I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
Economic size is not particularly relevant. It means, at the most, that the UK might suffer a more substantial shock but if we are willing to run that risk the EU have to decide whether they are willing to pay their share of the cost to teach us a lesson.
A no deal Brexit means the loss of tens of thousands of EU jobs. The impact is more diffuse although Eire and the fishing communities of France would be particularly badly affected. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of UK jobs as well as our trade re-orientates. In an economy with over 31m employed this is not the end of the world but it is far from optimal and it should be avoided if it can be. The same applies to the EU. Both parties have to decide if not having a deal is worth the cost.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
The Nigel will declare anything other than No Deal as a betrayal. Unless we have WTO terms we will not be a sovereign state able to do what we want. And then start attacking the evil WTO for imposing its rules and restrictions on the UK.
There is a way to free yourselves from slavery and slay this enemy! Just keep voting for Farage
FPT- PT you mentioned that 99% of hospitalizations and deaths are in the vaccine priority groups (i.e. over 50s plus those with disease putting them at serious risk). I believe that for deaths, but I don't think that can be right for hospitalizations. Do you have a source?
--AS
PS: not an aggressive question, I'd just like to know. Also I might not reply because I've fallen asleep so thanks in advance!
I heard Jonathan Van Tam say it after one of his weird train analogies.
Only scientist who comes up with weird analogies than us discussing Brexit.
Association of Consulting Actuaries paper confirms this figure:
What is clear is that I am not an expert in tariffs nor do I claim to be. What is also clear is that most people out there aren't. I keep reading that the WTO will allow us to be sovereign and free of rules. They do understand what the WTO is...?
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
Perhaps. But if you’re in a Fiat Panda, and the oncoming vehicle is an SUV, then the dynamic changes a little. And in the case, isn’t ‘will’ the same as intransigence. Which everyone keeps telling us is a characteristic of the EU ?
And damn it, you’ve got me trading analogies again.
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
Perhaps. But if you’re in a Fiat Panda, and the oncoming vehicle is an SUV, then the dynamic changes a little. And in the case, isn’t ‘will’ the same as intransigence. Which everyone keeps telling us is a characteristic of the EU ?
And damn it, you’ve got me trading analogies again.
Perhaps the site should impose a tariff to discourage their use?
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
Economic size is not particularly relevant. It means, at the most, that the UK might suffer a more substantial shock but if we are willing to run that risk the EU have to decide whether they are willing to pay their share of the cost to teach us a lesson.
A no deal Brexit means the loss of tens of thousands of EU jobs. The impact is more diffuse although Eire and the fishing communities of France would be particularly badly affected. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of UK jobs as well as our trade re-orientates. In an economy with over 31m employed this is not the end of the world but it is far from optimal and it should be avoided if it can be. The same applies to the EU. Both parties have to decide if not having a deal is worth the cost.
I can't agree here at all. Economic size, or more accurately distribution, is certainly relevant, because throughout the bloc the shock will be distributed in a vey different way. I'm afraid, I must say, that to me this reads very much like a more educated incarnation of the illusions that have led us up to this point. At each stage so far the assumption that the EU would act on the basis of a roughly equivalent shock has been found to be wrong.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
Economic size is not particularly relevant. It means, at the most, that the UK might suffer a more substantial shock but if we are willing to run that risk the EU have to decide whether they are willing to pay their share of the cost to teach us a lesson.
A no deal Brexit means the loss of tens of thousands of EU jobs. The impact is more diffuse although Eire and the fishing communities of France would be particularly badly affected. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of UK jobs as well as our trade re-orientates. In an economy with over 31m employed this is not the end of the world but it is far from optimal and it should be avoided if it can be. The same applies to the EU. Both parties have to decide if not having a deal is worth the cost.
I can't agree here at all. Economic size, or more accurately dispersal, is certainly relevant, because throughout the bloc the shock will be distributed in a vey different way. I'm afraid I must say that to me this reads a lot like a more educated incarnation of the illusions that have led us up to this point.
COVID is quite instructive. It has been catastrophic for some people, but most people are unaffected and spending money like it’s going out of fashion. I think the same would happen with no deal brexit.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
I agree that is the bigger problem but for lorries there is either a ferry trip or a train ride in which to carry out the necessary paperwork. A trusted trader scheme such has been agreed in NI would help enormously.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
Its not quite true. If we apply WTO terms to the EU, we are obliged to apply those tariffs to all countries, apart from those that we have trade agreements with. I think that we could import Japanese and Korean cars tariff free on that basis. Not sure how that benefits our economy though.
