You do realise that this has been the EU position all along, right?
No it hasn't. Do more research.
She is restating the principle of the ratchet clause, which was the EU's original proposition. You guys need to read up more on the ratchet clause - it's a real thing, not to be confused with Santa Claus (or a successful no deal Brexit).
No. You've demonstrated you simply don't understand the issues at play here.
Apparently Northern Ireland had a circuit breaker for the last two weeks that's now being lifted. You couldn't really tell from the numbers, which have been going up slowly, but I expect the end of this circuit breaker will become rather apparent in the numbers around Christmas.
It's not a concession, it's exactly what they've been saying for a while.
It is the UK government which (presumably deliberately) has been misrepresenting the EU position, claiming it violates UK sovereignty, automatically ties us in to every rule they change, is one-sided, etc.
There are two possible reasons why they are misrepresenting the EU's position like that. Either they just want an excuse for plunging us into avoidable chaos, blaming the EU for being 'unreasonable', or they think they can con people into thinking they've won a famous victory when they 'force' the EU into agreeing what it has already proposed.
We just have to hope it's the latter. It might even work.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
I get you but at the risk of being thought a big softy I think we do need to allow sundry Leavers to pretend not only to themselves but if necessary also publicly on here that us "playing hardball" has forced the EU to agree to essentially their own proposal. It's worked twice before - the WA and the IMB - and there's no reason it can't again.
BBC not discipling BBC broadcasters who speak out on political issues despite saying they would do so is peak BBC
Hmm.
I don't think Perkins actually works for the BBC. She is occasionally on programmes that they have commissioned but then she does as much for Sky and other TV channels as she does for the BBC. Nor is she involved in current affairs, she is a comedienne. As such I would suggest it would be grossly unfair and probably unlawful for the BBC to attempt to control what she writes either on Twitter or anywhere else.
She's on the BBC all the time. She's a typical metro liberal-leftie luvvie.
If you work for the BBC (via any route) you stay out of controversial political issues.
That should be the deal.
Nah I can't agree with this at all. With the exception of those who are supposed to be providing balanced and objective news and current affairs, it should not be the job of the BBC to censor what people say, particularly those who do not work for them.
I mean, I don't agree with her at all but there is a world of difference between telling someone you think their opinions are wrong and telling them they are not allowed to articulate those opinions.
Besides it is completely unworkable. For a very large amount of their entertainment the BBC commission programmes from external companies. It would be impossible for them to police the political activities of those who do not even work for them. Nor should they even try.
Sorry, I disagree. They provide services to the BBC and bring it into disrepute.
There is nothing controversial here. You have to sign up to T&Cs to work for all sorts of clients and employers, and not broadcast your political opinions if they have due concerns about them - which the BBC does.
This is no different.
Saying a comedian who appears on the BBC shouldn't express political opinions is peak PB.com.
It's not a concession, it's exactly what they've been saying for a while.
It is the UK government which (presumably deliberately) has been misrepresenting the EU position, claiming it violates UK sovereignty, automatically ties us in to every rule they change, is one-sided, etc.
There are two possible reasons why they are misrepresenting the EU's position like that. Either they just want an excuse for plunging us into avoidable chaos, blaming the EU for being 'unreasonable', or they think they can con people into thinking they've won a famous victory when they 'force' the EU into agreeing what it has already proposed.
We just have to hope it's the latter. It might even work.
This thread shows clearly it already has! It is definitely the latter, we will do the deal, the theatre is all to sell it.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
I get you but at the risk of being thought a big softy I think we do need to allow sundry Leavers to pretend not only to themselves but if necessary also publicly on here that us "playing hardball" has forced the EU to agree to essentially their own proposal. It's worked twice before - the WA and the IMB - and there's no reason it can't again.
Bit galling but, you know, eyes on the prize.
I understand that, but I have a weird obsession with being truthful. The only thing worse than people who lie to other people are people who lie to themselves.
It's not a concession, it's exactly what they've been saying all along.
It is the UK government which (presumably deliberately) has been misrepresenting the EU position, claiming it violates UK sovereignty, automatically ties us in to every rule they change, is one-sided, etc.
There are two possible reasons why they are misrepresenting the EU's position like that. Either they just want an excuse for plunging us into avoidable chaos, blaming the EU for being 'unreasonable', or they think they can con people into thinking they've won a famous victory when they 'force' the EU into agreeing what it has already proposed.
