So the "huge concession" from the EU was the deal they were offering all along and BoZo just hasn't taken it
I think the Tories don’t really want a deal at all. They have convinced themselves that any restraint - even as a result of an agreement freely entered into - is intolerable. They have come to a belief that sovereignty means being able to do exactly what you want with no adverse consequences whatsoever. They believe that the EU is some sort of evil monster out to get them. So why enter into a deal at all?
And the enthusiastic way in which they all agreed to tear up an agreement they signed up for shows that they don’t really believe in agreements at all.
The logic of their own beliefs pushes them to a No Deal / with one bound we are free result. And I think that is where we will end up.
I hope not. But I fear it. The Tory party has been driven mad by a concept they simply do not understand. It is a shame for the rest of us though who have to face the real world consequences of this obsession.
Trouble is that I can fully understand why Boris and the Brexiteers don't want to sign a deal. It means acknowledging the gap between dreams and reality.
But that doesn't alter the need to sign a deal.
There's a Rolling Stones song which sums up the issue. Let's hope it isn't "Out of Time".
Quickly followed by 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'
Electoral Calculus gives a hung parliament with Tories on 312, Labour on 250, the SNP on 58, the LDs on 7, the DUP on 8 and PC on 4 and the SDLP on 2 and the Greens and Alliance each on 1.
So the Tories and DUP = 320 but Labour + SNP + LDs + PC + Greens + SDLP = 322, so Starmer would still end up PM
Johnson should give the SNP that independence vote
It is true that with the SNP MPs Starmer would become PM of a Labour minority government, without SNP MPs Boris would have a Tory majority of 42.
However tempting though that might be for Boris given Starmer would only win thanks to Scottish MPs support as a nation we are still better and stronger together as a United Kingdom
Trouble is that I can fully understand why Boris and the Brexiteers don't want to sign a deal. It means acknowledging the gap between dreams and reality.
This is spot on. Reminds me of Star Trek: Wrath of Khan where Khan had obtained a starship and a device that could have secured him anything he wanted - but threw it all away just so he could destroy the Enterprise and Kirk as well. The Brexiteers have decided to go full impulse power into the dangerous No Deal nebula where their advantages no longer exist. They have it all but are going to discredit themselves, and their project, in the pursuit of purity.
Just heard Ursula Van Der luyden explain in the most beautifully articulated English the latest position on the Brexit talks. What a contrast to the embarrassing buffoon of a Prime Minister who followed her.
Johnson "explaining" the LPF issue to the British public -
"What they're saying is if THEY buy an expensive handbag, WE have to buy one too. That's really not the way to carry on."
I mean, c'mon. Honestly.
Cool Britannia. Fit for Brexit.
Compared to our team, the EU side are lightweights.
Barnier really is quite a dashing figure. I have said it many times on here before but I really do like the man. He has played the negotiations from the very start with a completely straight bat - no mean feat when trying to balance the desires of 27 different countries plus whatever the Commission wanted. If he has indulged in politiking it has been so subtle as to be almost imperceptible. I think he has been a credit to diplomacy and to the EU.
So the "huge concession" from the EU was the deal they were offering all along and BoZo just hasn't taken it
I think the Tories don’t really want a deal at all. They have convinced themselves that any restraint - even as a result of an agreement freely entered into - is intolerable. They have come to a belief that sovereignty means being able to do exactly what you want with no adverse consequences whatsoever. They believe that the EU is some sort of evil monster out to get them. So why enter into a deal at all?
And the enthusiastic way in which they all agreed to tear up an agreement they signed up for shows that they don’t really believe in agreements at all.
The logic of their own beliefs pushes them to a No Deal / with one bound we are free result. And I think that is where we will end up.
I hope not. But I fear it. The Tory party has been driven mad by a concept they simply do not understand. It is a shame for the rest of us though who have to face the real world consequences of this obsession.
Trouble is that I can fully understand why Boris and the Brexiteers don't want to sign a deal. It means acknowledging the gap between dreams and reality.
But that doesn't alter the need to sign a deal.
There's a Rolling Stones song which sums up the issue. Let's hope it isn't "Out of Time".
Quickly followed by 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'
I will not unsee in a hurry the arresting photo in which Johnson and his chief negotiator, David Frost, are grinning like a pair of competition winners next to European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, and her negotiator, Michel Barnier. Trussed up in some other guy’s suit, Johnson suddenly appeared to have the precise physique of Danny DeVito’s Penguin from Batman Returns. Though sadly not the brains.
Received wisdom seems to be that this is all theatre – designed to show that the UK, which has rapidly ceased to be a serious country, is serious about its threats. If there is a flaw to this plan – and really, it’s such a tiny cavil – it’s that our prime minister is a liar of international repute. Possibly even intergalactic. For Boris Johnson, lying is not second nature: it is nature.
One of Johnson’s chief justifications for no deal seems to be that he has the cabinet’s very strong backing for it. What? This cabinet? My God – in that case, do the opposite.
I mean, honestly, call up a photo of the current cabinet. Look at their little faces. They are simply the lowest calibre things ever assembled round that table – including the chairs. There are seats of button-backed mahogany in that room that have given deeper thoughts to the implications of no deal than Priti Patel
So the "huge concession" from the EU was the deal they were offering all along and BoZo just hasn't taken it
I think the Tories don’t really want a deal at all. They have convinced themselves that any restraint - even as a result of an agreement freely entered into - is intolerable. They have come to a belief that sovereignty means being able to do exactly what you want with no adverse consequences whatsoever. They believe that the EU is some sort of evil monster out to get them. So why enter into a deal at all?
And the enthusiastic way in which they all agreed to tear up an agreement they signed up for shows that they don’t really believe in agreements at all.
The logic of their own beliefs pushes them to a No Deal / with one bound we are free result. And I think that is where we will end up.
I hope not. But I fear it. The Tory party has been driven mad by a concept they simply do not understand. It is a shame for the rest of us though who have to face the real world consequences of this obsession.
Trouble is that I can fully understand why Boris and the Brexiteers don't want to sign a deal. It means acknowledging the gap between dreams and reality.
But that doesn't alter the need to sign a deal.
There's a Rolling Stones song which sums up the issue. Let's hope it isn't "Out of Time".
