in Wales at the 2019 general election, so the Tories may even make gains outside England, especially in Wales
Steve Hay, from Bournemouth, arrived in Lanzarote on Thursday evening for a seven-day break with his family.
They now face cutting it short to avoid a quarantine period that could potentially run until New Year's Eve - effectively cancelling their Christmas plans in the UK.
"How will we do our Christmas shopping?" Mr Hay said. "I think it's shocking and doesn't appear much thought has gone into it.
"Why is it being implemented so quick, this only gives us tomorrow to get back.
I can understand why it's difficult to tell people to not visit relatives at Christmas, but it really shouldn't have been hard to put a stop to people going abroad just for a holiday.
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Did Abbott and Morrison win 'big' majorities? Majorities certainly, but Morrisons was pretty tight as majorities go wasnt it?
Morrison gained a seat in 2019, Turnbull lost 14 seats in 2016, Abbott gained 18 seats in 2013.
Morrison's majority may not be as big as Abbott's was in 2013 admittedly but he still gained a seat while Turnbull lost seats
So Cameron was PM around 2250 days, and May for around 1100 days. Based on the progression Boris will be PM for around 530 days, which means he should be replaced in about a month or so. So no worries.
That's just science, people.
Though that does mean that Johnson's successor will fail to last out 2021, and we will need an infinite number of Prime Ministers for 2022.
Geometric decay is sometimes as bad as exponential growth.
No no no. What happens is his successor takes over for a few months to a snap election, then that next person from a new party starts the cycle all over.
It works perfectly as a rule so long as no one looks at the historical data.
Boris had seemed to be improving on the health front, not struggling for breath so much. But above the neckline he does still seem not always to grasp what he is being asked, as in the India question. Is Boris sufficiently self-aware, like Wilson, to notice his own decline, or will he want to go on and on like Mrs Thatcher?
However this ends I don’t appreciate having my livelihood and my children’s future being gambled like this.
You do that every time you vote Labour.
How are you feeling? Your hopes for EFTA, EEA and all that must seem like the distant dreams of childhood.
Very happy thankyou. Unlike Remoaners I don't consider it the end of the world and sulk when I don't get every single thing I want. It's called being an adult. Something the EUfanatics should try sometime.
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
An odd thing about the discussion is that nobody outside seems clear about what the discussions are about.
And your proposals seem fair to me - a double sided ratchet system with independent arbitration should work in the real world.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
Good post.
Difficulty is distinguishing between those making good use of a service to everyone's benefit and the loss to the supplier and customer if you remove it, and the harm it does to others who are just plain desperate and sink further into debt if you don't
Another element of this was the use of arrangement fees or the claim that the very high interest rates were exploitative. However in your case CR where you borrowed for a very short time the use of an arrangement fee or a high interest rate that covered that admin cost was not exploitative but fair. However for someone who gets sucked into a long term debt it is exploitative.
So the same product can be both filling a market need to the benefit of both parties or completely evil depending upon who the customer is.
I wonder if any governments had bet heavily on it?
EU placed an order for 300 million doses...it was their main bet.
Imagine the number of Tweets from Scott if the UK Government had placed an order for the Sanofi vaccine
Vaccine support (and selection and, it seems, procurement) is one of the few areas this year in which I'm happy to say the government has done well. We've got Pfizer/BioNTech's already and we're well set to have good supplies of the cheap, easy and apparently sufficiently effective AZ/Oxford vaccine. Money well spent and we should applaud that.
And it does put into perspective the brouhaha over the AZN vaccine. Bottom line is that it looks pretty good - especially compared to the alternative of waiting another 6-12 months for one of the others.
@dura_ace Changing subject. We were discussing yesterday whether or not the general belgrano and/or its escorts ought to have detected conqueror. Any views?
One of the reasons that the casualties were so high was that she had no idea S48 was in the vicinity. If they did they would have been at Action Stations/General Quarters and closed the torpedo bulkheads.
CWB had quite a cruise in '82. After he sank the Belgrano he sailed north to the Baltic and severed, for later recovery, the towed sonar array of a Soviet intelligence gathering ship disguised as a trawler.
Bloomberg mangling the language - "failure is now a real option". It's a possibility. Who would choose failure?
Boris has total freedom to chose a deal. If we have No Deal, he will have chosen failure.
Not in his eyes. Nor mine.
Well, sorry to say it but you are a gullible fool then. The only diplomatic failure bigger than this would be war. Johnson has failed on everything he said he would deliver re Brexit since 2016. The man is a walking disaster area, and his apologists are even worse
I don't deny that the whole process looks like a failure of statecraft - by Brussels as well as by Cameron and May before Johnson. But given where he started Johnson's performance has not been a failure in my opinion. But then I'm a gullible fool in your eyes. You can think what you like.
If we wanted no deal why not start preparing for it properly as soon he took over?