We just have to hope it's the latter. It might even work.
We've already established that Europhiles have a cognitive dissonance problem in accepting the EU ever makes a concession.
But, don't take my word for it. Listen to the Dutch PM , or a neutral think thank:
BBC not discipling BBC broadcasters who speak out on political issues despite saying they would do so is peak BBC
Hmm.
I don't think Perkins actually works for the BBC. She is occasionally on programmes that they have commissioned but then she does as much for Sky and other TV channels as she does for the BBC. Nor is she involved in current affairs, she is a comedienne. As such I would suggest it would be grossly unfair and probably unlawful for the BBC to attempt to control what she writes either on Twitter or anywhere else.
She's on the BBC all the time. She's a typical metro liberal-leftie luvvie.
If you work for the BBC (via any route) you stay out of controversial political issues.
That should be the deal.
Nah I can't agree with this at all. With the exception of those who are supposed to be providing balanced and objective news and current affairs, it should not be the job of the BBC to censor what people say, particularly those who do not work for them.
I mean, I don't agree with her at all but there is a world of difference between telling someone you think their opinions are wrong and telling them they are not allowed to articulate those opinions.
Besides it is completely unworkable. For a very large amount of their entertainment the BBC commission programmes from external companies. It would be impossible for them to police the political activities of those who do not even work for them. Nor should they even try.
Sorry, I disagree. They provide services to the BBC and bring it into disrepute.
There is nothing controversial here. You have to sign up to T&Cs to work for all sorts of clients and employers, and not broadcast your political opinions if they have due concerns about them - which the BBC does.
This is no different.
Saying a comedian who appears on the BBC shouldn't express political opinions is peak PB.com.
Have I Got News For You might be a struggle! And this from a defender of free speech.
It's not a concession, it's exactly what they've been saying all along.
It is the UK government which (presumably deliberately) has been misrepresenting the EU position, claiming it violates UK sovereignty, automatically ties us in to every rule they change, is one-sided, etc.
There are two possible reasons why they are misrepresenting the EU's position like that. Either they just want an excuse for plunging us into avoidable chaos, blaming the EU for being 'unreasonable', or they think they can con people into thinking they've won a famous victory when they 'force' the EU into agreeing what it has already proposed.
We just have to hope it's the latter. It might even work.
We've already established that Europhiles have a cognitive dissonance problem in accepting the EU ever makes a concession.
But, don't take my word for it. Listen to the Dutch PM , or a neutral think thank:
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
I get you but at the risk of being thought a big softy I think we do need to allow sundry Leavers to pretend not only to themselves but if necessary also publicly on here that us "playing hardball" has forced the EU to agree to essentially their own proposal. It's worked twice before - the WA and the IMB - and there's no reason it can't again.
Bit galling but, you know, eyes on the prize.
I understand that, but I have a weird obsession with being truthful. The only thing worse than people who lie to other people are people who lie to themselves.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
I get you but at the risk of being thought a big softy I think we do need to allow sundry Leavers to pretend not only to themselves but if necessary also publicly on here that us "playing hardball" has forced the EU to agree to essentially their own proposal. It's worked twice before - the WA and the IMB - and there's no reason it can't again.
Bit galling but, you know, eyes on the prize.
Well done Boris, great deal! You showed them, now get us our fish back and then sign up.
The EU side are trying to help Johnson sell the deal to folk like you.
Right - so you admit it's a concession but you can't bring yourself to call it a concession.
Got it. Thank you.
I'd respect you more if you had the moral courage to just concede you were wrong, graciously, but that's at least something.
No, the EU are helping to sell it by making it look like a concession. In reality the EU's starting position was that both sides would have the ability to restrict trade if they felt that regulations had diverged to their disadvantage. They are restating that position. Precisely how that process is governed is what is being negotiated. I expect there to be movement from both sides if there is to be a deal. But I am sure there will be some clauses in the deal governing what happens in the event of future regulatory divergence. If there are not then I will gladly concede that the UK has got a big "win". The UK side has put out a caricature version of the EU's position so that when they agree to something close to the EU's actual position they can present it as the EU having made a big compromise. Or maybe because they want an excuse for no deal. But I suspect the former.
The EU side are trying to help Johnson sell the deal to folk like you.
Right - so you admit it's a concession but you can't bring yourself to call it a concession.