Quickly followed by 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'
Which may be hopeful because it provides: "You can't always get what you want But if you try sometime you find You get what you need"
So the "huge concession" from the EU was the deal they were offering all along and BoZo just hasn't taken it
I think the Tories don’t really want a deal at all. They have convinced themselves that any restraint - even as a result of an agreement freely entered into - is intolerable. They have come to a belief that sovereignty means being able to do exactly what you want with no adverse consequences whatsoever. They believe that the EU is some sort of evil monster out to get them. So why enter into a deal at all?
And the enthusiastic way in which they all agreed to tear up an agreement they signed up for shows that they don’t really believe in agreements at all.
The logic of their own beliefs pushes them to a No Deal / with one bound we are free result. And I think that is where we will end up.
I hope not. But I fear it. The Tory party has been driven mad by a concept they simply do not understand. It is a shame for the rest of us though who have to face the real world consequences of this obsession.
Trouble is that I can fully understand why Boris and the Brexiteers don't want to sign a deal. It means acknowledging the gap between dreams and reality.
But that doesn't alter the need to sign a deal.
There's a Rolling Stones song which sums up the issue. Let's hope it isn't "Out of Time".
Could he refuse responsibility for the deal by putting it before Parliament without endorsing it himself, and leaving it to Labour and a minority of his own party to get it over the line?
If a majority of the Tories oppose the deal they'd defenestrate any leader who put it to the House. This is what finally lead to May's demise, when she started making moves to compromise with the Opposition.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
The idea that multiple hedge funds have invested in Brexit, and the post-2016 Tories, for very specific reasons isn't all new or controversial. The FT has run multiple pieces on it for years.
Really? And how exactly do they 'invest in Brexit'? I don't see Brexit quoted on any exchange feeds.
If you mean that some funds have shorted UK-focused stocks at the right times, then their judgement has been right and they've been doing their job well. Good for them, but that doesn't mean they've influenced anything.
Conversely, some of them have got it very wrong. Most notable is bogeyman-in-chief Crispin Odey, the performance of whose funds has been pretty dire in recent years:
Odey’s flagship hedge fund has posted double-digit losses in four out of the past five years, including a 49 percent loss in 2016
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
I did say to be cynical on if this was anything new or just spin from the EU.
If the Times report last night on both sides positions is accurate (and it was quite detailed) there can't be a deal without serious movement. It takes more than just putting lipstick on the pig.
So the "huge concession" from the EU was the deal they were offering all along and BoZo just hasn't taken it
I think the Tories don’t really want a deal at all. They have convinced themselves that any restraint - even as a result of an agreement freely entered into - is intolerable. They have come to a belief that sovereignty means being able to do exactly what you want with no adverse consequences whatsoever. They believe that the EU is some sort of evil monster out to get them. So why enter into a deal at all?
And the enthusiastic way in which they all agreed to tear up an agreement they signed up for shows that they don’t really believe in agreements at all.
The logic of their own beliefs pushes them to a No Deal / with one bound we are free result. And I think that is where we will end up.
I hope not. But I fear it. The Tory party has been driven mad by a concept they simply do not understand. It is a shame for the rest of us though who have to face the real world consequences of this obsession.
Trouble is that I can fully understand why Boris and the Brexiteers don't want to sign a deal. It means acknowledging the gap between dreams and reality.
But that doesn't alter the need to sign a deal.
There's a Rolling Stones song which sums up the issue. Let's hope it isn't "Out of Time".
Quickly followed by 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'
Which may be hopeful because it provides: "You can't always get what you want But if you try sometime you find You get what you need"
Better let BJ know, according to him it's all about us doing 'exactly what we want' from Jan 1st.
The idea that multiple hedge funds have invested in Brexit, and the post-2016 Tories, for very specific reasons isn't all new or controversial. The FT has run multiple pieces on it for years.
Really? And how exactly do they 'invest in Brexit'? I don't see Brexit quoted on any exchange feeds.
If you mean that some funds have shorted UK-focused stocks at the right times, then their judgement has been right and they've been doing their job well. Good for them, but that doesn't mean they've influenced anything.
Conversely, some of them have got it very wrong. Most notable is bogeyman-in-chief Crispin Odey, the performance of whose funds has been pretty dire in recent years:
Odey’s flagship hedge fund has posted double-digit losses in four out of the past five years, including a 49 percent loss in 2016
So the "huge concession" from the EU was the deal they were offering all along and BoZo just hasn't taken it
I think the Tories don’t really want a deal at all. They have convinced themselves that any restraint - even as a result of an agreement freely entered into - is intolerable. They have come to a belief that sovereignty means being able to do exactly what you want with no adverse consequences whatsoever. They believe that the EU is some sort of evil monster out to get them. So why enter into a deal at all?
And the enthusiastic way in which they all agreed to tear up an agreement they signed up for shows that they don’t really believe in agreements at all.
The logic of their own beliefs pushes them to a No Deal / with one bound we are free result. And I think that is where we will end up.
I hope not. But I fear it. The Tory party has been driven mad by a concept they simply do not understand. It is a shame for the rest of us though who have to face the real world consequences of this obsession.
Trouble is that I can fully understand why Boris and the Brexiteers don't want to sign a deal. It means acknowledging the gap between dreams and reality.
But that doesn't alter the need to sign a deal.
There's a Rolling Stones song which sums up the issue. Let's hope it isn't "Out of Time".
Quickly followed by 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'
Which may be hopeful because it provides: "You can't always get what you want But if you try sometime you find You get what you need"
Better let BJ know, according to him it's all about us doing 'exactly what we want' from Jan 1st.
Certainly the one thing that really helps people in the rest of the EU respect Britain is constant very relevant references to the second world war by governing party MPs.
EU leaders hiding behind Barnier but without giving Barnier authority to change his mandate is contemptible cowardice and not the actions of an ally looking to make a compromise.
If you want a compromise get key decision makers talking to each other. Since Barnier and VDL lack the mandate to change positions they are not the decision makers.
Electoral Calculus gives a hung parliament with Tories on 312, Labour on 250, the SNP on 58, the LDs on 7, the DUP on 8 and PC on 4 and the SDLP on 2 and the Greens and Alliance each on 1.