If he wanted a deal he would have got a better one with a less confrontational approach and he would have got it earlier which would have saved tens of thousands of jobs and stopped hundreds of billions leaving the UK.
Indecision is the root of the failure.
Indeed.
Either he wanted a deal, but has failed to achieve one. Which is a failure that will hurt us all.
Or he never wanted a deal. In which case he has been dishonest, and reckless, by failing to prepare.
Whatever the outcome, he's had over a year, with a large parliamentary majority to impose whatever policy he wishes. He and his government will own the results.
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
Why should we accept that they have the right to offset the consequences of another daft policy (like GDPR) reducing their competitiveness by imposing penalties on us if we choose not to follow suite? What sort of a FTA is that?
I am not saying that we don't accept an idea like this to get a deal over the line but its not immediately attractive.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
I think the polling bears your last point out. Lots of people on the right seem to think the EU will be blamed for this. To a point. Everyone knows we can't control what the "enemy" (as they like to see the EU) do. To use their favoured analogy, Chamberlain's policies were pretty popular right up to the point that people saw they were not working. Sure, they blamed Hitler for starting the war, but didn't give a free pass to Chamberlain for not dealing with him or properly preparing - however much appeasment had been popular for much of the late 30s.
Even if the EU is blamed for trashing negotiations, responsibility for not forseeing and preparing for that eventuality can only be placed on the head one person - Johnson. It's no good him saying "we didn't expect them to be so difficult" - it was his job to anticipate that they might be so. It was his job prepare for such an obvious possibility. If I said to a client "oh, I didn't think they would actually make good on the threat and actually sue us! Not my fault" then I would lose the client.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull? Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is. Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Heseltine and Clark were both Conservatives, young HY. So is Turnbull. Certainly not Liberals. It seems to me that you are getting really mixed up in your attempts to rewrite history and reset the current terms of reference.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
Why should we accept that they have the right to offset the consequences of another daft policy (like GDPR) reducing their competitiveness by imposing penalties on us if we choose not to follow suite? What sort of a FTA is that?
I am not saying that we don't accept an idea like this to get a deal over the line but its not immediately attractive.
Its immediately attractive for the immediate future.
If in a few years it no longer looks good then you look to change it or exit from it.
@dura_ace Changing subject. We were discussing yesterday whether or not the general belgrano and/or its escorts ought to have detected conqueror. Any views?
One of the reasons that the casualties were so high was that she had no idea S48 was in the vicinity. If they did they would have been at Action Stations/General Quarters and closed the torpedo bulkheads.
CWB had quite a cruise in '82. After he sank the Belgrano he sailed north to the Baltic and severed, for later recovery, the towed sonar array of a Soviet intelligence gathering ship disguised as a trawler.
Many thanks. I went to Uni with an RN officer and I seem to remember him saying subs werent that easy to detect.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Perhaps you've missed the excellent posts from Rochdale Pioneers on why things will be difficult.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
Good post.
Difficulty is distinguishing between those making good use of a service to everyone's benefit and the loss to the supplier and customer if you remove it, and the harm it does to others who are just plain desperate and sink further into debt if you don't
Another element of this was the use of arrangement fees or the claim that the very high interest rates were exploitative. However in your case CR where you borrowed for a very short time the use of an arrangement fee or a high interest rate that covered that admin cost was not exploitative but fair. However for someone who gets sucked into a long term debt it is exploitative.
So the same product can be both filling a market need to the benefit of both parties or completely evil depending upon who the customer is.
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
If you had an unexpected bill six days before payday why not just phone the creditor up and tell them you'd be paying it six days late?
That can hit your credit record and future relationship with the creditor.
The level playing field is an illusion. There is no such thing.
So Germany, for example, has a vastly superior education system. Maybe not for their top 5% but for the bulk of their population. They are more productive. This is exacerbated by their tendency to invest much more than we do. The result is generally superior products at more competitive prices in the world market. Well done them.
Now you add the LPF illusion. What you are saying is that those advantages should be consolidated, that their competitive advantages should not be vulnerable to us having a more flexible labour market (lower employment standards), a willingness to tolerate some pollution to get jobs (lower environmental standards) and a willingness as a society to invest in an industry to remain competitive (government aid).
Which, if you are Germany , makes a lot of sense. You protect your competitive advantage, your trade surplus and you stop people competing with you in other ways that are categorised as "unfair".
If you are in a club of countries that are broadly at the same level as the EEC was this may be tolerable. The upsides may outweigh the downsides (such as a permanent and large trade deficit in our case). But when we are no longer in that club what exactly are the upsides? We have to trade off our uncompetitive trade and deficit for what exactly? Access to a market that we are not competitive in. Hmm...
Those UK businesses selling into the Single Market are clearly competitive within it. How do they and their employees benefit from having reduced access to it?