Got it. Thank you.
I'd respect you more if you had the moral courage to just concede you were wrong, graciously, but that's at least something.
No, the EU are helping to sell it by making it look like a concession. In reality the EU's starting position was that both sides would have the ability to restrict trade if they felt that regulations had diverged to their disadvantage. They are restating that position. Precisely how that process is governed is what is being negotiated. I expect there to be movement from both sides if there is to be a deal. But I am sure there will be some clauses in the deal governing what happens in the event of future regulatory divergence. If there are not then I will gladly concede that the UK has got a big "win". The UK side has put out a caricature version of the EU's position so that when they agree to something close to the EU's actual position they can present it as the EU having made a big compromise. Or maybe because they want an excuse for no deal. But I suspect the former.
Lol. You don't have the character to admit you're wrong.
Fair enough - I will judge you in future accordingly. Others can take their own view.
It's OK. I can wait for your gracious "my mistake", apology.
I did make a slight mistake, which I corrected by editing my post on re-reading. It's not what they proposed 'all along', but as I corrected, what they've been proposing for a while. Their opening position was that they wanted full 'dynamic alignment' (which was never going to fly, as they must have known), but they relented on that many months ago in favour of this idea of being able to impose tariffs if the divergence gets to the point of being a competitive threat.
I don't know where you get the idea that I, or anyone else, says that the EU hasn't made concessions in this negotiations. Of course they have, in lots of areas. They want a deal, of course - it's very much in their interests. So of course in the negotiations they've made concessions. In fact the biggest one they've made since 2016 was accepting Theresa May's version of the Irish backstop. As I have said many times, that was a really major concession, which tragically we threw away.
It's not a concession, it's exactly what they've been saying all along.
It is the UK government which (presumably deliberately) has been misrepresenting the EU position, claiming it violates UK sovereignty, automatically ties us in to every rule they change, is one-sided, etc.
There are two possible reasons why they are misrepresenting the EU's position like that. Either they just want an excuse for plunging us into avoidable chaos, blaming the EU for being 'unreasonable', or they think they can con people into thinking they've won a famous victory when they 'force' the EU into agreeing what it has already proposed.
We just have to hope it's the latter. It might even work.
We've already established that Europhiles have a cognitive dissonance problem in accepting the EU ever makes a concession.
But, don't take my word for it. Listen to the Dutch PM , or a neutral think thank:
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
I get you but at the risk of being thought a big softy I think we do need to allow sundry Leavers to pretend not only to themselves but if necessary also publicly on here that us "playing hardball" has forced the EU to agree to essentially their own proposal. It's worked twice before - the WA and the IMB - and there's no reason it can't again.
Bit galling but, you know, eyes on the prize.
I understand that, but I have a weird obsession with being truthful. The only thing worse than people who lie to other people are people who lie to themselves.
If you did, you'd admit when you were wrong.
When I am I will. I am often wrong and happy to admit it when it happens. If there are no clauses in the deal on future regulatory alignment, simply non-regression from current levels, then I will have been wrong and will be more than happy to admit it.
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
"covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe...possible that immediate effects of no deal will not be obvious".
Have to disagree with that. Covid has been a major issue for 9, maybe 10, months now but there have not been any long lasting shortages in the supermarkets - toilet paper notwithstanding - nor any proce rises of note. If there are supermarket shortages then people will point to the only new variable - No Deal.
Neither will talks continue until 2021. Johnson's only option will be to double down. To skulk back, head bowed, to the negotiating table after No Deal will result in his immediate defenstration by the ERG. He's painted himself into a corner.
As for Ireland, for obvious and understandable reasons the national psychology is to blame the Brits whatever. It's baked in. If Ireland, England and Hades were in the same group at the World Cup, and Ireland needed England to beat Satan's XI to progress to the next round, the red flags with pitchforks on them would still be waiving in bars accross Ireland. If the UK put a resurrected Elvis backed by the Angelic Choir into Eurovision they would still give us Nul Points.
On Eurovision Ireland and Malta are the two most likely countries to vote for the UK. Not really relevant to your wider point but this is pedanticbetting.com after all.
But the British Empire was a disaster for the human race and all our former colonies hate us.
Ireland was a colony during the British Empire?