So the Tories and DUP = 320 but Labour + SNP + LDs + PC + Greens + SDLP = 322, so Starmer would still end up PM
Johnson should give the SNP that independence vote
It is true that with the SNP MPs Starmer would become PM of a Labour minority government, without SNP MPs Boris would have a Tory majority of 42.
However tempting though that might be for Boris given Starmer would only win thanks to Scottish MPs support as a nation we are still better and stronger together as a United Kingdom
I was actually only joking. Any PM who would support such a fundamental change just for his own political advantage is unfit to be in office. Sounds like Boris to a T.
But of course I come from the other opinion which is very much in favour of independence.
The idea that multiple hedge funds have invested in Brexit, and the post-2016 Tories, for very specific reasons isn't all new or controversial. The FT has run multiple pieces on it for years.
Really? And how exactly do they 'invest in Brexit'? I don't see Brexit quoted on any exchange feeds.
If you mean that some funds have shorted UK-focused stocks at the right times, then their judgement has been right and they've been doing their job well. Good for them, but that doesn't mean they've influenced anything.
Conversely, some of them have got it very wrong. Most notable is bogeyman-in-chief Crispin Odey, the performance of whose funds has been pretty dire in recent years:
Odey’s flagship hedge fund has posted double-digit losses in four out of the past five years, including a 49 percent loss in 2016
So if he's a shadowy figure 'investing in Brexit', he's not very good at it.
Really this blaming hedge funds is silly conspiracy-theory nonsense.
No it isn't. Hedge funds don't need to be good at their jobs or bet right to distort the political and democratic process for their own ends ; this gets the cause and effect back to front. It's no more like saying the Rothchilds are in charge than pointing to the vast distorting influence of self-interested campaign finance in the United States.
EU leaders hiding behind Barnier but without giving Barnier authority to change his mandate is contemptible cowardice and not the actions of an ally looking to make a compromise.
If you want a compromise get key decision makers talking to each other. Since Barnier and VDL lack the mandate to change positions they are not the decision makers.
We hold all the cards but the nasty EU won't let us put them on the table?
Britishvolt has confirmed Blyth in Northumberland as its chosen location for a new, £2.6 billion gigaplant that’s intended to boost battery supply ahead of a surge in electric vehicle demand. The plant, which will be similar to the one built by Tesla in the US, comes as part of the UK Government’s low carbon transport project fund, which includes investment in battery cell production. Britishvolt is heading up the scheme, and forecasts 3,000 highly skilled new jobs and 5,000 more in the wider supply chain
Drakeford sinking without trace as he announces the disaster that is covid in Wales
All outdoor attractions across Wales to close
He has announced that it is inevitable to move to alert 4 after Christmas unless everyone reduces the number of people we see or mix with
Blaming the public is not a good look
Yet it's one popular with yourself and the other PB moralisers, who call for a reporter's career to be destroyed because she broke covid rules.
Funny old world.
Yes. And often - although not in Big G's case tbf - the very same people who were almost horizontally relaxed about the Dominic "My rules don't apply to me" Cummings affair.
This cost quite a few posters their integrity for 24 hours the other day. 6 of them in fact.
I was remarkably consistent – I thought the Cummings thing was trivial guff (and said so repeatedly on here); ditto Kay Burley et al.
What isn't trivial is the spinecrawling authoritarian moralising from PBers – asking that a woman's livelihood be removed because she had three mates over for drinks.
Except that she enthusiastically participated in exactly that kind of spine-crawling authoritarian moralizing, demanding that other people's livelihoods be removed for similarly trivial offences. That she's finally getting a taste of her own medicine is nothing more than natural justice.
NO. You cannot comment on this. Integrity free zone. Please contact mods and delete your comment.
Lol - aren't the 24 hours up yet?
Philip's are, yes. But you've only just gone in.
Not in solitary though. Felix is there doing a 72 stretch.
What a strange person you are.
That's a very nice thing to say - however such sweet talk will not mean early release.
The politics of whinge and grievance. It's archetypal nationalism as practised by the SNP and the separatists in Catalonia.
And it may work in Scotland and Catalonia - where there is a Government in clear control above the local Government.
That isn't going to work in the UK where as we have left the EU so Boris has no one to pin the blame on.
Does show that they’re scared shitless of what’s round the corner that they feel the need to deflect blame already.
When I was six I told my parents that I was going to drive their car to my friends house. They told me a few times I wasn’t allowed to, so I had a tantrum, then they just said “okay, go on, try”. Obviously I wasn’t even going to be able to get in the thing without the keys and even then my understanding of how to drive as a primary schooler was somewhat limited. As with Brexit. We’ve got past the point of persuasion all we can do now is watch it fail. Unfortunately, unlike me, the children have the keys.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
And that is the heart of it. The Tories want sovereignty for Britain. But do not want it for anyone else.
EU leaders hiding behind Barnier but without giving Barnier authority to change his mandate is contemptible cowardice and not the actions of an ally looking to make a compromise.
If you want a compromise get key decision makers talking to each other. Since Barnier and VDL lack the mandate to change positions they are not the decision makers.
We hold all the cards but the nasty EU won't let us put them on the table?
We can by walking away. I hope we do on Sunday. The EU will deserve it.
No it isn't. Hedge funds don't need to be good at their jobs to distort the political and democratic process for their own ends ; this gets the cause and effect back to front. It's no more like saying the Rothchilds are in charge than pointing to the vast distorting influence of self-interested campaign finance in the United States.
What on earth do you mean by 'for their own ends'? They are funds. They take views on valuations and likely future price moves, or sometimes relative price moves. They make money when they get it right, and they lose money (sometimes shed-loads of money) when they get it wrong. They don't have any ends beyond that, and in the UK the extent to which they can 'distort the political and democratic process' is at most by making strictly-regulated and publicly-disclosed donations to political parties, much like Unite does.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
And that is the heart of it. The Tories want sovereignty for Britain. But do not want it for anyone else.
It is truly a stupid child’s view of the world.
That's a total misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the facts.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Not convinced on this because if I'm right and the LPF deal is coming they'll probably lose money. Unless of course Johnson builds up the No Deal fear for a while longer, drives those markets down, then tips them the wink when the big "breakthrough" is about to happen. Clean up twice! Gosh, that would be corrupt. No, I don't believe it.