UK plc is not and has not been competitive in the SM since its origin and the price of those sales is more unemployment in this country and increasing foreign ownership of our assets. This is what people don't see. They look at jobs in Nissan and miss the fact that jobs are lost because the vast majority of our cars are BMWs, Audis, Renaults and Fiats, all of which are jobs lost to this country, purchasing power lost to this country and a lower standard of living as a result.
Every country will have deficits in some areas and surpluses in others. I do not deny the laws of competitive advantage. But the net situation really needs to balance and ours doesn't. We need to do something about that. Our government is being asked not to by the LPF provisions. They are being asked to commit to staying in the same position we have been in for the last 20 years.
You forget services which will be in a much worse position if there is No deal than now. Much worse.
And these services provide in normal times a very significant part of our tax revenues. Some of them have been hard hit by Covid and now they are going to be even harder hit with No Deal.
Even in a Deal they are being ignored.
Quite why a government which claims to want to improve things has forgotten about those areas of the economy which employ more people and bring in more revenues than fishing ever has or ever will beats me.
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
Why should we accept that they have the right to offset the consequences of another daft policy (like GDPR) reducing their competitiveness by imposing penalties on us if we choose not to follow suite? What sort of a FTA is that?
I am not saying that we don't accept an idea like this to get a deal over the line but its not immediately attractive.
Its immediately attractive for the immediate future.
If in a few years it no longer looks good then you look to change it or exit from it.
Fair enough. As I say I would not be up in arms about it. I have said many times that our arrangements with the EU will continue to evolve after any initial deal.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
I need to stockpile things that Iceland sell like roses, hero’s corned beef etc but then maybe not although I do want some more mince pies and a Xmas cake.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Perhaps you've missed the excellent posts from Rochdale Pioneers on why things will be difficult.
I mean he only works in the supermarket sector.
Funnily enough Rochdale Pioneers isn't the only available source on this.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Perhaps you've missed the excellent posts from Rochdale Pioneers on why things will be difficult.
I mean he only works in the supermarket sector.
Funnily enough Rochdale Pioneers isn't the only available source on this.
Indeed, but there's also the Chief Execs of Sainsbury's, Tesco, and others.
However this ends I don’t appreciate having my livelihood and my children’s future being gambled like this.
You do that every time you vote Labour.
How are you feeling? Your hopes for EFTA, EEA and all that must seem like the distant dreams of childhood.
Very happy thankyou. Unlike Remoaners I don't consider it the end of the world and sulk when I don't get every single thing I want. It's called being an adult. Something the EUfanatics should try sometime.
Ha ha, my side hasn't won an election of note since 2005 and I'm not sulking. It's the Brexit-supporting right-wing types who always seem to be moaning these days - BLM, the EU's negotiating stance, Covid restrictions, the BBC, is there anything that doesn't wind you guys up?
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
Why should we accept that they have the right to offset the consequences of another daft policy (like GDPR) reducing their competitiveness by imposing penalties on us if we choose not to follow suite? What sort of a FTA is that?
I am not saying that we don't accept an idea like this to get a deal over the line but its not immediately attractive.
I have no problem with the EU setting rules for tariff and red tape free access to the SM. It's their club. And I dont see having to abide by those rules as impinging on UK sovereignty. It would be totally our choice what we do. But it could have consequences. As with most choices.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Perhaps you've missed the excellent posts from Rochdale Pioneers on why things will be difficult.
I mean he only works in the supermarket sector.
Funnily enough Rochdale Pioneers isn't the only available source on this.
Exactly what I said- in fact better. No point in panic buying, some temporary disruption in short-life fresh foods, and that will only be for a month or two - before back to normal.
"The chairman of Britain’s biggest supermarket warned that the end of the transition period could trigger temporary disruption of food imports and lead to gaps on supermarket shelves, although he urged shoppers not to panic-buy.
“We may see some shortages of fresh foods, particularly short-life fresh foods. I think that will only be for a limited period, perhaps a month or two, before we get back to normal,” Allan said."
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Perhaps you've missed the excellent posts from Rochdale Pioneers on why things will be difficult.
I mean he only works in the supermarket sector.
Funnily enough Rochdale Pioneers isn't the only available source on this.
Indeed, but there's also the Chief Execs of Sainsbury's, Tesco, and others.
I've just linked to the news and their statements.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
Good post.
Difficulty is distinguishing between those making good use of a service to everyone's benefit and the loss to the supplier and customer if you remove it, and the harm it does to others who are just plain desperate and sink further into debt if you don't
Another element of this was the use of arrangement fees or the claim that the very high interest rates were exploitative. However in your case CR where you borrowed for a very short time the use of an arrangement fee or a high interest rate that covered that admin cost was not exploitative but fair. However for someone who gets sucked into a long term debt it is exploitative.
So the same product can be both filling a market need to the benefit of both parties or completely evil depending upon who the customer is.
Very difficult.
