Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
The same Spanish Foreign Minister says something more interesting than that in the interview. The purpose of trade agreements is to manage interdependence, not to assert independence. What she doesn't say in this clip is that the European Union as the consortium owning the trade system will set the rules. The central contradiction of Brexit is that people voted Leave to take control, yet the only acceptable outcome is a close relationship with our peers in Europe, which will be on EU terms.
I don't disagree with what she says but I do think that she is missing the point. The negotiations have got bogged down because the EU has not been treating the UK like a sovereign partner with whom it is interdependent. They have been treating the UK like a supplicant greatly over valuing what they have to offer. If the negotiations had taken place in an atmosphere of mutual respect working on facilitating that interdependence that she is referring to there would have been a deal months ago.
The EU does not own the Trade System.
That, perhaps, is part of their problem.
It owns who gets preferential access to its market. And its market is more important to us than any other outside of our domestic one. That is our problem.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
The same Spanish Foreign Minister says something more interesting than that in the interview. The purpose of trade agreements is to manage interdependence, not to assert independence. What she doesn't say in this clip is that the European Union as the consortium owning the trade system will set the rules. The central contradiction of Brexit is that people voted Leave to take control, yet the only acceptable outcome is a close relationship with our peers in Europe, which will be on EU terms.
I don't disagree with what she says but I do think that she is missing the point. The negotiations have got bogged down because the EU has not been treating the UK like a sovereign partner with whom it is interdependent. They have been treating the UK like a supplicant greatly over valuing what they have to offer. If the negotiations had taken place in an atmosphere of mutual respect working on facilitating that interdependence that she is referring to there would have been a deal months ago.
David, I am surprised at you, that is utter Tory jingoistic bollox. The position was perfectly clear from the beginning, they are treating Britain like any other third party as you would expect, it is the morons who believe they are better than everyone else that have ensured there will be no sensible deal.
The most dangerous aspect of this nihilistic Martingale rampage is that quite a lot of more-or-less rational Leavers (and some of the 'I voted Remain but we must Leave!' lads) approve of the gunboats and foot stamping approach, and are reinforced in their 'visceral and limitless hatred of the EU'; the search for traitors is well under way. The only mild sign of doubt is whether to blame the French or the Germans most.
Remortgage the house (again), max the credit cards, another pay day loan, sell the kids into indentured servitude, with a bit of luck we'll get back all that we've lost. We'll still be stuck with the corrosive division and hatred, BUT IT'LL HAVE ALL BEEN WORTH IT!
The gunboat stuff is the dead cat. They know that TV footage of a Royal Navy ship seeing off some French fishermen will lead the news, pushing the more mundane stories of price rises and small business bankruptcy off the headlines.
You're right. Imagine tipping England on its side and all the loose screws and wingnuts rolling down to the East Coast around Hartlepool and you've got Boris's base
What could fire them up like the rumble of gunboats.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
The issue is they’re asking us not to undercut any *future* standards and employment terms they may come up with down the line.
So if they decide that two years’ maternity leave on full pay, or a maximum 35-hour working week, or a ratio between top and bottom earners in companies, is new EU law, we have to either agree or suffer trade consequences.
This Christmas easing will in months to come be seen as a total disaster, just as Eat Out To Help Out was. Let's see if I am correct once again.
I agree 100% and have been saying for days that Boris, Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster need to lockdown Christmas now
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
One of many on the cabinet of buffoons willing to support BoZo
> And how on earth is it in the EU's interest to deny the UK access to the criminal records system or the missing persons system operated under SIS2? Do they really want their nationals trafficked into the UK? Do they really not want to know about the criminal backgrounds of those from the UK entering their countries without visas for 90 days? This is blatant self harm to make a point. It is completely irrational. But it is also their choice and if that is what they choose we will simply need to make other arrangements to protect our citizens.
Legally those areas come under the ECJ which the government refused to have anything to do with. However I expect some fudge might be possible for partial access and expect a Security deal will be reached regardless of what happens in other areas .
We have extradition treaties with many, most countries around the world. None of these require us to be subject to their courts although we have responsibility to deal with requests by their public bodies as they do with ours. The EAW is the most extensive of these agreements. Whilst there are reservations about having such extensive obligations with members of the EU whose judicial system is frankly rotten it is on balance a good thing and I hope something like it is entered into after 31st December if not before.
Interesting chat from Sam Coates. Raab has actually indicated a specific demand for once, rather than just banging on about sovereignty. I still think No Deal is likely, but it’s just about possible the EU could just about agree to narrow the scope of retaliatory tariffs, agree to a euro fudge independent regulator for more comprehensive disputes, slap lipstick on the pig and send it to market.
It sounds to me like the path to a deal is being paved. I am a lot more confident this morning that we will get one and that the very worst effects of Brexit will therefore be mitigated. I really hope so.
Dougseal if you're claiming sclerotic is simply a medical term then you are betraying your own ignorance.
The term Eurosclerosis was coined in the 1980s and has long been used by economists and was popularised by German economist Herbert Giersch.
Anything nefarious you want to see is in your own imagination.
Straw man. You deliberately misrepresent me. I said nothing of the sort. If you had read my post you would have seen that I explicitly concede that what you say is a secondary meaning. However the primary meaning is attested in the references I cite. Your unwillingness to use any other term whatsoever is instructive of your own prejudice, which I note you don't deny.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
Citation needed!
Boris got Brexit done.
He's taking back control.
He's even ensuring Brexit means Brexit.
Besides platitudes what do you want a citation for?
Because your assertion is factually incorrect, unless by "constructive" you mean he has built more lorry parks around the M2 and M20 and constructed a raft of new customs paperwork and an unnecessary hostility to our nearest neighbours.
The man is an embarrassment to our country. Turning up to Brussels looking like Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle, with his unkempt hair and ill fitting suit, His Environment speech yesterday was remarkable, particularly it's conclusion, which was utterly humiliating. And that is just first impressions, what goes beyond is an incompetence based on the inability to make a decision that he fears might annoy his base.
Whenever I go off on one about my utter contempt for Johnson, I find myself with a handful of extra "off-topics". "Off-topic" away, although I believe my post does relate to Alastair's excellent thread header and Johnson's shambolic handling of Brexit.
I don't off topic anyone. It is cowardly, anonymous and rude. Plus it spams OGH.
If I disagree with you then I'll say so to your face.
I disagree with you. Boris is shaping up to be potentially the second best postwar PM and third most consequential.
That's a powerful Header right there. Really excellent. I know Alastair Meeks is a Remain Ultra and has been known to succumb to a touch of Leaverphobia every now and again, but many of the assertions he makes have become strongly aligned with the evidence as this Brexit saga has evolved. For balance and interest, what I would love to see is a Header from one of our countless intelligent and articulate Leavers making a convincing or at least credible case for the opposite view - that Boris Johnson and his Leave comrades are working hard to deliver an outcome that is both in the national interest and respects the 52/48 vote, and that in doing so they are negotiating skillfully and in good faith with the EU, and at the same time communicating honestly with the British public. Such a Header would imo be better than Alastair's because the task appears on the face of it to be that much more difficult.
This Christmas easing will in months to come be seen as a total disaster, just as Eat Out To Help Out was. Let's see if I am correct once again.
I agree 100% and have been saying for days that Boris, Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster need to lockdown Christmas now
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
I'm not sure about that. I get the sense that people think that just because the government tells them that they can do something then it must be safe to do so. Obviously there are some people who just don't care what the government says, but I think the government has more influence than you might think.
Interesting chat from Sam Coates. Raab has actually indicated a specific demand for once, rather than just banging on about sovereignty. I still think No Deal is likely, but it’s just about possible the EU could just about agree to narrow the scope of retaliatory tariffs, agree to a euro fudge independent regulator for more comprehensive disputes, slap lipstick on the pig and send it to market.
It sounds to me like the path to a deal is being paved. I am a lot more confident this morning that we will get one and that the very worst effects of Brexit will therefore be mitigated. I really hope so.
There does seem to be a slight change in the tone and language today. I agree let's hope.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
The issue is they’re asking us not to undercut any *future* standards and employment terms they may come up with down the line.
So if they decide that two years’ maternity leave on full pay, or a maximum 35-hour working week, or a ratio between top and bottom earners in companies, is new EU law, we have to either agree or suffer trade consequences.
Assuming that is true - and we cannot know it is because no-one outside of the negotiations (including cabinet ministers) has seen the legal texts - why is the solution to suffer tariffs now instead of perhaps facing them in the future if we decide to have lower standards than the EU?
This Christmas easing will in months to come be seen as a total disaster, just as Eat Out To Help Out was. Let's see if I am correct once again.