I’m not quite sure I believe all of this either. It’s too neat. Hedge funds, as the name suggests, try to offset risks and, indeed, one of the main ways of doing that is by short selling. But the whole point of a hedge fund is, yes, to maximise returns but also offset risk. It’s one hell of a risk to trash a major economy, within which the same hedge funds will undoubtedly have many investments, just for a short term return.
However, their investment in the original Brexit result is already even better documented.
And also typically a load of bollocks.
Hedge funds have investments is not news. They always do. It would more be news if they didn't.
Yes, it's utter bollocks. It's similar to the standard Corbynistic garbage of blaming mysterious and shadowy financiers for everything. Quite how those shadowy figures instructed 52% of voters to how to vote is never clear, nor is why they would bother in the first place.
'Hedge Funds' make a particularly good bogeyman for this conspiracy theory because they sound particularly mysterious and hardly anyone knows what they are. In fact, although originally the term referred to the kind of fund @DougSeal mentioned, i.e. funds that tended to have both long and short positions, nowadays the terms is so widely applied that it's effectively meaningless: they are just Funds, with all manner of different investment strategies.
I don't buy the grand conspiracy stuff but this does not mean all is squeaky clean. Hedge funds will act on quality info if they have and trust it. Just because the word "Hedge" is in the title doesn't mean they hedge everything.
The thing is if, say, Merkel, has a private chat at this point of the negotiations with Johnson, then the leaders of all the other EU countries would (rightly) also want to have their own private negotiations.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Will they be able to both have and eat that humble pie?
So the "huge concession" from the EU was the deal they were offering all along and BoZo just hasn't taken it
I think the Tories don’t really want a deal at all. They have convinced themselves that any restraint - even as a result of an agreement freely entered into - is intolerable. They have come to a belief that sovereignty means being able to do exactly what you want with no adverse consequences whatsoever. They believe that the EU is some sort of evil monster out to get them. So why enter into a deal at all?
And the enthusiastic way in which they all agreed to tear up an agreement they signed up for shows that they don’t really believe in agreements at all.
The logic of their own beliefs pushes them to a No Deal / with one bound we are free result. And I think that is where we will end up.
I hope not. But I fear it. The Tory party has been driven mad by a concept they simply do not understand. It is a shame for the rest of us though who have to face the real world consequences of this obsession.
Trouble is that I can fully understand why Boris and the Brexiteers don't want to sign a deal. It means acknowledging the gap between dreams and reality.
But that doesn't alter the need to sign a deal.
There's a Rolling Stones song which sums up the issue. Let's hope it isn't "Out of Time".
Quickly followed by 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'
In the EU we can't get no satisfaction.
Because we used to love EU ... But it's all over now.
No it isn't. Hedge funds don't need to be good at their jobs to distort the political and democratic process for their own ends ; this gets the cause and effect back to front. It's no more like saying the Rothchilds are in charge than pointing to the vast distorting influence of self-interested campaign finance in the United States.
What on earth do you mean by 'for their own ends'? They are funds. They take views on valuations and likely future price moves, or sometimes relative price moves. They make money when they get it right, and they lose money (sometimes shed-loads of money) when they get it wrong. They don't have any ends beyond that, and in the UK the extent to which they can 'distort the political and democratic process' is at most by making strictly-regulated and publicly-disclosed donations to political parties, much like Unite does.
Their ends are simply profit, as the United States' corporate lobbyists are. If you allow intelligent strategists to boost political parties and referenda campaigns to boost particular profits, you'll distort democracy. There's nothing particularly complex or controversial there.
Britishvolt has confirmed Blyth in Northumberland as its chosen location for a new, £2.6 billion gigaplant that’s intended to boost battery supply ahead of a surge in electric vehicle demand. The plant, which will be similar to the one built by Tesla in the US, comes as part of the UK Government’s low carbon transport project fund, which includes investment in battery cell production. Britishvolt is heading up the scheme, and forecasts 3,000 highly skilled new jobs and 5,000 more in the wider supply chain
The thing is if, say, Merkel, has a private chat at this point of the negotiations with Johnson, then the leaders of all the other EU countries would (rightly) also want to have their own private negotiations.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
Is Merkel not currently President of the Council of Ministers? I would have thought that that might give her some locus but whatever.
I don't buy the grand conspiracy stuff but this does not mean all is squeaky clean. Hedge funds will act on quality info if they have and trust it. Just because the word "Hedge" is in the title doesn't mean they hedge everything.
Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that, of course they try to get good info, although I think people tend to exaggerate the extent to which they do. It's much more about making the right judgement calls after doing their detailed homework than having any special information not available to anyone else (and if it's market-sensitive info, they are very tightly bound by insider trading laws).
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
And that is the heart of it. The Tories want sovereignty for Britain. But do not want it for anyone else.
It is truly a stupid child’s view of the world.
That's a total misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the facts.
You seem to want to negotiate with the constituent parts of a trading group that agrees deals as a group. As is set out in their laws. What is that if not an interference in their sovereignty ?
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Not really - they correctly identified that von der Leyen was saying something very different about the EU's position to the version of that position the UK government had been insisting was the case. What's happened now is that the UK government has somewhat shifted the goalposts. The EU should not be able to adapt the conditions they place on the UK for access looks like the new line. This is not what has been said previously. On that basis it does look like the government is actively seeking a no deal outcome.
Certainly the one thing that really helps people in the rest of the EU respect Britain is constant very relevant references to the second world war by governing party MPs.
All we need now is the RAF Memorial Flight Lancaster to be wheeled out for flypasts. Just as well it's not September.
No it isn't. Hedge funds don't need to be good at their jobs to distort the political and democratic process for their own ends ; this gets the cause and effect back to front. It's no more like saying the Rothchilds are in charge than pointing to the vast distorting influence of self-interested campaign finance in the United States.
What on earth do you mean by 'for their own ends'? They are funds. They take views on valuations and likely future price moves, or sometimes relative price moves. They make money when they get it right, and they lose money (sometimes shed-loads of money) when they get it wrong. They don't have any ends beyond that, and in the UK the extent to which they can 'distort the political and democratic process' is at most by making strictly-regulated and publicly-disclosed donations to political parties, much like Unite does.
Their ends are simply profit, as the United States' corporate lobbyists are. If you allow intelligent stratrgists to boost political parties and referenda campaigns to boost particular profits, you'll distort democracy. This is not complex or controversial.