We could also set zero tariffs for all countries too, if we preferred, though once again that carries its own problems.
That's the exact point- the only way to avoid paying tariffs is to zero them - providing we can get that agreed with the WTO which will take years due to the endless challenges that it will face.
You're right though, we won't have to pay tariffs on the cars Japan imports from Japan. No need for them to have an EU assembly plant any more, especially one who has been expensively cut off from both it's parts suppliers and it's main market.
Japan is closing car plants all over Europe now and for the past year. Nothing to do with Brexit.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
I agree that is the bigger problem but for lorries there is either a ferry trip or a train ride in which to carry out the necessary paperwork. A trusted trader scheme such has been agreed in NI would help enormously.
If only you cpuld manage the paperwork for a full train or ferry load in the time it takes to cross the border. Radical new solutions will be needed, solutions not yet found by countries who already suffer lengthy delays
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
Its not quite true. If we apply WTO terms to the EU, we are obliged to apply those tariffs to all countries, apart from those that we have trade agreements with. I think that we could import Japanese and Korean cars tariff free on that basis. Not sure how that benefits our economy though.
We could also set zero tariffs for all countries too, if we preferred, though once again that carries its own problems.
That's the exact point- the only way to avoid paying tariffs is to zero them - providing we can get that agreed with the WTO which will take years due to the endless challenges that it will face.
You're right though, we won't have to pay tariffs on the cars Japan imports from Japan. No need for them to have an EU assembly plant any more, especially one who has been expensively cut off from both it's parts suppliers and it's main market.
Japan is closing car plants all over Europe now and for the past year. Nothing to do with Brexit.
So far. The sites they have left open the UK closing due to delays and tariffs on their parts? That would be due to Brexit
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
Economic size is not particularly relevant. It means, at the most, that the UK might suffer a more substantial shock but if we are willing to run that risk the EU have to decide whether they are willing to pay their share of the cost to teach us a lesson.
A no deal Brexit means the loss of tens of thousands of EU jobs. The impact is more diffuse although Eire and the fishing communities of France would be particularly badly affected. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of UK jobs as well as our trade re-orientates. In an economy with over 31m employed this is not the end of the world but it is far from optimal and it should be avoided if it can be. The same applies to the EU. Both parties have to decide if not having a deal is worth the cost.
I can't agree here at all. Economic size, or more accurately distribution, is certainly relevant, because throughout the bloc the shock will be distributed in a vey different way. I'm afraid, I must say, that to me this reads very much like a more educated incarnation of the illusions that have led us up to this point. At each stage so far the assumption that the EU would act on the basis of a roughly equivalent shock has been found to be wrong.
It has been a feature of the Brexit worldview from the start that, while we are entitled to act in an entirely irrational way, driven by emotion and nostalgia and nationalism, we are expecting the EU to act like Deep Blue working out its next chess move, driven entirely by the economic credits and debits.
The EU has wider issues and attachment to its project to consider as well, and there’s a lot more there than many Brits realise.
The OP has a point that recklessness in negotiation can sometimes pay off with an extra point or two, at the risk of losing everything. As a negotiator for many years, I have seen it done, and also seen it go wrong.
But the fundamental point - that the EU isn’t going to grant free access to its market without safeguards that we won’t undercut its standards - is a reasonable one, and won’t be magicked away by any amount of clownish bluster.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
I agree that is the bigger problem but for lorries there is either a ferry trip or a train ride in which to carry out the necessary paperwork. A trusted trader scheme such has been agreed in NI would help enormously.
If only you cpuld manage the paperwork for a full train or ferry load in the time it takes to cross the border. Radical new solutions will be needed, solutions not yet found by countries who already suffer lengthy delays
Most countries do not have that natural break or barrier at the border, it is just a point in the road. It really shouldn't be hard to do the paperwork or checks whilst the ferry or Eurotunnel is moving. Some of this is done already but a focus on the practicalities has been sadly lacking to date on the assumption that a deal will reduce the burden. This is where the lack of an agreement has been so frustrating. We should have had months to work out the practicalities of what was agreed on the ground and to road test systems. Some further transitional or implementation period now seems inevitable to me regardless of what is agreed or not agreed.
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
Economic size is not particularly relevant. It means, at the most, that the UK might suffer a more substantial shock but if we are willing to run that risk the EU have to decide whether they are willing to pay their share of the cost to teach us a lesson.