I agree 100% and have been saying for days that Boris, Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster need to lockdown Christmas now
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
Those who complain endlessly about Christmas are in my view ignoring 2 important factors. Firstly, the UK populace is not complying with the current tier system. If they were the R rate would be lower than it is. Secondly, there is the difference between illegal and advisable. The government is quite clear that large indoor family gatherings are not advisable. They just don't want the police knocking down the door to stop it. People have to make their own decisions and the vast majority will be sensible about it.
The problem we Remainers have is that it was never about trade for many Leavers, it's about prejudice.
The use of language by @Philip_Thompson is instructive. A quick review of his posts shows his describing the French as "Frogs" and mocking the German accent ("...obey ze rules...").
But more revealing is his constant use of the adjective "sclerotic" in relation to the EU - something he did as recently as this morning. He claims to mean it in the sense of inertia, slow moving etc. However in both the CED and the OED (and indeed the ancient copy of Chambers 20th Century Dictionary on my shelf and the online Merriam-Webster) the primary (as in first listed) meaning of the word sclerotic pertains to the medical condition in which body tissue or organs become harder e.g. multiple sclerosis. On dictionary.com that medical definition of "sclerotic" is indeed the only one listed -https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sclerotic?s=t . My thesaurus (and thesaurus.com) lists only medical terms such as debilitated, disabled or paralised as synonyms for the word - https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sclerotic?s=t
While I concede that there is a secondary meaning of "sclerotic" in most dictionaries of "slow to change" that supports Mr Thompson, to an extent, it remains the case that of vast number of available adjectives indicating that state of being (e.g. dilatory, inert, indolent, lagging, lethargic or even just "slow moving") he consistently, almost exclusively, chooses a term that is primarily undertood as stemming from a medical pathology leding to a serious disability.
From the use of his language overall it does appear that the prejudice dispayed in his use of the term "Frogs" and his mocking of Continental European accents goes further, in his mind, being Pro-EU (as opposed to a Europhobe) can only be seen as supporting an illness (perhaps being an illness itself). Normally this wouldn't be a problem. Supporting the disabled should not be regarded as a negative. But as a self-proclaimed supporter of Ayn Rand, who famously said -
"Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to." - Ayn Rand, The Age of Mediocrity, Q & A Ford Hall Forum, April, 1981
his constant use of the word "sclerotic" over an above all other words becomes quite, shall we say, problematic.
That sort of attitude (which I don't ascribe to all Leavers) you can't argue against. It's pure prejudice.
Thanks for highlighting that interesting passage from Ayn Rand. I've never read any of her work - that's pretty gamey stuff.
However, I can't really take the thrust of your post seriously. Of course we use the language of disease to refer to problems we perceive within organisations. 'Plagued by' this, 'stopping the rot', 'purged', 'left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing', 'paralysed', 'viral' etc. Pointing out what you perceive to be a 'disease' within an organisation has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have a sympathetic attitude to sufferers or not. I find it odd that you have failed to make this distinction.
This Christmas easing will in months to come be seen as a total disaster, just as Eat Out To Help Out was. Let's see if I am correct once again.
I agree 100% and have been saying for days that Boris, Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster need to lockdown Christmas now
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
To be fair I have agreed with my family that we cancel our get together of 10, my wife and I will spend Xmas on our own and my daughter and family (4) and son and family (4) will also do the same
Interesting chat from Sam Coates. Raab has actually indicated a specific demand for once, rather than just banging on about sovereignty. I still think No Deal is likely, but it’s just about possible the EU could just about agree to narrow the scope of retaliatory tariffs, agree to a euro fudge independent regulator for more comprehensive disputes, slap lipstick on the pig and send it to market.
It sounds to me like the path to a deal is being paved. I am a lot more confident this morning that we will get one and that the very worst effects of Brexit will therefore be mitigated. I really hope so.
I very much hope you are right but the evidence of movement in public at least is fitful and does not seem to have the urgency that you would expect.
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
I doubt you will be the only leaver who finds an excuse to make themselves scare over the coming weeks.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
Citation needed!
Boris got Brexit done.
He's taking back control.
He's even ensuring Brexit means Brexit.
Besides platitudes what do you want a citation for?
Because your assertion is factually incorrect, unless by "constructive" you mean he has built more lorry parks around the M2 and M20 and constructed a raft of new customs paperwork and an unnecessary hostility to our nearest neighbours.
The man is an embarrassment to our country. Turning up to Brussels looking like Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle, with his unkempt hair and ill fitting suit, His Environment speech yesterday was remarkable, particularly it's conclusion, which was utterly humiliating. And that is just first impressions, what goes beyond is an incompetence based on the inability to make a decision that he fears might annoy his base.
Whenever I go off on one about my utter contempt for Johnson, I find myself with a handful of extra "off-topics". "Off-topic" away, although I believe my post does relate to Alastair's excellent thread header and Johnson's shambolic handling of Brexit.
I don't off topic anyone. It is cowardly, anonymous and rude. Plus it spams OGH.
If I disagree with you then I'll say so to your face.
I disagree with you. Boris is shaping up to be potentially the second best postwar PM and third most consequential.
I wasn't suggesting you would "off-topic".
We will have to agree to disagree about Johnson's legacy. I didn't like Mrs Thatcher, but I can understand why people did rate her so highly. As for Johnson, I cannot see past the Fred Scuttle, half-wittery.
Johnson's legacy it is too early to say but I think he has the potential to be up there with Attlee and Thatcher as one of the three most consequential PMs post war.
Blair had the potential too but threw it away.
Johnson's legacy will be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ceasing to exist.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
The same Spanish Foreign Minister says something more interesting than that in the interview. The purpose of trade agreements is to manage interdependence, not to assert independence. What she doesn't say in this clip is that the European Union as the consortium owning the trade system will set the rules. The central contradiction of Brexit is that people voted Leave to take control, yet the only acceptable outcome is a close relationship with our peers in Europe, which will be on EU terms.
I don't disagree with what she says but I do think that she is missing the point. The negotiations have got bogged down because the EU has not been treating the UK like a sovereign partner with whom it is interdependent. They have been treating the UK like a supplicant greatly over valuing what they have to offer. If the negotiations had taken place in an atmosphere of mutual respect working on facilitating that interdependence that she is referring to there would have been a deal months ago.
But that is (my) point. The UK isn't a sovereign partner of the EU, because the EU isn't a sovereign state. It is a consortium of countries that runs a rules-based system. The question is on what terms does a third country get access to this system, which necessarily will be the consortium's terms. It won't change the rules for a third country. A membership organisation needs to maximise the value of membership, which means the EU will offer third countries much worse terms than members, albeit those terms need to offer some value to third countries.
The UK can decide its notions of sovereignty preclude it from any deal with the EU on its terms. In that case it cuts itself off from most of its peers and the relationship that offers most value. I don't think that is a sustainable position and that the UK will be forced into a relationship with the EU on its terms, which gives it less than before and which the UK no longer has much influence over. That's the central contradiction of Brexit.
The problem we Remainers have is that it was never about trade for many Leavers, it's about prejudice.
The use of language by @Philip_Thompson is instructive. A quick review of his posts shows his describing the French as "Frogs" and mocking the German accent ("...obey ze rules...").
But more revealing is his constant use of the adjective "sclerotic" in relation to the EU - something he did as recently as this morning. He claims to mean it in the sense of inertia, slow moving etc. However in both the CED and the OED (and indeed the ancient copy of Chambers 20th Century Dictionary on my shelf and the online Merriam-Webster) the primary (as in first listed) meaning of the word sclerotic pertains to the medical condition in which body tissue or organs become harder e.g. multiple sclerosis. On dictionary.com that medical definition of "sclerotic" is indeed the only one listed -https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sclerotic?s=t . My thesaurus (and thesaurus.com) lists only medical terms such as debilitated, disabled or paralised as synonyms for the word - https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sclerotic?s=t
While I concede that there is a secondary meaning of "sclerotic" in most dictionaries of "slow to change" that supports Mr Thompson, to an extent, it remains the case that of vast number of available adjectives indicating that state of being (e.g. dilatory, inert, indolent, lagging, lethargic or even just "slow moving") he consistently, almost exclusively, chooses a term that is primarily undertood as stemming from a medical pathology leding to a serious disability.