No, it's not complex or controversial, it's a simple matter of evidence and of plausibility. Would you care to provide any evidence whatsoever that any hedge fund made money out of influencing the referendum result?
The thing is if, say, Merkel, has a private chat at this point of the negotiations with Johnson, then the leaders of all the other EU countries would (rightly) also want to have their own private negotiations.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
Is Merkel not currently President of the Council of Ministers? I would have thought that that might give her some locus but whatever.
Doesn't give her a mandate to make any 'concessions' on behalf of sovereign EU member states, though.
The thing is if, say, Merkel, has a private chat at this point of the negotiations with Johnson, then the leaders of all the other EU countries would (rightly) also want to have their own private negotiations.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
There was a time for individual chats earlier this year. As you say, there is now little or no point to such an exercise.
Why has a PM with a majority of 80 left the whole thing until two minutes to midnight ?
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Not really - they correctly identified that von der Leyen was saying something very different about the EU's position to the version of that position the UK government had been insisting was the case. What's happened now is that the UK government has somewhat shifted the goalposts. The EU should not be able to adapt the conditions they place on the UK for access looks like the new line. This is not what has been said previously. On that basis it does look like the government is actively seeking a no deal outcome.
Yes I agree here. Sadly it looks like the government is going for a deliberate no deal but seeking to conceal it as the EU being difficult. I'd have more respect for the government if they just admitted that it was a nice offer but the terms are not something that the UK could agree to rather than playing a deflection game.
That’s rather unfortunate. Thankfully a number of different approaches have been tried for vaccines, so the failure of one is not a major issue in the grand scheme of things.
I don't buy the grand conspiracy stuff but this does not mean all is squeaky clean. Hedge funds will act on quality info if they have and trust it. Just because the word "Hedge" is in the title doesn't mean they hedge everything.
Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that, of course they try to get good info, although I think people tend to exaggerate the extent to which they do. It's much more about making the right judgement calls after doing their detailed homework than having any special information not available to anyone else (and if it's market-sensitive info, they are very tightly bound by insider trading laws).
I don't buy the grand conspiracy stuff but this does not mean all is squeaky clean. Hedge funds will act on quality info if they have and trust it. Just because the word "Hedge" is in the title doesn't mean they hedge everything.
Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that, of course they try to get good info, although I think people tend to exaggerate the extent to which they do. It's much more about making the right judgement calls after doing their detailed homework than having any special information not available to anyone else (and if it's market-sensitive info, they are very tightly bound by insider trading laws).
And of course none of these funds have broken those laws .....
The thing is if, say, Merkel, has a private chat at this point of the negotiations with Johnson, then the leaders of all the other EU countries would (rightly) also want to have their own private negotiations.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
Is Merkel not currently President of the Council of Ministers? I would have thought that that might give her some locus but whatever.
Doesn't give her a mandate to make any 'concessions' on behalf of sovereign EU member states, though.
Didn't stop her doing deals with Greece, with David Cameron, or in respect of immigration into the EU. All of these were disasters of course but hey, here's hoping.
Britishvolt has confirmed Blyth in Northumberland as its chosen location for a new, £2.6 billion gigaplant that’s intended to boost battery supply ahead of a surge in electric vehicle demand. The plant, which will be similar to the one built by Tesla in the US, comes as part of the UK Government’s low carbon transport project fund, which includes investment in battery cell production. Britishvolt is heading up the scheme, and forecasts 3,000 highly skilled new jobs and 5,000 more in the wider supply chain
One of the reasons for choosing Blyth is that the site will be powered by hydroelectricity from Norway delivered by an undersea connector.
If only we had reliable cheap power available all along the coastline. It's a shame we're not an island nation. Oh wait.
If you were planning a £2bn development which required access to large amounts of such power, would you gamble on the the UK government getting something built in the right place at the right time, or would you go with what's already there ?
Also there's going to be a lot more offshore wind developments in the North Sea. Not so many in Wales.
No it isn't. Hedge funds don't need to be good at their jobs to distort the political and democratic process for their own ends ; this gets the cause and effect back to front. It's no more like saying the Rothchilds are in charge than pointing to the vast distorting influence of self-interested campaign finance in the United States.
What on earth do you mean by 'for their own ends'? They are funds. They take views on valuations and likely future price moves, or sometimes relative price moves. They make money when they get it right, and they lose money (sometimes shed-loads of money) when they get it wrong. They don't have any ends beyond that, and in the UK the extent to which they can 'distort the political and democratic process' is at most by making strictly-regulated and publicly-disclosed donations to political parties, much like Unite does.
Their ends are simply profit, as the United States' corporate lobbyists are. If you allow intelligent stratrgists to boost political parties and referenda campaigns to boost particular profits, you'll distort democracy. This is not complex or controversial.
No, it's not complex or controversial, it's a simple matter of evidence and of plausibility. Would you care to provide any evidence whatsoever that any hedge fund made money out of influencing the referendum result?
"In 2016, Odey was a "prominent" backer of Brexit,[25] arguing it would allow the UK to govern itself.[26] Later that year, his hedge fund won about 15% of its value following the results of the Brexit referendum.[27] He told the BBC on the morning of the result that he had made £220 million speculating that the markets would fall, saying "‘Il mattino ha l'oro in bocca’ – the morning has gold in its mouth""
"Crispin Odey – contributed £14.9m out of the total £24.1m in donations and loans given to the leave campaigns in the five months leading up to the referendum."
I don't buy the grand conspiracy stuff but this does not mean all is squeaky clean. Hedge funds will act on quality info if they have and trust it. Just because the word "Hedge" is in the title doesn't mean they hedge everything.
Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that, of course they try to get good info, although I think people tend to exaggerate the extent to which they do. It's much more about making the right judgement calls after doing their detailed homework than having any special information not available to anyone else (and if it's market-sensitive info, they are very tightly bound by insider trading laws).
And of course none of these funds have broken those laws .....
Even if they have, that doesn't mean they've influenced anything.
I can imagine the trial volunteers panicked a lot during those positive tests. I know I would have.
I have to do one every couple of years for work visa, don’t know why but I’m always a little nervous for a couple of days before the result comes through!
Hope they’re planning how to deal with people who falsely test positive for HIV though, could be tricky for them in future.