Many years ago I met a guy with whom, and with his wife, my wife and I became friendly. As far as I knew he ran a small steel fabricating organisation..... contract repairs at refineries and so on. However one evening we were at his house and talking and, how I can't remember, he remarked that he also had a door to door money-lending business, and explained how it worked. Many of his clients were CR types..... borrowing fairly small sums and paying them off fairly quickly, although often the second loan was, effectively, to pay off the first! And so on. I knew the area where he operated, and knew, from other sources, that some at least of the people living there were often unable to get 'normal' forms of credit and a lot of the residents had short-term and/or low paid jobs. I found myself getting confused.
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
I would be content to remain in the single market and customs union and I think it is quite likely that will be the eventual landing zone.
However, I am astonished at how tone deaf the EU are over their 12 month fishing offer. It is extraordinary as is either arrogant, ignorant or just plain provocative and something no UK PM could accept
It does look as if Ireland is being thrown to the wolves by a French dominated EU and as far as I am concerned it is a plague on all your houses. Furthermore I doubt the EU are much better prepared.
However, it is very unseemly to suggest this but covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe in the first few months of 2021 and it is possible that immediate effects of a no deal will not be obvious. I assume talks will continue into 2021 as for all the EU bluster I do not expect many EU countries will want to see a complete fracture in relationship with the UK
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
An odd thing about the discussion is that nobody outside seems clear about what the discussions are about.
And your proposals seem fair to me - a double sided ratchet system with independent arbitration should work in the real world.
That approach seems fine, my understanding is the EU have rejected something similar? Although that understanding could be down to the UK press spin. An even simpler solution would be to review the agreement every 5-8 years or so. If both sides are broadly happy with the negotiated situation for 2021, not agreeing because of concerns about what might or might not be the case in 2031 seems bizarre from the outside.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Why wont all imports be affected.
No fast lane at the borders for Non EU goods AFAIK
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
I think a few moments of quiet reflection... You know that we know that you know that the government has just blown itself up, so why keep fighting to die in the ditch? The deal is damaging enough, but the No deal will blow up the Johnson government, the Tory Party and quite probably the UK... We know you know that, so why bother any more?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
Good post.
Difficulty is distinguishing between those making good use of a service to everyone's benefit and the loss to the supplier and customer if you remove it, and the harm it does to others who are just plain desperate and sink further into debt if you don't
Another element of this was the use of arrangement fees or the claim that the very high interest rates were exploitative. However in your case CR where you borrowed for a very short time the use of an arrangement fee or a high interest rate that covered that admin cost was not exploitative but fair. However for someone who gets sucked into a long term debt it is exploitative.
So the same product can be both filling a market need to the benefit of both parties or completely evil depending upon who the customer is.
Very difficult.
Many years ago I met a guy with whom, and with his wife, my wife and I became friendly. As far as I knew he ran a small steel fabricating organisation..... contract repairs at refineries and so on. However one evening we were at his house and talking and, how I can't remember, he remarked that he also had a door to door money-lending business, and explained how it worked. Many of his clients were CR types..... borrowing fairly small sums and paying them off fairly quickly, although often the second loan was, effectively, to pay off the first! And so on. I knew the area where he operated, and knew, from other sources, that some at least of the people living there were often unable to get 'normal' forms of credit and a lot of the residents had short-term and/or low paid jobs. I found myself getting confused.
In other words, you mistakenly made friends with the local loan shark/gangster, made your excuses and legged it? Or are you now his trusted consigliere?
That's one way (Sky's way) of presenting it - the detail shows it's a 5% average increase in food prices for a hard No Deal, which if you amplify out across the whole UK economy for supermarket trade volumes you get to a "bill" of £3.1bn.
My post said 2-4% price rises in places so it's consistent - I'll concede the 1% extra if you like.
In reality, buying and purchasing behaviour would respond to that in the market over a few months, hence why supermarkets heads expect us to get back to "normal" over that timeframe.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Perhaps you've missed the excellent posts from Rochdale Pioneers on why things will be difficult.
I mean he only works in the supermarket sector.
Funnily enough Rochdale Pioneers isn't the only available source on this.
Which sources are you using?
DfIT on trade deals, market research by the Big4, supermarket supply chain analysis by specialist researchers, press releases, public news and information.
Bloomberg mangling the language - "failure is now a real option". It's a possibility. Who would choose failure?
Boris has total freedom to chose a deal. If we have No Deal, he will have chosen failure.
Not in his eyes. Nor mine.
Well, sorry to say it but you are a gullible fool then. The only diplomatic failure bigger than this would be war. Johnson has failed on everything he said he would deliver re Brexit since 2016. The man is a walking disaster area, and his apologists are even worse
I don't deny that the whole process looks like a failure of statecraft - by Brussels as well as by Cameron and May before Johnson. But given where he started Johnson's performance has not been a failure in my opinion. But then I'm a gullible fool in your eyes. You can think what you like.
If we wanted no deal why not start preparing for it properly as soon he took over?