From the use of his language overall it does appear that the prejudice dispayed in his use of the term "Frogs" and his mocking of Continental European accents goes further, in his mind, being Pro-EU (as opposed to a Europhobe) can only be seen as supporting an illness (perhaps being an illness itself). Normally this wouldn't be a problem. Supporting the disabled should not be regarded as a negative. But as a self-proclaimed supporter of Ayn Rand, who famously said -
"Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to." - Ayn Rand, The Age of Mediocrity, Q & A Ford Hall Forum, April, 1981
his constant use of the word "sclerotic" over an above all other words becomes quite, shall we say, problematic.
That sort of attitude (which I don't ascribe to all Leavers) you can't argue against. It's pure prejudice.
Thanks for highlighting that interesting passage from Ayn Rand. I've never read any of her work - that's pretty gamey stuff.
However, I can't really take the thrust of your post seriously. Of course we use the language of disease to refer to problems we perceive within organisations. 'Plagued by' this, 'stopping the rot', 'purged', 'left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing', 'paralysed', 'viral' etc. Pointing out what you perceive to be a 'disease' within an organisation has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have a sympathetic attitude to sufferers or not. I find it odd that you have failed to make this distinction.
The use of his language taken as a whole does. If he had never mocked Continental Europeans, and used the word 'sclerotic' in an amongst the many and other adjectives available, you would have a point. But he uses it to the virtual exclusion of all else. It's a monomania.
Anyway, coming late to the party, what the hell is the purpose of the headline on the front of the Sunday Times today?
"Ministers tell supermarkets to stockpile food"?
Are we in some parallel universe where ministers think that the supermarkets have just been sitting there awaiting instructions and not making their own arrangements in their best business interests? Are they actually trying to send out a message to the public that they SHOULD panic and they SHOULD stockpile?
1. I kept reading on here mainly from Philip that my detailed descriptions of why food disruption was coming and would be significant was Not True. The government haven't had his memo 2. Supermarkets cannot stockpile fresh food. It goes off. 3. The supermarkets cannot stockpile anything. Anyone heard of Christmas? Warehouses - logistics distribution centres, supermarket distribution centres, store warehouses, front of store racking / deal pallet spaces - it's all rammed with stock as it is every year. Add in Covid and Brexit worries and the situation is the worst it's been for years. Supermarkets can't stockpile as There is nowhere to put it until after Christmas
Exactly they cannot even keep their shelves stocked in normal times.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
The same Spanish Foreign Minister says something more interesting than that in the interview. The purpose of trade agreements is to manage interdependence, not to assert independence. What she doesn't say in this clip is that the European Union as the consortium owning the trade system will set the rules. The central contradiction of Brexit is that people voted Leave to take control, yet the only acceptable outcome is a close relationship with our peers in Europe, which will be on EU terms.
I don't disagree with what she says but I do think that she is missing the point. The negotiations have got bogged down because the EU has not been treating the UK like a sovereign partner with whom it is interdependent. They have been treating the UK like a supplicant greatly over valuing what they have to offer. If the negotiations had taken place in an atmosphere of mutual respect working on facilitating that interdependence that she is referring to there would have been a deal months ago.
The one thing the EU doesn't want is a country successfully leaving. Which meant we were always on the back foot and we should have recognised that fact within the negotiations. The fact we never did (even on the quiet) made things far more difficult than they would otherwise have been.
That's a fair point. The wasted years of David Davis in particular did not help either. This was never, ever going to be easy or even entirely rational and we should have allowed for that. It makes Hammond's refusal to allow preparations inexcusable.
Dougseal if you're claiming sclerotic is simply a medical term then you are betraying your own ignorance.
The term Eurosclerosis was coined in the 1980s and has long been used by economists and was popularised by German economist Herbert Giersch.
Anything nefarious you want to see is in your own imagination.
Straw man. You deliberately misrepresent me. I said nothing of the sort. If you had read my post you would have seen that I explicitly concede that what you say is a secondary meaning. However the primary meaning is attested in the references I cite. Your unwillingness to use any other term whatsoever is instructive of your own prejudice, which I note you don't deny.
I do deny. Comprehensively deny.
I only use terms like Frogs as light-hearted affection. To take that out of context is dishonesty. I would never use the term in anger, there is nothing wrong with nicknames. I don't object to being called a POME or Rosbif.
I use the term sclerotic as it is a good term that well defines the EUs failings. It means exactly what I mean when I say it and if you're seeing anything nefarious then that is on you and you alone.
Interesting chat from Sam Coates. Raab has actually indicated a specific demand for once, rather than just banging on about sovereignty. I still think No Deal is likely, but it’s just about possible the EU could just about agree to narrow the scope of retaliatory tariffs, agree to a euro fudge independent regulator for more comprehensive disputes, slap lipstick on the pig and send it to market.
It sounds to me like the path to a deal is being paved. I am a lot more confident this morning that we will get one and that the very worst effects of Brexit will therefore be mitigated. I really hope so.
There does seem to be a slight change in the tone and language today. I agree let's hope.
It will be bare bones, but any deal will mean we remain on decent terms with the EU. That, for me, is the most important thing from here as it gives us the opportunity to build a positive future relationship. I think that's one reason why so many Brexit ultras are so desperate for a No Deal. They genuinely see the EU as an enemy.
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
Merkel has just cancelled Christmas
We can see in January who was right
Italy has also; making it illegal to leave your home city on Xmas Day
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
Citation needed!
Boris got Brexit done.
He's taking back control.
He's even ensuring Brexit means Brexit.
Besides platitudes what do you want a citation for?
Because your assertion is factually incorrect, unless by "constructive" you mean he has built more lorry parks around the M2 and M20 and constructed a raft of new customs paperwork and an unnecessary hostility to our nearest neighbours.
The man is an embarrassment to our country. Turning up to Brussels looking like Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle, with his unkempt hair and ill fitting suit, His Environment speech yesterday was remarkable, particularly it's conclusion, which was utterly humiliating. And that is just first impressions, what goes beyond is an incompetence based on the inability to make a decision that he fears might annoy his base.
Whenever I go off on one about my utter contempt for Johnson, I find myself with a handful of extra "off-topics". "Off-topic" away, although I believe my post does relate to Alastair's excellent thread header and Johnson's shambolic handling of Brexit.
I don't off topic anyone. It is cowardly, anonymous and rude. Plus it spams OGH.
If I disagree with you then I'll say so to your face.
I disagree with you. Boris is shaping up to be potentially the second best postwar PM and third most consequential.
I wasn't suggesting you would "off-topic".
We will have to agree to disagree about Johnson's legacy. I didn't like Mrs Thatcher, but I can understand why people did rate her so highly. As for Johnson, I cannot see past the Fred Scuttle, half-wittery.
Johnson's legacy it is too early to say but I think he has the potential to be up there with Attlee and Thatcher as one of the three most consequential PMs post war.
Blair had the potential too but threw it away.
I think that is the most accurate thing you've ever said.
Attlee is always going to be highly regarded. Thatcher is loved and loathed in equal measure. I suspect the consequences of Brexit will result in Johnson being far more loathed than loved.
The adage be careful what you wish for it may become true is definitely going to be revealed with Brexit.
Apparently Norway has threatened to close its waters to UK and EU fishermen if there's no deal. Maybe journalists could goad Norwegian ministers into describing how they would enforce this closure, and when they respond that it'll be in the same way as normal (ie their navy) we can all accuse them of declaring war on everybody
Fishing policy is a horror story across the board. Brexit just adds to the problems but doesn't fundamentally cause them.
Incidentally wonder why the EU when talking about the fish quotas it wants post Brexit refers to % of their current ex-UK quota rather than of the total catch. ie they want 85% of the non-UK part that equates to around 40%, I think, of the total catch in UK waters. So people think the UK only gets 15% of the catch in its own waters because the EU will get the rest.
The UK has already come to an agreement with Norway.
Once again Brussels needs to get off its backside and put Mons. Macron back in his box.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Bulgaria is a part of the Single Market with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour. No tariffs or other restrictions, full market access.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Dougseal if you're claiming sclerotic is simply a medical term then you are betraying your own ignorance.
The term Eurosclerosis was coined in the 1980s and has long been used by economists and was popularised by German economist Herbert Giersch.
Anything nefarious you want to see is in your own imagination.
Straw man. You deliberately misrepresent me. I said nothing of the sort. If you had read my post you would have seen that I explicitly concede that what you say is a secondary meaning. However the primary meaning is attested in the references I cite. Your unwillingness to use any other term whatsoever is instructive of your own prejudice, which I note you don't deny.
I do deny. Comprehensively deny.
I only use terms like Frogs as light-hearted affection. To take that out of context is dishonesty. I would never use the term in anger, there is nothing wrong with nicknames. I don't object to being called a POME or Rosbif.