No it isn't. Hedge funds don't need to be good at their jobs to distort the political and democratic process for their own ends ; this gets the cause and effect back to front. It's no more like saying the Rothchilds are in charge than pointing to the vast distorting influence of self-interested campaign finance in the United States.
What on earth do you mean by 'for their own ends'? They are funds. They take views on valuations and likely future price moves, or sometimes relative price moves. They make money when they get it right, and they lose money (sometimes shed-loads of money) when they get it wrong. They don't have any ends beyond that, and in the UK the extent to which they can 'distort the political and democratic process' is at most by making strictly-regulated and publicly-disclosed donations to political parties, much like Unite does.
Their ends are simply profit, as the United States' corporate lobbyists are. If you allow intelligent stratrgists to boost political parties and referenda campaigns to boost particular profits, you'll distort democracy. This is not complex or controversial.
No, it's not complex or controversial, it's a simple matter of evidence and of plausibility. Would you care to provide any evidence whatsoever that any hedge fund made money out of influencing the referendum result?
"In 2016, Odey was a "prominent" backer of Brexit,[25] arguing it would allow the UK to govern itself.[26] Later that year, his hedge fund won about 15% of its value following the results of the Brexit referendum.[27] He told the BBC on the morning of the result that he had made £220 million speculating that the markets would fall, saying "‘Il mattino ha l'oro in bocca’ – the morning has gold in its mouth""
"Crispin Odey – contributed £14.9m out of the total £24.1m in donations and loans given to the leave campaigns in the five months leading up to the referendum."
LOL, his flagship fund lost 49% in 2016.
Edit: He's been notably bearish for some years, which is why his fund made money that day, but lost money consistently in what has generally been a bullish market.
This stuff is quite stonkingly puerile, isn't it, and I'm afraid it's a key ingredient in the Spirit of Brexit cocktail. Not 100% proof puerility, one must stress tbf, but there's rather more of it in there than the average brew.
Britishvolt has confirmed Blyth in Northumberland as its chosen location for a new, £2.6 billion gigaplant that’s intended to boost battery supply ahead of a surge in electric vehicle demand. The plant, which will be similar to the one built by Tesla in the US, comes as part of the UK Government’s low carbon transport project fund, which includes investment in battery cell production. Britishvolt is heading up the scheme, and forecasts 3,000 highly skilled new jobs and 5,000 more in the wider supply chain
One of the reasons for choosing Blyth is that the site will be powered by hydroelectricity from Norway delivered by an undersea connector.
If only we had reliable cheap power available all along the coastline. It's a shame we're not an island nation. Oh wait.
If you were planning a £2bn development which required access to large amounts of such power, would you gamble on the the UK government getting something built in the right place at the right time, or would you go with what's already there ?
Also there's going to be a lot more offshore wind developments in the North Sea. Not so many in Wales.
I don't disagree with their decision, just lameting the lack of forwards thinking by the government on energy.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Not really - they correctly identified that von der Leyen was saying something very different about the EU's position to the version of that position the UK government had been insisting was the case. What's happened now is that the UK government has somewhat shifted the goalposts. The EU should not be able to adapt the conditions they place on the UK for access looks like the new line. This is not what has been said previously. On that basis it does look like the government is actively seeking a no deal outcome.
Yes I agree, I think it's the UK that is being unreasonable now.
I really hope I'm wrong a deal is being thrashed out behind the scenes.
The thing is if, say, Merkel, has a private chat at this point of the negotiations with Johnson, then the leaders of all the other EU countries would (rightly) also want to have their own private negotiations.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
Is Merkel not currently President of the Council of Ministers? I would have thought that that might give her some locus but whatever.
Doesn't give her a mandate to make any 'concessions' on behalf of sovereign EU member states, though.
Didn't stop her doing deals with Greece, with David Cameron, or in respect of immigration into the EU. All of these were disasters of course but hey, here's hoping.
What are these deals with "Greece, Cameron and (?)" that I have missed?
No it isn't. Hedge funds don't need to be good at their jobs to distort the political and democratic process for their own ends ; this gets the cause and effect back to front. It's no more like saying the Rothchilds are in charge than pointing to the vast distorting influence of self-interested campaign finance in the United States.
What on earth do you mean by 'for their own ends'? They are funds. They take views on valuations and likely future price moves, or sometimes relative price moves. They make money when they get it right, and they lose money (sometimes shed-loads of money) when they get it wrong. They don't have any ends beyond that, and in the UK the extent to which they can 'distort the political and democratic process' is at most by making strictly-regulated and publicly-disclosed donations to political parties, much like Unite does.
Their ends are simply profit, as the United States' corporate lobbyists are. If you allow intelligent stratrgists to boost political parties and referenda campaigns to boost particular profits, you'll distort democracy. This is not complex or controversial.
No, it's not complex or controversial, it's a simple matter of evidence and of plausibility. Would you care to provide any evidence whatsoever that any hedge fund made money out of influencing the referendum result?
Rather than whether or not they are competent or successful, the more apt question is : is it plausible that particular hedge funds have donated to Vote Leave and the post-Cameron referendum decision Tories for particular profit-taking ends ? And on that central question, multiple outlets, including those radical conspiracists at the FT, have been covering this as a perfectly plausible scenario for years.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Will they be able to both have and eat that humble pie?
No it isn't. Hedge funds don't need to be good at their jobs to distort the political and democratic process for their own ends ; this gets the cause and effect back to front. It's no more like saying the Rothchilds are in charge than pointing to the vast distorting influence of self-interested campaign finance in the United States.
What on earth do you mean by 'for their own ends'? They are funds. They take views on valuations and likely future price moves, or sometimes relative price moves. They make money when they get it right, and they lose money (sometimes shed-loads of money) when they get it wrong. They don't have any ends beyond that, and in the UK the extent to which they can 'distort the political and democratic process' is at most by making strictly-regulated and publicly-disclosed donations to political parties, much like Unite does.
Their ends are simply profit, as the United States' corporate lobbyists are. If you allow intelligent stratrgists to boost political parties and referenda campaigns to boost particular profits, you'll distort democracy. This is not complex or controversial.
No, it's not complex or controversial, it's a simple matter of evidence and of plausibility. Would you care to provide any evidence whatsoever that any hedge fund made money out of influencing the referendum result?