If he wanted a deal he would have got a better one with a less confrontational approach and he would have got it earlier which would have saved tens of thousands of jobs and stopped hundreds of billions leaving the UK.
Indecision is the root of the failure.
Your premise is wrong. He wanted a deal as he said many times. He just did not want any deal. No deal is better than a bad deal. That's also what the Europeans are saying.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
I think a few moments of quiet reflection... You know that we know that you know that the government has just blown itself up, so why keep fighting to die in the ditch? The deal is damaging enough, but the No deal will blow up the Johnson government, the Tory Party and quite probably the UK... We know you know that, so why bother any more?
Absolutely nobody can say with any certainty the comments in your last paragraph may come to pass
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
Why should we accept that they have the right to offset the consequences of another daft policy (like GDPR) reducing their competitiveness by imposing penalties on us if we choose not to follow suite? What sort of a FTA is that?
I am not saying that we don't accept an idea like this to get a deal over the line but its not immediately attractive.
It’s a very similar mechanism to how the WTO operates. Why is it acceptable for the WTO but not for an FTA?
Exactly what I said- in fact better. No point in panic buying, some temporary disruption in short-life fresh foods, and that will only be for a month or two - before back to normal.
"The chairman of Britain’s biggest supermarket warned that the end of the transition period could trigger temporary disruption of food imports and lead to gaps on supermarket shelves, although he urged shoppers not to panic-buy.
“We may see some shortages of fresh foods, particularly short-life fresh foods. I think that will only be for a limited period, perhaps a month or two, before we get back to normal,” Allan said."
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Why wont all imports be affected.
No fast lane at the borders for Non EU goods AFAIK
If you can afford it and have enough space stockpiling enough food and supplies for 3-5 weeks is sensible regardless of Brexit during a pandemic. Buy lots of long dated tinned stuff, and to tie it in to the earlier discussion, if you dont use it then donate it to foodbanks post pandemic.
It is also much cheaper to buy toileteries, cleaning products etc in bulk when they are discounted than replenishing when you are running out.
Consumer stockpiling. Those interested in stockpiling need to think about what they are stockpiling, and why.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
Why wont all imports be affected.
No fast lane at the borders for Non EU goods AFAIK
Imports get prioritised (from all destinations) according to need - yes, the border is a chokepoint but Dover is the real problem and to a lesser extent Felixstowe. But, they are not the only points of entry into the UK - particularly for RoW.
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
Why should we accept that they have the right to offset the consequences of another daft policy (like GDPR) reducing their competitiveness by imposing penalties on us if we choose not to follow suite? What sort of a FTA is that?
I am not saying that we don't accept an idea like this to get a deal over the line but its not immediately attractive.
Exactly what I said- in fact better. No point in panic buying, some temporary disruption in short-life fresh foods, and that will only be for a month or two - before back to normal.
"The chairman of Britain’s biggest supermarket warned that the end of the transition period could trigger temporary disruption of food imports and lead to gaps on supermarket shelves, although he urged shoppers not to panic-buy.
“We may see some shortages of fresh foods, particularly short-life fresh foods. I think that will only be for a limited period, perhaps a month or two, before we get back to normal,” Allan said."
Bloomberg mangling the language - "failure is now a real option". It's a possibility. Who would choose failure?
Boris has total freedom to chose a deal. If we have No Deal, he will have chosen failure.
Not in his eyes. Nor mine.
Well, sorry to say it but you are a gullible fool then. The only diplomatic failure bigger than this would be war. Johnson has failed on everything he said he would deliver re Brexit since 2016. The man is a walking disaster area, and his apologists are even worse
I don't deny that the whole process looks like a failure of statecraft - by Brussels as well as by Cameron and May before Johnson. But given where he started Johnson's performance has not been a failure in my opinion. But then I'm a gullible fool in your eyes. You can think what you like.
If we wanted no deal why not start preparing for it properly as soon he took over?
If he wanted a deal he would have got a better one with a less confrontational approach and he would have got it earlier which would have saved tens of thousands of jobs and stopped hundreds of billions leaving the UK.
Indecision is the root of the failure.
Your premise is wrong. He wanted a deal as he said many times. He just did not want any deal. No deal is better than a bad deal. That's also what the Europeans are saying.
His job was to know if he could get his preferred deal. If he couldnt then dont waste the 18 months he has been in office without making serious preparations for no deal.
Who knows, if we had recruited the tens of thousands of customs officials, upgraded our ports and roads, perhaps we would have got his preferred deal? If not we would be better prepared for no deal.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull? Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is. Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Heseltine and Clark were both Conservatives, young HY. So is Turnbull. Certainly not Liberals. It seems to me that you are getting really mixed up in your attempts to rewrite history and reset the current terms of reference.
Heseltine fought the 1959 election as a National Liberal, Clarke has said he would join the LDs if he was a young man now, Turnbull not only led the Liberal Party of Australia but was ideologically a free market, social liberal, Abbott and Morrison are more socially conservative
Bloomberg mangling the language - "failure is now a real option". It's a possibility. Who would choose failure?