I use the term sclerotic as it is a good term that well defines the EUs failings. It means exactly what I mean when I say it and if you're seeing anything nefarious then that is on you and you alone.
"Light hearted affection". Doesn't come accross that way it has to be said.
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
A fair observation to be honest
Which bit of that rant do you think is a fair observation, Big_G ?
I think agreeing in any way with that hot mess of a posting-breakdown implies little thinking was involved.
I doubt he will be the last Brexiter to be mysteriously less prominent in coming weeks.....
It won't be long before Thompson is the last man standing.
You know that kind of arrogance is why Brexit happened
Reading the thread this morning it was one long rant by those who do not accept brexit and disregard of any alternative view
This forum is at its best when views are argued and discussed but the intolerance of alternative views on Brexit and the active hope some posters will disappear from PB actually harms it
I am going nowhere, will argue for a deal, and expect as we move into 2021 to see progression in the relationship with the EU
Maybe we have to no deal to bring the whole matter to a head but it is important that the EU is held to account as well
It seems on Marr this morning the extreme attitudes on leaving and remaining have virtually remained unchanged and accounts for two thirds of public opinion with one third in the middle which is where I stand. I expect it will be resolved by joining the single market and customs union at some time in the future
However, I would ask all posters to respect all views and not actively encourage some posters to stop posting. That is not acceptable
Nothing written on the Political Betting website caused the Leave vote in 2016.
We are where we are. The UK government has promised the electorate that the UK is going to thrive outside of the EU with or without a deal. We will have higher public spending, lower taxes and reduced levels of debt. It's all there in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. It is now time for the UK government to deliver and to be held to account for the promises it has made.
I accept that and indeed it is upto HMG to be held to account over the coming months and years
However, I find it distasteful for some posters to actively encencourage others to stop posting or take a break from posting
Some of them do sound as if they are under severe stress and will do themselves damage , foaming at the mouth like that is not good for you.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Bulgaria is a part of the Single Market with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour. No tariffs or other restrictions, full market access.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Bulgaria doesn't use the euro - unless my continual need to use a Bulgarian cash machine when I arrived in Sofia was a figment of my imagination.
Equally though I've never been in a country that was so much everyone for themselves. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't so blooming stupid.
Interesting chat from Sam Coates. Raab has actually indicated a specific demand for once, rather than just banging on about sovereignty. I still think No Deal is likely, but it’s just about possible the EU could just about agree to narrow the scope of retaliatory tariffs, agree to a euro fudge independent regulator for more comprehensive disputes, slap lipstick on the pig and send it to market.
It sounds to me like the path to a deal is being paved. I am a lot more confident this morning that we will get one and that the very worst effects of Brexit will therefore be mitigated. I really hope so.
There does seem to be a slight change in the tone and language today. I agree let's hope.
It will be bare bones, but any deal will mean we remain on decent terms with the EU. That, for me, is the most important thing from here as it gives us the opportunity to build a positive future relationship. I think that's one reason why so many Brexit ultras are so desperate for a No Deal. They genuinely see the EU as an enemy.
One of many on the cabinet of buffoons willing to support BoZo
> And how on earth is it in the EU's interest to deny the UK access to the criminal records system or the missing persons system operated under SIS2? Do they really want their nationals trafficked into the UK? Do they really not want to know about the criminal backgrounds of those from the UK entering their countries without visas for 90 days? This is blatant self harm to make a point. It is completely irrational. But it is also their choice and if that is what they choose we will simply need to make other arrangements to protect our citizens.
I'm not entirely sure how ceasing to be subject to detention at the behest of the police forces on the continent makes us less safe. I'd say it makes us safer if anything.
I suspect that there are quite a lot of Poles in the UK who might feel that way. They form a significant part of the European Arrest Warrant extraditions and it is often for "offences" such as not paying their taxes before they left. They will be more secure here afterwards.
But the EAW is on balance a good thing. It has been very helpful in dealing with international crime and in particular arseholes who think it is ok to go to other countries and ignore their laws. My confusion is what such cooperation has to do with a trade agreement. We could agree this level of cooperation without any trade deal whatsoever.
The problem is that signing up for that sort of agreement involves giving up some Sovereignty - there needs to be a supranational body to appeal to if the UK / EU disagrees with how one of their citizens is being treated.
There really doesn't. None of our other extradition treaties have such provisions. We rely upon our courts and their courts to comply with the treaty. That is all that is required.
Trade is different of course. There I agree we need some impartial adjudicator to determine whether complaints of a breach are justified.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
The same Spanish Foreign Minister says something more interesting than that in the interview. The purpose of trade agreements is to manage interdependence, not to assert independence. What she doesn't say in this clip is that the European Union as the consortium owning the trade system will set the rules. The central contradiction of Brexit is that people voted Leave to take control, yet the only acceptable outcome is a close relationship with our peers in Europe, which will be on EU terms.
I don't disagree with what she says but I do think that she is missing the point. The negotiations have got bogged down because the EU has not been treating the UK like a sovereign partner with whom it is interdependent. They have been treating the UK like a supplicant greatly over valuing what they have to offer. If the negotiations had taken place in an atmosphere of mutual respect working on facilitating that interdependence that she is referring to there would have been a deal months ago.
But that is (my) point. The UK isn't a sovereign partner of the EU, because the EU isn't a sovereign state. It is a consortium of countries that runs a rules-based system. The question is on what terms does a third country get access to this system, which necessarily will be the consortium's terms. It won't change the rules for a third country. A membership organisation needs to maximise the value of membership, which means the EU will offer third countries much worse terms than members, albeit those terms need to offer some value to third countries.
The UK can decide its notions of sovereignty preclude it from any deal with the EU on its terms. In that case it cuts itself off from most of its peers and the relationship that offers most value. I don't think that is a sustainable position and that the UK will be forced into a relationship with the EU on its terms, which gives it less than before and which the UK no longer has much influence over. That's the central contradiction of Brexit.
That's struck me too. The UK and EU as "sovereign equals"? No. The UK is a sovereign nation. The EU is a union of 27 sovereign nations. It's a tell, I think. Either of thinking of the EU as a USE, or thinking of the UK as a superpower, or both. Not surprising, I guess, since this way of viewing things is in the Leaver psyche.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
The issue is they’re asking us not to undercut any *future* standards and employment terms they may come up with down the line.
So if they decide that two years’ maternity leave on full pay, or a maximum 35-hour working week, or a ratio between top and bottom earners in companies, is new EU law, we have to either agree or suffer trade consequences.
Given how shitty UK employment terms are in respect to EU at present , that could only be a good thing.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Bulgaria is a part of the Single Market with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour. No tariffs or other restrictions, full market access.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Bulgaria doesn't use the euro - unless my continual need to use a Bulgarian cash machine when I arrived in Sofia was a figment of my imagination.
Equally though I've never been in a country that was so much everyone for themselves. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't so blooming stupid.
They're still a part of the EU and Single Market. Minimum means minimum, that is the baseline. If you're worried about unfair competition our manufacturers etc can be competed against by that. The idea we are going to undercut their minimum is for the fairies it always has been.
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
A fair observation to be honest
Which bit of that rant do you think is a fair observation, Big_G ?
I think agreeing in any way with that hot mess of a posting-breakdown implies little thinking was involved.
I doubt he will be the last Brexiter to be mysteriously less prominent in coming weeks.....
It won't be long before Thompson is the last man standing.
You know that kind of arrogance is why Brexit happened
Reading the thread this morning it was one long rant by those who do not accept brexit and disregard of any alternative view
This forum is at its best when views are argued and discussed but the intolerance of alternative views on Brexit and the active hope some posters will disappear from PB actually harms it
I am going nowhere, will argue for a deal, and expect as we move into 2021 to see progression in the relationship with the EU
Maybe we have to no deal to bring the whole matter to a head but it is important that the EU is held to account as well
It seems on Marr this morning the extreme attitudes on leaving and remaining have virtually remained unchanged and accounts for two thirds of public opinion with one third in the middle which is where I stand. I expect it will be resolved by joining the single market and customs union at some time in the future
However, I would ask all posters to respect all views and not actively encourage some posters to stop posting. That is not acceptable
Nothing written on the Political Betting website caused the Leave vote in 2016.
We are where we are. The UK government has promised the electorate that the UK is going to thrive outside of the EU with or without a deal. We will have higher public spending, lower taxes and reduced levels of debt. It's all there in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. It is now time for the UK government to deliver and to be held to account for the promises it has made.
I accept that and indeed it is upto HMG to be held to account over the coming months and years
However, I find it distasteful for some posters to actively encencourage others to stop posting or take a break from posting
Some of them do sound as if they are under severe stress and will do themselves damage , foaming at the mouth like that is not good for you.