You can argue the toss about this forever. The further you get from a metropole into a periphery then the easier it is to describe somewhere as a colony. The term has mainly been used in the scope of the British, French and Portuguese empires to designate their European territories, as opposed to their colonial or overseas territories, and Ireland can be argued to have been legally both. However, legal distinctions are more or less meaningless - France's overseas departments are as much legally part of France as Paris but no one would seriously doubt they are colonies. Conversely if you regard London as the metropole then Yorkshire can be described as a colony. It ends up being a circular historiographical argument.
The EU side are trying to help Johnson sell the deal to folk like you.
Trouble is for those of us not following the precise details, is that could be said whether it was a change or not. If the some in the EU do not claim it is a change, it isn't one, and if some in the EU does say it's a change, it still isn't but they are just saying it is.
I can believe they are just trying to sell it, Boris wants cover to be able to move his own position, but it does mean it's impossible for those who think it has changed to prove it since even if the leaders of every EU nation said it was, it wouldn't be accepted.
It's OK. I can wait for your gracious "my mistake", apology.
I did make a slight mistake, which I corrected by editing my post on re-reading. It's not what they proposed 'all along', but as I corrected, what they've been proposing for a while. Their opening position was that they wanted full 'dynamic alignment' (which was never going to fly, as they must have known), but they relented on that many months ago in favour of this idea of being able to impose tariffs if the divergence gets to the point of being a competitive threat.
I don't know where you get the idea that I, or anyone else, says that the EU hasn't made concessions in this negotiations. Of course they have, in lots of areas. They want a deal, of course - it's very much in their interests. So of course in the negotiations they've made concessions. In fact the biggest one they've made since 2016 was accepting Theresa May's version of the Irish backstop. As I have said many times, that was a really major concession, which tragically we threw away.
Lol. I made a slight mistake, but it wasn't the one you think I made (because I can never be wrong and a Brexiteer right) so I was right on the main point, even though I wasn't.
Oh, look - a Theresa May squirrel!
Anyway, I won't push it further - it's not worth it and it's easier for your self-esteem and our relationship if we just move on.
Comments
It is the UK government which (presumably deliberately) has been misrepresenting the EU position, claiming it violates UK sovereignty, automatically ties us in to every rule they change, is one-sided, etc.
There are two possible reasons why they are misrepresenting the EU's position like that. Either they just want an excuse for plunging us into avoidable chaos, blaming the EU for being 'unreasonable', or they think they can con people into thinking they've won a famous victory when they 'force' the EU into agreeing what it has already proposed.
We just have to hope it's the latter. It might even work.
Bit galling but, you know, eyes on the prize.
But, don't take my word for it. Listen to the Dutch PM , or a neutral think thank:
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1337355556625977345?s=20
https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1337348424082010112?s=20
It's OK. I can wait for your gracious "my mistake", apology.
If not then no thanks.
Got it. Thank you.
I'd respect you more if you had the moral courage to just concede you were wrong, graciously, but that's at least something.
(Regulation of smoking? Or are tungsten lightbulbs back?)
That kind of thing?
I expect there to be movement from both sides if there is to be a deal. But I am sure there will be some clauses in the deal governing what happens in the event of future regulatory divergence. If there are not then I will gladly concede that the UK has got a big "win".
The UK side has put out a caricature version of the EU's position so that when they agree to something close to the EU's actual position they can present it as the EU having made a big compromise. Or maybe because they want an excuse for no deal. But I suspect the former.
Fair enough - I will judge you in future accordingly. Others can take their own view.
I don't know where you get the idea that I, or anyone else, says that the EU hasn't made concessions in this negotiations. Of course they have, in lots of areas. They want a deal, of course - it's very much in their interests. So of course in the negotiations they've made concessions. In fact the biggest one they've made since 2016 was accepting Theresa May's version of the Irish backstop. As I have said many times, that was a really major concession, which tragically we threw away.
I agree we need to do so. If it isn't as advertised then I will be happy to eat humble pie - but I don't think it is given this very public statement.
'Little blighter's turned out to be a wrong un, nothing to with me, call my lawyer!
I can believe they are just trying to sell it, Boris wants cover to be able to move his own position, but it does mean it's impossible for those who think it has changed to prove it since even if the leaders of every EU nation said it was, it wouldn't be accepted.
Oh, look - a Theresa May squirrel!
Anyway, I won't push it further - it's not worth it and it's easier for your self-esteem and our relationship if we just move on.