Boris has total freedom to chose a deal. If we have No Deal, he will have chosen failure.
Not in his eyes. Nor mine.
Well, sorry to say it but you are a gullible fool then. The only diplomatic failure bigger than this would be war. Johnson has failed on everything he said he would deliver re Brexit since 2016. The man is a walking disaster area, and his apologists are even worse
I don't deny that the whole process looks like a failure of statecraft - by Brussels as well as by Cameron and May before Johnson. But given where he started Johnson's performance has not been a failure in my opinion. But then I'm a gullible fool in your eyes. You can think what you like.
If we wanted no deal why not start preparing for it properly as soon he took over?
If he wanted a deal he would have got a better one with a less confrontational approach and he would have got it earlier which would have saved tens of thousands of jobs and stopped hundreds of billions leaving the UK.
Indecision is the root of the failure.
Your premise is wrong. He wanted a deal as he said many times. He just did not want any deal. No deal is better than a bad deal. That's also what the Europeans are saying.
He seemed to think this was a vg rather than any deal. I wonder where it all went wrong?
Bloomberg mangling the language - "failure is now a real option". It's a possibility. Who would choose failure?
Boris has total freedom to chose a deal. If we have No Deal, he will have chosen failure.
Not in his eyes. Nor mine.
Well, sorry to say it but you are a gullible fool then. The only diplomatic failure bigger than this would be war. Johnson has failed on everything he said he would deliver re Brexit since 2016. The man is a walking disaster area, and his apologists are even worse
I don't deny that the whole process looks like a failure of statecraft - by Brussels as well as by Cameron and May before Johnson. But given where he started Johnson's performance has not been a failure in my opinion. But then I'm a gullible fool in your eyes. You can think what you like.
If we wanted no deal why not start preparing for it properly as soon he took over?
If he wanted a deal he would have got a better one with a less confrontational approach and he would have got it earlier which would have saved tens of thousands of jobs and stopped hundreds of billions leaving the UK.
Indecision is the root of the failure.
Your premise is wrong. He wanted a deal as he said many times. He just did not want any deal. No deal is better than a bad deal. That's also what the Europeans are saying.
He seemed to think this was a vg rather than any deal. I wonder where it all went wrong?
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
I think a few moments of quiet reflection... You know that we know that you know that the government has just blown itself up, so why keep fighting to die in the ditch? The deal is damaging enough, but the No deal will blow up the Johnson government, the Tory Party and quite probably the UK... We know you know that, so why bother any more?
We will see in May, as I posted earlier I do not think the results will be as bad for the Tories as some make out even after No Deal, in fact I think the Tories will make gains in Wales in the Senedd even if they lose seats in England in London and the county elections
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Understood. So if he is so unsuitable as a trade advisor why have we hired him as a trade advisor?
One of two things is true: 1. He does know what he is talking about and you don't 2. He doesn't know what he is talking about and your beloved PM shouldn't have hired him.
I have no expertise whatsoever in customs checks or border controls but I really don't see why long delays need to develop. Physical checks should be random (machine generated picking) with the frequency linked to queue length. Add any necessary intelligence led checking. Am I missing something?
A strange construction. Perhaps BJ could expand on the meaning of 'innocent scandal'?
Just comical japery like scaling the wall of your mistress' holiday villa and threatening to top yourself if she stops fucking you. That sort of thing.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
That would be Wonga, founded in October 2006, with a full market launch in July 2008. Are you high?
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
Good post.
Difficulty is distinguishing between those making good use of a service to everyone's benefit and the loss to the supplier and customer if you remove it, and the harm it does to others who are just plain desperate and sink further into debt if you don't
Another element of this was the use of arrangement fees or the claim that the very high interest rates were exploitative. However in your case CR where you borrowed for a very short time the use of an arrangement fee or a high interest rate that covered that admin cost was not exploitative but fair. However for someone who gets sucked into a long term debt it is exploitative.
So the same product can be both filling a market need to the benefit of both parties or completely evil depending upon who the customer is.
Very difficult.
Many years ago I met a guy with whom, and with his wife, my wife and I became friendly. As far as I knew he ran a small steel fabricating organisation..... contract repairs at refineries and so on. However one evening we were at his house and talking and, how I can't remember, he remarked that he also had a door to door money-lending business, and explained how it worked. Many of his clients were CR types..... borrowing fairly small sums and paying them off fairly quickly, although often the second loan was, effectively, to pay off the first! And so on. I knew the area where he operated, and knew, from other sources, that some at least of the people living there were often unable to get 'normal' forms of credit and a lot of the residents had short-term and/or low paid jobs. I found myself getting confused.
In other words, you mistakenly made friends with the local loan shark/gangster, made your excuses and legged it? Or are you now his trusted consigliere?