This would be a logical moment for a better mood music for a deal. Johnson has done his sub-churchillian theatrics, roared up his base with the falklands nostalgia and heroic fishing talk, and is now probably in a bit of a better position to make the compromises needed. I really do hope so.
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
The problem we Remainers have is that it was never about trade for many Leavers, it's about prejudice.
The use of language by @Philip_Thompson is instructive. A quick review of his posts shows his describing the French as "Frogs" and mocking the German accent ("...obey ze rules...").
But more revealing is his constant use of the adjective "sclerotic" in relation to the EU - something he did as recently as this morning. He claims to mean it in the sense of inertia, slow moving etc. However in both the CED and the OED (and indeed the ancient copy of Chambers 20th Century Dictionary on my shelf and the online Merriam-Webster) the primary (as in first listed) meaning of the word sclerotic pertains to the medical condition in which body tissue or organs become harder e.g. multiple sclerosis. On dictionary.com that medical definition of "sclerotic" is indeed the only one listed -https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sclerotic?s=t . My thesaurus (and thesaurus.com) lists only medical terms such as debilitated, disabled or paralised as synonyms for the word - https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sclerotic?s=t
While I concede that there is a secondary meaning of "sclerotic" in most dictionaries of "slow to change" that supports Mr Thompson, to an extent, it remains the case that of vast number of available adjectives indicating that state of being (e.g. dilatory, inert, indolent, lagging, lethargic or even just "slow moving") he consistently, almost exclusively, chooses a term that is primarily undertood as stemming from a medical pathology leding to a serious disability.
From the use of his language overall it does appear that the prejudice dispayed in his use of the term "Frogs" and his mocking of Continental European accents goes further, in his mind, being Pro-EU (as opposed to a Europhobe) can only be seen as supporting an illness (perhaps being an illness itself). Normally this wouldn't be a problem. Supporting the disabled should not be regarded as a negative. But as a self-proclaimed supporter of Ayn Rand, who famously said -
"Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to." - Ayn Rand, The Age of Mediocrity, Q & A Ford Hall Forum, April, 1981
his constant use of the word "sclerotic" over an above all other words becomes quite, shall we say, problematic.
That sort of attitude (which I don't ascribe to all Leavers) you can't argue against. It's pure prejudice.
Thanks for highlighting that interesting passage from Ayn Rand. I've never read any of her work - that's pretty gamey stuff.
However, I can't really take the thrust of your post seriously. Of course we use the language of disease to refer to problems we perceive within organisations. 'Plagued by' this, 'stopping the rot', 'purged', 'left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing', 'paralysed', 'viral' etc. Pointing out what you perceive to be a 'disease' within an organisation has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have a sympathetic attitude to sufferers or not. I find it odd that you have failed to make this distinction.
The use of his language taken as a whole does. If he had never mocked Continental Europeans, and used the word 'sclerotic' in an amongst the many and other adjectives available, you would have a point. But he uses it to the virtual exclusion of all else. It's a monomania.
But which alternative to the word also signifies progression/worsening over time, causing more and more problems for the organism? We use these words because of the meaning they can convey.
Dougseal if you're claiming sclerotic is simply a medical term then you are betraying your own ignorance.
The term Eurosclerosis was coined in the 1980s and has long been used by economists and was popularised by German economist Herbert Giersch.
Anything nefarious you want to see is in your own imagination.
Straw man. You deliberately misrepresent me. I said nothing of the sort. If you had read my post you would have seen that I explicitly concede that what you say is a secondary meaning. However the primary meaning is attested in the references I cite. Your unwillingness to use any other term whatsoever is instructive of your own prejudice, which I note you don't deny.
I do deny. Comprehensively deny.
I only use terms like Frogs as light-hearted affection. To take that out of context is dishonesty. I would never use the term in anger, there is nothing wrong with nicknames. I don't object to being called a POME or Rosbif.
I use the term sclerotic as it is a good term that well defines the EUs failings. It means exactly what I mean when I say it and if you're seeing anything nefarious then that is on you and you alone.
"Light hearted affection". Doesn't come accross that way it has to be said.
Yes it does. Only someone looking for insults would cherrypick remarks our of context. I haven't used the word Frogs in this thread have I, besides discussing YOU bringing it up?
So basically there will be a deal but they’re just going to drag the theatrics out a bit longer so Bozo can claim victory !
The teases. Let’s see how it rolls but I suspect that someone creative (likely Barnier) has been out with the red felt pens drawing hatched areas on red lines with “independent regulator” and “delayed quota system” labels.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Bulgaria is a part of the Single Market with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour. No tariffs or other restrictions, full market access.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Bulgaria doesn't use the euro - unless my continual need to use a Bulgarian cash machine when I arrived in Sofia was a figment of my imagination.
Equally though I've never been in a country that was so much everyone for themselves. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't so blooming stupid.
Exactly and no comparison of the cost of living , just their usual use of half/full lies to try and make their failed case look better. They may make less money in Bulgaria but I bet most are better off than many UK peasants. Had a colleague there the other week who had pains in his chest , he was down hospital had tests , ecg the works and back in 3 hours. Try that here.
Interesting chat from Sam Coates. Raab has actually indicated a specific demand for once, rather than just banging on about sovereignty. I still think No Deal is likely, but it’s just about possible the EU could just about agree to narrow the scope of retaliatory tariffs, agree to a euro fudge independent regulator for more comprehensive disputes, slap lipstick on the pig and send it to market.
It sounds to me like the path to a deal is being paved. I am a lot more confident this morning that we will get one and that the very worst effects of Brexit will therefore be mitigated. I really hope so.
There does seem to be a slight change in the tone and language today. I agree let's hope.
It will be bare bones, but any deal will mean we remain on decent terms with the EU. That, for me, is the most important thing from here as it gives us the opportunity to build a positive future relationship. I think that's one reason why so many Brexit ultras are so desperate for a No Deal. They genuinely see the EU as an enemy.
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
This is what I'm trying to get my lot to do. Convinced my sister to get her eldest out of school one day earlier - I'd have kept her off the whole week.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Bulgaria is a part of the Single Market with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour. No tariffs or other restrictions, full market access.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Bulgaria doesn't use the euro - unless my continual need to use a Bulgarian cash machine when I arrived in Sofia was a figment of my imagination.
Equally though I've never been in a country that was so much everyone for themselves. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't so blooming stupid.
Exactly and no comparison of the cost of living , just their usual use of half/full lies to try and make their failed case look better. They may make less money in Bulgaria but I bet most are better off than many UK peasants. Had a colleague there the other week who had pains in his chest , he was down hospital had tests , ecg the works and back in 3 hours. Try that here.
I don't have many things I can gauge for prices (staying in the hilton next to the office block and working all hours to make up for crap flight times) but the taxi from the airport to central Sofia was £6.
Oh and a 500ml bottle of coke from the vending machines local didn't use as it was expensive was 45p.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Bulgaria is a part of the Single Market with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour. No tariffs or other restrictions, full market access.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Bulgaria doesn't use the euro - unless my continual need to use a Bulgarian cash machine when I arrived in Sofia was a figment of my imagination.
Equally though I've never been in a country that was so much everyone for themselves. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't so blooming stupid.
Exactly and no comparison of the cost of living , just their usual use of half/full lies to try and make their failed case look better. They may make less money in Bulgaria but I bet most are better off than many UK peasants. Had a colleague there the other week who had pains in his chest , he was down hospital had tests , ecg the works and back in 3 hours. Try that here.
That's the sort of thing you can do when you're paying people a couple of quid an hour.
Interesting chat from Sam Coates. Raab has actually indicated a specific demand for once, rather than just banging on about sovereignty. I still think No Deal is likely, but it’s just about possible the EU could just about agree to narrow the scope of retaliatory tariffs, agree to a euro fudge independent regulator for more comprehensive disputes, slap lipstick on the pig and send it to market.
It sounds to me like the path to a deal is being paved. I am a lot more confident this morning that we will get one and that the very worst effects of Brexit will therefore be mitigated. I really hope so.
There does seem to be a slight change in the tone and language today. I agree let's hope.
Afraid it is all too boring now, fatso and never ending phone calls, when we know it is a disaster or a big disaster. Roll on No deal and we can see the nutjobs losing it completely.
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
This is what I'm trying to get my lot to do. Convinced my sister to get her eldest out of school one day earlier - I'd have kept her off the whole week.
Me too - have to go to Town for work early this week, but then I'll be very much keeping myself to myself for a week before we visit relatives Christmas.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
The issue is they’re asking us not to undercut any *future* standards and employment terms they may come up with down the line.