"In 2016, Odey was a "prominent" backer of Brexit,[25] arguing it would allow the UK to govern itself.[26] Later that year, his hedge fund won about 15% of its value following the results of the Brexit referendum.[27] He told the BBC on the morning of the result that he had made £220 million speculating that the markets would fall, saying "‘Il mattino ha l'oro in bocca’ – the morning has gold in its mouth""
"Crispin Odey – contributed £14.9m out of the total £24.1m in donations and loans given to the leave campaigns in the five months leading up to the referendum."
LOL, his flagship fund lost 49% in 2016.
You wrote 'Would you care to provide any evidence whatsoever that any hedge fund made money out of influencing the referendum result?'
I've provided evidence Odey substantially backed and directly benefited from the outcome. What he lost in other 'informed bets' is not relevant.
The thing is if, say, Merkel, has a private chat at this point of the negotiations with Johnson, then the leaders of all the other EU countries would (rightly) also want to have their own private negotiations.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
Is Merkel not currently President of the Council of Ministers? I would have thought that that might give her some locus but whatever.
Doesn't give her a mandate to make any 'concessions' on behalf of sovereign EU member states, though.
Didn't stop her doing deals with Greece, with David Cameron, or in respect of immigration into the EU. All of these were disasters of course but hey, here's hoping.
What are these deals with "Greece, Cameron and (?)" that I have missed?
The deals with Greece were in relation to its default. Read Adults in the Room if you have time. The deal with Cameron was the decision on his compromise proposal which was the precursor to losing the referendum. The last was her decision to allow those trying to get into the EU to come to Germany.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Not really - they correctly identified that von der Leyen was saying something very different about the EU's position to the version of that position the UK government had been insisting was the case. What's happened now is that the UK government has somewhat shifted the goalposts. The EU should not be able to adapt the conditions they place on the UK for access looks like the new line. This is not what has been said previously. On that basis it does look like the government is actively seeking a no deal outcome.
Yes I agree, I think it's the UK that is being unreasonable now.
I really hope I'm wrong a deal is being thrashed out behind the scenes.
Yes agree with this. There has been real movement from the EU this morning wrt the ratchet and state aid. The latter is fully acceptable and if we can get the EU to bend on arbitration for the former it would be a deal very much worth having for both sides. I'd be absolutely in favour of it and hope to extend the trusted trader scheme to UK/EU trade over the next year to start reducing the customs burden for both parties.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Not really - they correctly identified that von der Leyen was saying something very different about the EU's position to the version of that position the UK government had been insisting was the case. What's happened now is that the UK government has somewhat shifted the goalposts. The EU should not be able to adapt the conditions they place on the UK for access looks like the new line. This is not what has been said previously. On that basis it does look like the government is actively seeking a no deal outcome.
As we speak I still think a deal is coming but assuming otherwise - why (iyo) will Johnson choose the No Deal & WTO terms option?
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Certainly the one thing that really helps people in the rest of the EU respect Britain is constant very relevant references to the second world war by governing party MPs.
All we need now is the RAF Memorial Flight Lancaster to be wheeled out for flypasts. Just as well it's not September.
Rubbish! After what the EU have done to us we'll be saving such an aerial dreadnaught for bombing raids on Paris. I'm sure the new broken-down carriers can be adapted to accommodate it if needed.
WW2 was of course shit for all of Europe (and the world), but the UK did emerge with its head held high at the expense of the death of the Empire and really a humiliation of the Country. I think it's harsh to begrudge a little pride in that sacrifice.
It would have been possible to let Europe rot.
Nonetheless I agree entirely that this is a once or twice a year memorial type recognition, and has nothing to do with current politics.
Britishvolt has confirmed Blyth in Northumberland as its chosen location for a new, £2.6 billion gigaplant that’s intended to boost battery supply ahead of a surge in electric vehicle demand. The plant, which will be similar to the one built by Tesla in the US, comes as part of the UK Government’s low carbon transport project fund, which includes investment in battery cell production. Britishvolt is heading up the scheme, and forecasts 3,000 highly skilled new jobs and 5,000 more in the wider supply chain
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Will they be able to both have and eat that humble pie?
Only if it is made by Schrӧdinger's Bakery...
Kinda reminds me of the Einstein Brothers Bagel bakery I saw in the States.
This is from a couple of hours ago on the Guardian Live Blog:
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said: I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
Well, that clears that up then. Large slices of humble pie for Casino_Royale and MaxPB, I think!
Not really - they correctly identified that von der Leyen was saying something very different about the EU's position to the version of that position the UK government had been insisting was the case. What's happened now is that the UK government has somewhat shifted the goalposts. The EU should not be able to adapt the conditions they place on the UK for access looks like the new line. This is not what has been said previously. On that basis it does look like the government is actively seeking a no deal outcome.
As we speak I still think a deal is coming but assuming otherwise - why (iyo) will Johnson choose the No Deal & WTO terms option?
The thing is if, say, Merkel, has a private chat at this point of the negotiations with Johnson, then the leaders of all the other EU countries would (rightly) also want to have their own private negotiations.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
Is Merkel not currently President of the Council of Ministers? I would have thought that that might give her some locus but whatever.
Doesn't give her a mandate to make any 'concessions' on behalf of sovereign EU member states, though.
Didn't stop her doing deals with Greece, with David Cameron, or in respect of immigration into the EU. All of these were disasters of course but hey, here's hoping.
What are these deals with "Greece, Cameron and (?)" that I have missed?
The deals with Greece were in relation to its default. Read Adults in the Room if you have time. The deal with Cameron was the decision on his compromise proposal which was the precursor to losing the referendum. The last was her decision to allow those trying to get into the EU to come to Germany.
There were no deals between Germany and Greece/Cameron, that's just nonsense. Of course the head of the German government had a role in the interactions, that's just a matter of course.
At the height of the refugee crisis she made the decision to allow those refugees already in the EU and heading for Germany into our country to relieve the other countries on their path of the pressure, that's it. That's not "making a deal, bypassing the rest of the EU".
'No Surrender! No Surrender! No Surrender to the EU!'
Basically Boris Johnson has given Northern Ireland all the best of EU membership at the cost of making GB to NI and NI to GB trade much more difficult.