LOL. Neither, TBH! We became somewhat less friendly, slowly disengaging, then he developed something nasty and died. And we moved. Still exchange Christmas cards with his wife, though. No, she didn't take over either of his businesses.
Comments
However, on reflection my earlier post was crass. I don't know @Casino_Royale's circumstances and if he felt Wonga were the best option he must have been in a tough situation.
Apoligies to @Casino_Royale .
Minford was “right”: Brexit will crush manufacturing. Except he saw that as a good thing.
That's just science, people.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55269381
If the divergence tariffs are used in bad faith, there still is the option of walking away from the agreement at that point.
I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
Geometric decay is sometimes as bad as exponential growth.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
If he wanted a deal he would have got a better one with a less confrontational approach and he would have got it earlier which would have saved tens of thousands of jobs and stopped hundreds of billions leaving the UK.
Indecision is the root of the failure.
Steve Hay, from Bournemouth, arrived in Lanzarote on Thursday evening for a seven-day break with his family.
They now face cutting it short to avoid a quarantine period that could potentially run until New Year's Eve - effectively cancelling their Christmas plans in the UK.
"How will we do our Christmas shopping?" Mr Hay said. "I think it's shocking and doesn't appear much thought has gone into it.
"Why is it being implemented so quick, this only gives us tomorrow to get back.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55271262
Isn’t the way to bridge the gap between the U.K. and EU positions on LPF to say that if there is divergence because the U.K. does not follow some increased EU standards, the matter should be referred to independent arbitration to determine whether this adversely affects any sector, if so to what extent and what the remedy might be.
So no automatic tariffs or quotas or punishments but a sober assessment of the changes and their consequences.
Why isn’t this a solution?
If so, why hasn’t the U.K. proposed it?
If it has, has the EU rejected it? And if so why?
It works perfectly as a rule so long as no one looks at the historical data.
Either he wanted a deal, but has failed to achieve one. Which is a failure that will hurt us all.
Or he never wanted a deal. In which case he has been dishonest, and reckless, by failing to prepare.
Unrelated. Can anyone link to that mock up picture of Benny Hill (in place of Boris) with Ursula?
The county council elections where the Tories had an 11% lead when the seats were last up in 2017 will likely see significant Tory losses to Labour given current polls now have the main parties tied, as will the Mayoral and Assembly elections in Remain heavy London.
However the District and Metropolitan and Unitary elections last up in 2016 saw Labour have a 1% lead so are likely to be relatively much better for the Tories. In Scotland too the Tories only got 22% in the 2016 Holyrood elections but 25% in Scotland at the 2019 general election and in Wales the Tories only got 21% at the 2016 Senedd elections but the Tories got 36% in Wales at the 2019 general election, so the Tories may even make gains outside England, especially in Wales
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
Morrison's majority may not be as big as Abbott's was in 2013 admittedly but he still gained a seat while Turnbull lost seats
And your proposals seem fair to me - a double sided ratchet system with independent arbitration should work in the real world.
Difficulty is distinguishing between those making good use of a service to everyone's benefit and the loss to the supplier and customer if you remove it, and the harm it does to others who are just plain desperate and sink further into debt if you don't
Another element of this was the use of arrangement fees or the claim that the very high interest rates were exploitative. However in your case CR where you borrowed for a very short time the use of an arrangement fee or a high interest rate that covered that admin cost was not exploitative but fair. However for someone who gets sucked into a long term debt it is exploitative.
So the same product can be both filling a market need to the benefit of both parties or completely evil depending upon who the customer is.
Very difficult.
Bottom line is that it looks pretty good - especially compared to the alternative of waiting another 6-12 months for one of the others.
One of the reasons that the casualties were so high was that she had no idea S48 was in the vicinity. If they did they would have been at Action Stations/General Quarters and closed the torpedo bulkheads.
CWB had quite a cruise in '82. After he sank the Belgrano he sailed north to the Baltic and severed, for later recovery, the towed sonar array of a Soviet intelligence gathering ship disguised as a trawler.
He and his government will own the results.
I am not saying that we don't accept an idea like this to get a deal over the line but its not immediately attractive.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1337335244396130305?s=20
Even if the EU is blamed for trashing negotiations, responsibility for not forseeing and preparing for that eventuality can only be placed on the head one person - Johnson. It's no good him saying "we didn't expect them to be so difficult" - it was his job to anticipate that they might be so. It was his job prepare for such an obvious possibility. If I said to a client "oh, I didn't think they would actually make good on the threat and actually sue us! Not my fault" then I would lose the client.
The UK has rolled over almost all existing EU trade agreements, including aviation agreements. So supplies into UK ports and airports from RoW are largely only being disrupted at present by volume - this is largely due to the stockpiling of manufacturing parts. Otherwise that flow should be smooth; no worse than now.