So if they decide that two years’ maternity leave on full pay, or a maximum 35-hour working week, or a ratio between top and bottom earners in companies, is new EU law, we have to either agree or suffer trade consequences.
Assuming that is true - and we cannot know it is because no-one outside of the negotiations (including cabinet ministers) has seen the legal texts - why is the solution to suffer tariffs now instead of perhaps facing them in the future if we decide to have lower standards than the EU?
Several reasons:
1. It was apparently put in late in the proceedings, and as such shows bad faith on the EU side. 2. It appears that the EU want to arbitrate this themselves, making them judge, jury and executioner. 3. It’s one-sided, with no reciprocal arrangements from us to them (notwithstanding what VdL said the other day). 4. There is a thought that the EU may deliberately target new legislation, especially on standards, so that either it allows them to punish the UK further or affects UK a competitiveness in these areas on the global market. Macron and friends have already said there isn’t enough punishment in the deal, and other EU politicians have suggested in the past that every new piece of EU legislation should have a “Screw The British Clause”
All of the above likely ends up, a few years down the road, with a situation whereby the EU have imposed large numbers of tarrifs on UK imports, which the U.K. cannot do so with the EU.
There of course the opposite viewpoints, and some tweaking may land a deal, but I think both sides have eroded trust in each other, to the point where no deal is now possible until no-deal has occurred.
Fingers crossed we make progress in the next 24 hours.
Of course. We can get a trade deal any time we like. All we have to do is to cave in to every one of the EU´s demands. Johnson is quite capable of that! He is capable of anything.
With no deal in sight, Olivier Le Prêtre, head of the Hauts-de-France fishing council - whose small boats fish 70 per cent of their catch in UK waters - said he feared the French would be overrun by European rivals if the UK cut them out of theirs.
“If it was only French fishermen in French waters, then no-deal might be ok but we have the Belgians, the Dutch to contend with,” he told the Telegraph.
“If they all end up in French waters, there is a risk of overfishing and in a few months we’ll annihilate stocks.”
The corollary of that is that the British fishing fleet is not big enough to maintain current catch levels in British waters. What is supposed to happen next? Will British companies buy trawlers from Spanish operators, and hire Portuguese crews?
I'd suggest strict enforcement to establish new arrangements, and allowing more fishing by UK trawlers for 3-5 years whilst stocks recover further, then we can take it from there.
Strict enforcement is necessary given the history of French fisherman being willing to offer violence.
If Monsieur Macron stops his posturing, perhaps we can come to an agreement now. The last I heard was the UK having moved to offering a 5 year transition period, whilst the EU was wanting 10.
What UK trawlers? That's the point. If we do not have the capacity we can sell quotas but how does that help the brave UK fisherfolk Brexit is supposed to rescue?
What do you mean "what trawlers?" Next thing you know you'll be pointing out that never mind not having enough boats to catch these repatriated fish that many of the boats we do have rely on migrant labour...
The ones whose fishing effort is regulated by days at sea or weight of catch.
Which can increase their capacity in obvious ways by adjustment of regulation.
If Mr Macron et al have decided that their fishermen won't be here any more, then in many cases there will be headroom within sustainable catch levels.
Interesting thread. EU appears to have dropped ratchet clause, willing to narrow scope of disputes but concerned with speed of action. UK potentially okay with this but concerned that measures could be taken too easily. I feel like this could be tunnel stuff. I’ll be bloody disappointed if they get this close and don’t seal it.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Bulgaria is a part of the Single Market with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour. No tariffs or other restrictions, full market access.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Bulgaria doesn't use the euro - unless my continual need to use a Bulgarian cash machine when I arrived in Sofia was a figment of my imagination.
Equally though I've never been in a country that was so much everyone for themselves. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't so blooming stupid.
Exactly and no comparison of the cost of living , just their usual use of half/full lies to try and make their failed case look better. They may make less money in Bulgaria but I bet most are better off than many UK peasants. Had a colleague there the other week who had pains in his chest , he was down hospital had tests , ecg the works and back in 3 hours. Try that here.
Cost of living isn't relevant since we are not talking about where is a good place to live (migration factors into that though and net migration to the UK is massive) the conversation is about competition and the risk of being undercut.
Cost of living isn't relevant to competition. A good manufactured by paying workers €1.95 per hour isn't suddenly made more expensive or less competitive because the country it is made in has everything cheaper.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
The same Spanish Foreign Minister says something more interesting than that in the interview. The purpose of trade agreements is to manage interdependence, not to assert independence. What she doesn't say in this clip is that the European Union as the consortium owning the trade system will set the rules. The central contradiction of Brexit is that people voted Leave to take control, yet the only acceptable outcome is a close relationship with our peers in Europe, which will be on EU terms.
I don't disagree with what she says but I do think that she is missing the point. The negotiations have got bogged down because the EU has not been treating the UK like a sovereign partner with whom it is interdependent. They have been treating the UK like a supplicant greatly over valuing what they have to offer. If the negotiations had taken place in an atmosphere of mutual respect working on facilitating that interdependence that she is referring to there would have been a deal months ago.
But that is (my) point. The UK isn't a sovereign partner of the EU, because the EU isn't a sovereign state. It is a consortium of countries that runs a rules-based system. The question is on what terms does a third country get access to this system, which necessarily will be the consortium's terms. It won't change the rules for a third country. A membership organisation needs to maximise the value of membership, which means the EU will offer third countries much worse terms than members, albeit those terms need to offer some value to third countries.
The UK can decide its notions of sovereignty preclude it from any deal with the EU on its terms. In that case it cuts itself off from most of its peers and the relationship that offers most value. I don't think that is a sustainable position and that the UK will be forced into a relationship with the EU on its terms, which gives it less than before and which the UK no longer has much influence over. That's the central contradiction of Brexit.
That's struck me too. The UK and EU as "sovereign equals"? No. The UK is a sovereign nation. The EU is a union of 27 sovereign nations. It's a tell, I think. Either of thinking of the EU as a USE, or thinking of the UK as a superpower, or both. Not surprising, I guess, since this way of viewing things is in the Leaver psyche.
The EU has given itself sovereignty, not least in the Lisbon treaty. This is why they are entitled to insist upon Boris speaking to the leaders of that organisation rather than the individual countries. It is also clearly the direction of travel going forwards, especially for the EZ. So the EU is both a combination of sovereign countries (subject to the extent that they have agreed to pool their sovereignty by the treaties) and sovereign in its own right as a result of that pooling.
Interesting chat from Sam Coates. Raab has actually indicated a specific demand for once, rather than just banging on about sovereignty. I still think No Deal is likely, but it’s just about possible the EU could just about agree to narrow the scope of retaliatory tariffs, agree to a euro fudge independent regulator for more comprehensive disputes, slap lipstick on the pig and send it to market.
It sounds to me like the path to a deal is being paved. I am a lot more confident this morning that we will get one and that the very worst effects of Brexit will therefore be mitigated. I really hope so.
There does seem to be a slight change in the tone and language today. I agree let's hope.
It will be bare bones, but any deal will mean we remain on decent terms with the EU. That, for me, is the most important thing from here as it gives us the opportunity to build a positive future relationship. I think that's one reason why so many Brexit ultras are so desperate for a No Deal. They genuinely see the EU as an enemy.
All they have to do is put down everything that is agreed so far, and say that in respect of the rest it stays at status quo for six months or a year and will be discussed further.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
Citation needed!
Boris got Brexit done.
He's taking back control.
He's even ensuring Brexit means Brexit.
Besides platitudes what do you want a citation for?
Because your assertion is factually incorrect, unless by "constructive" you mean he has built more lorry parks around the M2 and M20 and constructed a raft of new customs paperwork and an unnecessary hostility to our nearest neighbours.
The man is an embarrassment to our country. Turning up to Brussels looking like Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle, with his unkempt hair and ill fitting suit, His Environment speech yesterday was remarkable, particularly it's conclusion, which was utterly humiliating. And that is just first impressions, what goes beyond is an incompetence based on the inability to make a decision that he fears might annoy his base.
Whenever I go off on one about my utter contempt for Johnson, I find myself with a handful of extra "off-topics". "Off-topic" away, although I believe my post does relate to Alastair's excellent thread header and Johnson's shambolic handling of Brexit.
I don't off topic anyone. It is cowardly, anonymous and rude. Plus it spams OGH.
If I disagree with you then I'll say so to your face.
I disagree with you. Boris is shaping up to be potentially the second best postwar PM and third most consequential.
I wasn't suggesting you would "off-topic".