Comments
However tempting though that might be for Boris given Starmer would only win thanks to Scottish MPs support as a nation we are still better and stronger together as a United Kingdom
Not a surprise though I've thought she was awful for years. Lost all respect for her in 2014.
Received wisdom seems to be that this is all theatre – designed to show that the UK, which has rapidly ceased to be a serious country, is serious about its threats. If there is a flaw to this plan – and really, it’s such a tiny cavil – it’s that our prime minister is a liar of international repute. Possibly even intergalactic. For Boris Johnson, lying is not second nature: it is nature.
One of Johnson’s chief justifications for no deal seems to be that he has the cabinet’s very strong backing for it. What? This cabinet? My God – in that case, do the opposite.
I mean, honestly, call up a photo of the current cabinet. Look at their little faces. They are simply the lowest calibre things ever assembled round that table – including the chairs. There are seats of button-backed mahogany in that room that have given deeper thoughts to the implications of no deal than Priti Patel
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/11/boris-johnson-charm-prime-minister-england-dover
"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"
"The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished. The prime minister’s spokesman did not deny the Reuters report saying that Boris Johnson was rebuffed when he tried to get the EU to agree to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron getting involved in the trade talks.
The spokesman also rejected suggestions that Ursula von der Leyen’s comment about sovereignty this morning amounted to anything significant. He said:
I would say there isn’t anything new here, because they still say they would adapt the conditions they place on us for access, and our position on sovereignty remains unchanged."
If you mean that some funds have shorted UK-focused stocks at the right times, then their judgement has been right and they've been doing their job well. Good for them, but that doesn't mean they've influenced anything.
Conversely, some of them have got it very wrong. Most notable is bogeyman-in-chief Crispin Odey, the performance of whose funds has been pretty dire in recent years:
Odey’s flagship hedge fund has posted double-digit losses in four out of the past five years, including a 49 percent loss in 2016
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1p3dsn4wyx45j/Crispin-Odey-Shakes-Up-His-Hedge-Fund-Firm
So if he's a shadowy figure 'investing in Brexit', he's not very good at it.
Really this blaming hedge funds is silly conspiracy-theory nonsense.
If the Times report last night on both sides positions is accurate (and it was quite detailed) there can't be a deal without serious movement. It takes more than just putting lipstick on the pig.
At least this nonsense has moved on from the Rothschild's. Not moved very far though.
https://twitter.com/imranahmadkhan/status/1337387171460812800?s=20
https://twitter.com/imranahmadkhan/status/1337387173369274371?s=20
https://twitter.com/imranahmadkhan/status/1337387175151857665?s=20
That isn't going to work in the UK where as we have left the EU so Boris has no one to pin the blame on.
EU leaders hiding behind Barnier but without giving Barnier authority to change his mandate is contemptible cowardice and not the actions of an ally looking to make a compromise.
If you want a compromise get key decision makers talking to each other. Since Barnier and VDL lack the mandate to change positions they are not the decision makers.
But of course I come from the other opinion which is very much in favour of independence.
https://twitter.com/Jojoteesend/status/1336774420531191810?s=20
Any word on when SKS is going to get 'your' Labour voters back in Scotland?
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Cue for a song though surely -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Mz_IqpZX8
When I was six I told my parents that I was going to drive their car to my friends house. They told me a few times I wasn’t allowed to, so I had a tantrum, then they just said “okay, go on, try”. Obviously I wasn’t even going to be able to get in the thing without the keys and even then my understanding of how to drive as a primary schooler was somewhat limited. As with Brexit. We’ve got past the point of persuasion all we can do now is watch it fail. Unfortunately, unlike me, the children have the keys.
It is truly a stupid child’s view of the world.
Plus, what would the point be? Nobody can trust pants-on-fire Johnson as far as they can throw him, and his grasp of detail is famously crap.
What is that if not an interference in their sovereignty ?
We're clearly quivering in our jackboots. Oppressive, bullying, dithering, sclerotic weaklings we are.
Why has a PM with a majority of 80 left the whole thing until two minutes to midnight ?
Also there's going to be a lot more offshore wind developments in the North Sea. Not so many in Wales.
"In 2016, Odey was a "prominent" backer of Brexit,[25] arguing it would allow the UK to govern itself.[26] Later that year, his hedge fund won about 15% of its value following the results of the Brexit referendum.[27] He told the BBC on the morning of the result that he had made £220 million speculating that the markets would fall, saying "‘Il mattino ha l'oro in bocca’ – the morning has gold in its mouth""
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-campaign-arron-banks-jeremy-hosking-five-uk-richest-businessmen-peter-hargreaves-robert-edmiston-crispin-odey-a7699046.html
"Crispin Odey – contributed £14.9m out of the total £24.1m in donations and loans given to the leave campaigns in the five months leading up to the referendum."
Hope they’re planning how to deal with people who falsely test positive for HIV though, could be tricky for them in future.
Edit: He's been notably bearish for some years, which is why his fund made money that day, but lost money consistently in what has generally been a bullish market.
https://unherd.com/2020/12/how-the-fates-abandoned-boris/
"How the fates abandoned Boris
Covid has shown the Conservatives to be inadequate — and things are about to get worse
BY MAURICE GLASMAN"
I really hope I'm wrong a deal is being thrashed out behind the scenes.
I've provided evidence Odey substantially backed and directly benefited from the outcome. What he lost in other 'informed bets' is not relevant.
WW2 was of course shit for all of Europe (and the world), but the UK did emerge with its head held high at the expense of the death of the Empire and really a humiliation of the Country. I think it's harsh to begrudge a little pride in that sacrifice.
It would have been possible to let Europe rot.
Nonetheless I agree entirely that this is a once or twice a year memorial type recognition, and has nothing to do with current politics.
Do you think he genuinely believes that?
They seem to have been relatively successful.
I thought that perhaps some sort of decision had been announced
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
Nationwise, Spain has joined Italy, Belgium and Peru in this category.
At the height of the refugee crisis she made the decision to allow those refugees already in the EU and heading for Germany into our country to relieve the other countries on their path of the pressure, that's it. That's not "making a deal, bypassing the rest of the EU".
'No Surrender! No Surrender! No Surrender to the EU!'
Basically Boris Johnson has given Northern Ireland all the best of EU membership at the cost of making GB to NI and NI to GB trade much more difficult.