Fruit and veg imported from Kenya, India, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco - which can include broccoli, beans, apricots and other fruits - will not be affected. We have deals with them all. Some may need to come direct into Felixstowe rather than being bulk routed via Rotterdam but otherwise it's just rewiring the supply chain. I also can't see any problem with avocados (which we get from Israel - deal already in place) nor bananas either (Central America, Andean countries and Califorum - deal already in place) , despite reports to the contrary.
So, what do you buy directly from the EU that you can get nowhere else?
Well, it's likely to be things like French wine, brie, Italian prosecco, Spanish strawberries.. things like that. Also, we currently get a lot of our fresh vegetables like tomatoes, onions, cauliflower, celery and potatoes from the EU. If supermarkets have been sensible they'll have thought about alternative supply lines to these but, yes, there's a risk of a price increase here to compensate of a few percent.
We get a lot of our beef from Ireland. In no deal, that'll be harder so I'd expect us to increase beef production from the UK (price increase) but also have a glut of lamb and fish (price decrease) - so we won't be short on red meat or fish. Bulk grains like cereals, rice and quinoa etc. won't be affected - they are very large RoRo shipments that last for a long time and sourced all over the world.
My point is: it's not really possible to stockpile any of the EU fruit and veg stuff or Irish beef because they're fresh and they only last 3-4 days anyway. Otherwise everything else should be fine, but with 2-4% price rises in places, and perhaps 5-8% price cuts in other places for domestic produce. And, if it's a longer-term household item that can only be sourced from the EU (I can't think of many of these) they will eventually get through too, even with 72-96 hours delay - so you just need a week or two "spare" in float to carry you over (if you're really worried. Personally, I'm not and I'm not too bothered by French or Italian wine either, so I'm not stockpiling.
I suppose I might consider getting toilet paper in early for 2-3 weeks or so, but that's only because I expect everyone else to do the same in a fortnight.
If in a few years it no longer looks good then you look to change it or exit from it.
I mean he only works in the supermarket sector.
A strange construction. Perhaps BJ could expand on the meaning of 'innocent scandal'?
And these services provide in normal times a very significant part of our tax revenues. Some of them have been hard hit by Covid and now they are going to be even harder hit with No Deal.
Even in a Deal they are being ignored.
Quite why a government which claims to want to improve things has forgotten about those areas of the economy which employ more people and bring in more revenues than fishing ever has or ever will beats me.
https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1337338972218028032
"The chairman of Britain’s biggest supermarket warned that the end of the transition period could trigger temporary disruption of food imports and lead to gaps on supermarket shelves, although he urged shoppers not to panic-buy.
“We may see some shortages of fresh foods, particularly short-life fresh foods. I think that will only be for a limited period, perhaps a month or two, before we get back to normal,” Allan said."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/09/tesco-prices-uk-eu-fail-agree-brexit-no-deal-shortages-tariffs
The detail doesn't match the hyperbole.
I knew the area where he operated, and knew, from other sources, that some at least of the people living there were often unable to get 'normal' forms of credit and a lot of the residents had short-term and/or low paid jobs.
I found myself getting confused.
However, I am astonished at how tone deaf the EU are over their 12 month fishing offer. It is extraordinary as is either arrogant, ignorant or just plain provocative and something no UK PM could accept
It does look as if Ireland is being thrown to the wolves by a French dominated EU and as far as I am concerned it is a plague on all your houses. Furthermore I doubt the EU are much better prepared.
However, it is very unseemly to suggest this but covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe in the first few months of 2021 and it is possible that immediate effects of a no deal will not be obvious. I assume talks will continue into 2021 as for all the EU bluster I do not expect many EU countries will want to see a complete fracture in relationship with the UK
No fast lane at the borders for Non EU goods AFAIK
My post said 2-4% price rises in places so it's consistent - I'll concede the 1% extra if you like.
In reality, buying and purchasing behaviour would respond to that in the market over a few months, hence why supermarkets heads expect us to get back to "normal" over that timeframe.
It's all out there.
Only months of shortages of fresh foods, eh! Well, that’s all right then.
What do you think that will do to those businesses that rely on fresh food to provide a service?
It is also much cheaper to buy toileteries, cleaning products etc in bulk when they are discounted than replenishing when you are running out.
I'm not arguing for a No Deal here. I'm trying to give constructive advice.
If people want to ignore it or attack it because of my or their position on Brexit well, that's up to them. Others might find it useful.
Who knows, if we had recruited the tens of thousands of customs officials, upgraded our ports and roads, perhaps we would have got his preferred deal? If not we would be better prepared for no deal.
https://twitter.com/tradegovuk/status/1337325048177303552?s=20
'PM Boris Johnson: This is a very good deal'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50083270
One of two things is true:
1. He does know what he is talking about and you don't
2. He doesn't know what he is talking about and your beloved PM shouldn't have hired him.
Which is it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55269969
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
And we moved. Still exchange Christmas cards with his wife, though. No, she didn't take over either of his businesses.