We will have to agree to disagree about Johnson's legacy. I didn't like Mrs Thatcher, but I can understand why people did rate her so highly. As for Johnson, I cannot see past the Fred Scuttle, half-wittery.
Johnson's legacy it is too early to say but I think he has the potential to be up there with Attlee and Thatcher as one of the three most consequential PMs post war.
Blair had the potential too but threw it away.
Johnson's legacy will be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ceasing to exist.
It won't, the government has made clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and it will refuse to allow indyref2 even if Sturgeon gets a Holyrood majority next year and Northern Ireland has been given special arrangements to protect the GFA and minimise checks on goods going to and from GB
Dougseal if you're claiming sclerotic is simply a medical term then you are betraying your own ignorance.
The term Eurosclerosis was coined in the 1980s and has long been used by economists and was popularised by German economist Herbert Giersch.
Anything nefarious you want to see is in your own imagination.
Straw man. You deliberately misrepresent me. I said nothing of the sort. If you had read my post you would have seen that I explicitly concede that what you say is a secondary meaning. However the primary meaning is attested in the references I cite. Your unwillingness to use any other term whatsoever is instructive of your own prejudice, which I note you don't deny.
I do deny. Comprehensively deny.
I only use terms like Frogs as light-hearted affection. To take that out of context is dishonesty. I would never use the term in anger, there is nothing wrong with nicknames. I don't object to being called a POME or Rosbif.
I use the term sclerotic as it is a good term that well defines the EUs failings. It means exactly what I mean when I say it and if you're seeing anything nefarious then that is on you and you alone.
"Light hearted affection". Doesn't come accross that way it has to be said.
Yes it does. Only someone looking for insults would cherrypick remarks our of context. I haven't used the word Frogs in this thread have I, besides discussing YOU bringing it up?
The instance when I had a go at you for it was not one of light-hearted affection. It was a completely non-bantery discussion on the impact of covid on London tourism and you apropos of nothing used "Frogs" instead of French in an otherwise completely prosaic post. It stuck out like a sore thumb and I remember being quite surprised at the time.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Britain doesn't want to retain any such privileges that's a lie.
Unless you think Canada has privileges of membership. All Britain has asked for is a Canada style simple FTA.
All EU is asking for is for us not to undercut their standards and employment terms and we can have one.
Employment terms like the EU having people working for €1.95 per hour?
I will pass on them having a say on our domestic laws. Employment should be a matter for our Parliament and employment contracts, none of their business.
Where do they get paid €1.95 an hour. We know that in all the major EU countries they have higher salaries, better conditions, better pensions and hugely better redundancy terms. I do not believe that for a second.
Bulgaria is a part of the Single Market with a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour. No tariffs or other restrictions, full market access.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Bulgaria doesn't use the euro - unless my continual need to use a Bulgarian cash machine when I arrived in Sofia was a figment of my imagination.
Equally though I've never been in a country that was so much everyone for themselves. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't so blooming stupid.
Exactly and no comparison of the cost of living , just their usual use of half/full lies to try and make their failed case look better. They may make less money in Bulgaria but I bet most are better off than many UK peasants. Had a colleague there the other week who had pains in his chest , he was down hospital had tests , ecg the works and back in 3 hours. Try that here.
That's the sort of thing you can do when you're paying people a couple of quid an hour.
Unlike the disparity here where some get fortunes and F*** the plebs is the order of the day
Cancelling Christmas wouldn't have made any difference - people would have ignored the rules and probably would have held bigger parties than the ones they will be holding.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
This is what I'm trying to get my lot to do. Convinced my sister to get her eldest out of school one day earlier - I'd have kept her off the whole week.
I am fortunate (if that is the right word and I am not sure it is) in that my son has been at home from school for the last 2 weeks self isolating because a couple of lads he sits with tested positive. Having shown no indications of having the virus he should have gone back to school tomorrow for the last week but the school have said that infection rates are so high amongst the kids that they are not now reopening until January.
This means my family are able to self isolate for a good 2 weeks prior to seeing my Mum at Christmas. We have already done all our shopping and are quite happy hunkered down while the world carries on outside. Well apart from the fact that I am working from home of course.
I have gone much further than many I know in terms of keeping controls in place even when things were relaxed in the summer so hopefully this will see us right. Time will tell.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
Citation needed!
Boris got Brexit done.
He's taking back control.
He's even ensuring Brexit means Brexit.
Besides platitudes what do you want a citation for?
Because your assertion is factually incorrect, unless by "constructive" you mean he has built more lorry parks around the M2 and M20 and constructed a raft of new customs paperwork and an unnecessary hostility to our nearest neighbours.
The man is an embarrassment to our country. Turning up to Brussels looking like Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle, with his unkempt hair and ill fitting suit, His Environment speech yesterday was remarkable, particularly it's conclusion, which was utterly humiliating. And that is just first impressions, what goes beyond is an incompetence based on the inability to make a decision that he fears might annoy his base.
Whenever I go off on one about my utter contempt for Johnson, I find myself with a handful of extra "off-topics". "Off-topic" away, although I believe my post does relate to Alastair's excellent thread header and Johnson's shambolic handling of Brexit.
I don't off topic anyone. It is cowardly, anonymous and rude. Plus it spams OGH.
If I disagree with you then I'll say so to your face.
I disagree with you. Boris is shaping up to be potentially the second best postwar PM and third most consequential.
I wasn't suggesting you would "off-topic".
We will have to agree to disagree about Johnson's legacy. I didn't like Mrs Thatcher, but I can understand why people did rate her so highly. As for Johnson, I cannot see past the Fred Scuttle, half-wittery.
Johnson's legacy it is too early to say but I think he has the potential to be up there with Attlee and Thatcher as one of the three most consequential PMs post war.
Blair had the potential too but threw it away.
Johnson's legacy will be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ceasing to exist.
It won't, the government has made clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and it will refuse to allow indyref2 even if Sturgeon gets a Holyrood majority next year and Northern Ireland has been given special arrangements to protect the GFA and minimise checks on goods going to and from GB
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
A fair observation to be honest
Which bit of that rant do you think is a fair observation, Big_G ?
I think agreeing in any way with that hot mess of a posting-breakdown implies little thinking was involved.
I doubt he will be the last Brexiter to be mysteriously less prominent in coming weeks.....
It won't be long before Thompson is the last man standing.
You know that kind of arrogance is why Brexit happened
Reading the thread this morning it was one long rant by those who do not accept brexit and disregard of any alternative view
This forum is at its best when views are argued and discussed but the intolerance of alternative views on Brexit and the active hope some posters will disappear from PB actually harms it
I am going nowhere, will argue for a deal, and expect as we move into 2021 to see progression in the relationship with the EU
Maybe we have to no deal to bring the whole matter to a head but it is important that the EU is held to account as well
It seems on Marr this morning the extreme attitudes on leaving and remaining have virtually remained unchanged and accounts for two thirds of public opinion with one third in the middle which is where I stand. I expect it will be resolved by joining the single market and customs union at some time in the future
However, I would ask all posters to respect all views and not actively encourage some posters to stop posting. That is not acceptable
Take the f*cking blinkers off Big_G. If the alternative view is a no-deal Brexit, of course it's right to point the sheer madness of this very action.
Alistair has hit the nail on the head. Let's see how this plays out but sadly it is very likely that the course of action that is being taken by this incompetent wretched Government will be catastrophic for this country (in many many ways).
We have no way of telling just how this progresses and I am not celebrating a no deal, far from it, but in the end we are where we are we of course we should make our arguments, forcefully maybe but not actively want posters to take a break from posting because we do not agree with them
CR is one of the worst offenders for losing his rag and lashing out at people he doesn't agree with.
This would be a logical moment for a better mood music for a deal. Johnson has done his sub-churchillian theatrics, roared up his base with the falklands nostalgia and heroic fishing talk, and is now probably in a bit of a better position to make the compromises needed. I really do hope so.
Yep. Me too. I hope so and really think so too. After my little wobble I'm back to viewing a deal as near certain. Punters are moving that way too. $markets are at a straight 50/50 but given you win on No Deal if a Deal is announced but not signed, this effectively makes Deal the betting favourite again now.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
Citation needed!
Boris got Brexit done.
He's taking back control.
He's even ensuring Brexit means Brexit.
Besides platitudes what do you want a citation for?
Because your assertion is factually incorrect, unless by "constructive" you mean he has built more lorry parks around the M2 and M20 and constructed a raft of new customs paperwork and an unnecessary hostility to our nearest neighbours.
The man is an embarrassment to our country. Turning up to Brussels looking like Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle, with his unkempt hair and ill fitting suit, His Environment speech yesterday was remarkable, particularly it's conclusion, which was utterly humiliating. And that is just first impressions, what goes beyond is an incompetence based on the inability to make a decision that he fears might annoy his base.
Whenever I go off on one about my utter contempt for Johnson, I find myself with a handful of extra "off-topics". "Off-topic" away, although I believe my post does relate to Alastair's excellent thread header and Johnson's shambolic handling of Brexit.
I don't off topic anyone. It is cowardly, anonymous and rude. Plus it spams OGH.
If I disagree with you then I'll say so to your face.
I disagree with you. Boris is shaping up to be potentially the second best postwar PM and third most consequential.
I wasn't suggesting you would "off-topic".
We will have to agree to disagree about Johnson's legacy. I didn't like Mrs Thatcher, but I can understand why people did rate her so highly. As for Johnson, I cannot see past the Fred Scuttle, half-wittery.
Johnson's legacy it is too early to say but I think he has the potential to be up there with Attlee and Thatcher as one of the three most consequential PMs post war.
Blair had the potential too but threw it away.
Johnson's legacy will be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ceasing to exist.
It won't, the government has made clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and it will refuse to allow indyref2 even if Sturgeon gets a Holyrood majority next year and Northern Ireland has been given special arrangements to protect the GFA and minimise checks on goods going to and from GB
Yawn, keep repeating your lies
They are not lies Malc but also they are not real politics
The time will come for indy 2 to be addressed, probably realistically in 2022 or 2023 and I have no issue with that
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
A fair observation to be honest
Which bit of that rant do you think is a fair observation, Big_G ?
I think agreeing in any way with that hot mess of a posting-breakdown implies little thinking was involved.
I doubt he will be the last Brexiter to be mysteriously less prominent in coming weeks.....
It won't be long before Thompson is the last man standing.
You know that kind of arrogance is why Brexit happened
Reading the thread this morning it was one long rant by those who do not accept brexit and disregard of any alternative view
This forum is at its best when views are argued and discussed but the intolerance of alternative views on Brexit and the active hope some posters will disappear from PB actually harms it
I am going nowhere, will argue for a deal, and expect as we move into 2021 to see progression in the relationship with the EU
Maybe we have to no deal to bring the whole matter to a head but it is important that the EU is held to account as well
It seems on Marr this morning the extreme attitudes on leaving and remaining have virtually remained unchanged and accounts for two thirds of public opinion with one third in the middle which is where I stand. I expect it will be resolved by joining the single market and customs union at some time in the future
However, I would ask all posters to respect all views and not actively encourage some posters to stop posting. That is not acceptable
Take the f*cking blinkers off Big_G. If the alternative view is a no-deal Brexit, of course it's right to point the sheer madness of this very action.
Alistair has hit the nail on the head. Let's see how this plays out but sadly it is very likely that the course of action that is being taken by this incompetent wretched Government will be catastrophic for this country (in many many ways).
We have no way of telling just how this progresses and I am not celebrating a no deal, far from it, but in the end we are where we are we of course we should make our arguments, forcefully maybe but not actively want posters to take a break from posting because we do not agree with them
CR is one of the worst offenders for losing his rag and lashing out at people he doesn't agree with.
Comments
The term Eurosclerosis was coined in the 1980s and has long been used by economists and was popularised by German economist Herbert Giersch.
Anything nefarious you want to see is in your own imagination.
On the basis that I had assumed Gove must have been saying herring instead of cards. My ears must have been buggered for years
Audiologist confirmed it was fine.They had been run off their feet and Gove was just a liar who did actually say cards not we hold all the herring.
What could fire them up like the rumble of gunboats.
So if they decide that two years’ maternity leave on full pay, or a maximum 35-hour working week, or a ratio between top and bottom earners in companies, is new EU law, we have to either agree or suffer trade consequences.
So yes things will be bad in January but they would be with or without the christmas rule relaxation.
I wouldn't go that far.
However, I can't really take the thrust of your post seriously. Of course we use the language of disease to refer to problems we perceive within organisations. 'Plagued by' this, 'stopping the rot', 'purged', 'left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing', 'paralysed', 'viral' etc. Pointing out what you perceive to be a 'disease' within an organisation has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have a sympathetic attitude to sufferers or not. I find it odd that you have failed to make this distinction.
We can see in January who was right
The UK can decide its notions of sovereignty preclude it from any deal with the EU on its terms. In that case it cuts itself off from most of its peers and the relationship that offers most value. I don't think that is a sustainable position and that the UK will be forced into a relationship with the EU on its terms, which gives it less than before and which the UK no longer has much influence over. That's the central contradiction of Brexit.
I only use terms like Frogs as light-hearted affection. To take that out of context is dishonesty. I would never use the term in anger, there is nothing wrong with nicknames. I don't object to being called a POME or Rosbif.
I use the term sclerotic as it is a good term that well defines the EUs failings. It means exactly what I mean when I say it and if you're seeing anything nefarious then that is on you and you alone.
Attlee is always going to be highly regarded. Thatcher is loved and loathed in equal measure. I suspect the consequences of Brexit will result in Johnson being far more loathed than loved.
The adage be careful what you wish for it may become true is definitely going to be revealed with Brexit.
Once again Brussels needs to get off its backside and put Mons. Macron back in his box.
The idea they're worried about being undercut is a preposterous lie.
Equally though I've never been in a country that was so much everyone for themselves. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't so blooming stupid.
I do not support the ERG
Trade is different of course. There I agree we need some impartial adjudicator to determine whether complaints of a breach are justified.
The EU now have no doubt he is as mad as a March hare and capable of anything.
https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1338065454196264960
So it's little different from us we just have 23rd and 27th for travelling.
They think maybe if they talk long enough with nothing else changing then somehow something will randomly cohere out of the froth of their words?
The report did somewhat surprise me
They may make less money in Bulgaria but I bet most are better off than many UK peasants.
Had a colleague there the other week who had pains in his chest , he was down hospital had tests , ecg the works and back in 3 hours. Try that here.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/12/wealthy-mp-urged-to-pay-up-for-his-familys-slave-trade-past
Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.
https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1338074610949115905
This is what I'm trying to get my lot to do. Convinced my sister to get her eldest out of school one day earlier - I'd have kept her off the whole week.
Oh and a 500ml bottle of coke from the vending machines local didn't use as it was expensive was 45p.
A lot of friends are doing the same.
1. It was apparently put in late in the proceedings, and as such shows bad faith on the EU side.
2. It appears that the EU want to arbitrate this themselves, making them judge, jury and executioner.
3. It’s one-sided, with no reciprocal arrangements from us to them (notwithstanding what VdL said the other day).
4. There is a thought that the EU may deliberately target new legislation, especially on standards, so that either it allows them to punish the UK further or affects UK a competitiveness in these areas on the global market. Macron and friends have already said there isn’t enough punishment in the deal, and other EU politicians have suggested in the past that every new piece of EU legislation should have a “Screw The British Clause”
All of the above likely ends up, a few years down the road, with a situation whereby the EU have imposed large numbers of tarrifs on UK imports, which the U.K. cannot do so with the EU.
There of course the opposite viewpoints, and some tweaking may land a deal, but I think both sides have eroded trust in each other, to the point where no deal is now possible until no-deal has occurred.
Fingers crossed we make progress in the next 24 hours.
Which can increase their capacity in obvious ways by adjustment of regulation.
If Mr Macron et al have decided that their fishermen won't be here any more, then in many cases there will be headroom within sustainable catch levels.
Interesting thread. EU appears to have dropped ratchet clause, willing to narrow scope of disputes but concerned with speed of action. UK potentially okay with this but concerned that measures could be taken too easily. I feel like this could be tunnel stuff. I’ll be bloody disappointed if they get this close and don’t seal it.
Cost of living isn't relevant to competition. A good manufactured by paying workers €1.95 per hour isn't suddenly made more expensive or less competitive because the country it is made in has everything cheaper.
This means my family are able to self isolate for a good 2 weeks prior to seeing my Mum at Christmas. We have already done all our shopping and are quite happy hunkered down while the world carries on outside. Well apart from the fact that I am working from home of course.
I have gone much further than many I know in terms of keeping controls in place even when things were relaxed in the summer so hopefully this will see us right. Time will tell.
https://twitter.com/bridgesforindy/status/1337920273740394496
Pickled herring on order for Christmas. Success or failure may be reported.
The time will come for indy 2 to be addressed, probably realistically in 2022 or 2023 and I have no issue with that
https://twitter.com/Botanygeek/status/1337696104733958144
https://twitter.com/Botanygeek/status/1337696893044989955