A no deal Brexit means the loss of tens of thousands of EU jobs. The impact is more diffuse although Eire and the fishing communities of France would be particularly badly affected. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of UK jobs as well as our trade re-orientates. In an economy with over 31m employed this is not the end of the world but it is far from optimal and it should be avoided if it can be. The same applies to the EU. Both parties have to decide if not having a deal is worth the cost.
I can't agree here at all. Economic size, or more accurately distribution, is certainly relevant, because throughout the bloc the shock will be distributed in a vey different way. I'm afraid, I must say, that to me this reads very much like a more educated incarnation of the illusions that have led us up to this point. At each stage so far the assumption that the EU would act on the basis of a roughly equivalent shock has been found to be wrong.
It has been a feature of the Brexit worldview from the start that, while we are entitled to act in an entirely irrational way, driven by emotion and nostalgia and nationalism, we are expecting the EU to act like Deep Blue working out its next chess move, driven entirely by the economic credits and debits.
The EU has wider issues and attachment to its project to consider as well, and there’s a lot more there than many Brits realise.
The OP has a point that recklessness in negotiation can sometimes pay off with an extra point or two, at the risk of losing everything. As a negotiator for many years, I have seen it done, and also seen it go wrong.
But the fundamental point - that the EU isn’t going to grant free access to its market without safeguards that we won’t undercut its standards - is a reasonable one, and won’t be magicked away by any amount of clownish bluster.
Perhaps we intend to raise standards. More stringent emissions regulations for cars. Better protections for workers. That sort of thing, you know, what the likes of Iain Duncan Satan and his friends have banged on about for decades...
Perhaps. But if you’re in a Fiat Panda, and the oncoming vehicle is an SUV, then the dynamic changes a little. And in the case, isn’t ‘will’ the same as intransigence. Which everyone keeps telling us is a characteristic of the EU ?
And damn it, you’ve got me trading analogies again.
Call me a demented patriot but I wouldn't write off the little Fiat:
Random question - once vaccinated, are you still required to do all the isolation required if Test and Trace get in touch with you because someone else flagged you as a close contact?
If not, is it something we can expect to ultimately change, or stay the same?
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
Another bit of game theory, which worries me a bit. Let's assume that the Channel borders aren't ready for what's about to happen. (They're not, are they? And I'm not convinced that another six month's transition time will reveal a magic solution, but you never know.)
If Boris agrees a deal, what happens next is his responsibility.
If Boris doesn't agree a deal, he can wave his Union Flag and blame Brussels.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
Another bit of game theory, which worries me a bit. Let's assume that the Channel borders aren't ready for what's about to happen. (They're not, are they? And I'm not convinced that another six month's transition time will reveal a magic solution, but you never know.)
If Boris agrees a deal, what happens next is his responsibility.
If Boris doesn't agree a deal, he can wave his Union Flag and blame Brussels.
If you were Boris, what would you do?
COVID, of course, means any disruption won’t be spoiling any trips to France, which would actually be a bigger political problem for Johnson.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
Yes, it is the non tariff barriers on standards etc that create most of the trade friction. Hence the importance of a Level Playing Field.
Another bit of game theory, which worries me a bit. Let's assume that the Channel borders aren't ready for what's about to happen. (They're not, are they? And I'm not convinced that another six month's transition time will reveal a magic solution, but you never know.)
If Boris agrees a deal, what happens next is his responsibility.
If Boris doesn't agree a deal, he can wave his Union Flag and blame Brussels.
If you were Boris, what would you do?
He is between the devil and the deep blue sea. The devil is that Brexit isn't the silver bullet that was promised. Whilst people voted to leave for a variety of reasons the actually departure won't cure the ills that drove people's decisions.
As it stands he has two options - a paper deal which he described as oven ready, or no deal which he described as no problem. Neither is true. No deal will be the catastrofuck that has been written off as the whining of experts and remoaners. Deal will make people less free and less well off than they were. On one hand the wrath of the electorate for realising the prize is a box with a dog turd in it. On the other hand the Nigel leading the Brexit Betrayal party denouncing all the problems as being down to not doing Brexit properly.
Random question - once vaccinated, are you still required to do all the isolation required if Test and Trace get in touch with you because someone else flagged you as a close contact?
If not, is it something we can expect to ultimately change, or stay the same?
No one out side the studies has reached that point yet, so we do have a few weeks to decide. Currently, vaccinated people should isolate. The extent of asymptomatic disease that they carry is still unclear.
Perhaps. But if you’re in a Fiat Panda, and the oncoming vehicle is an SUV, then the dynamic changes a little. And in the case, isn’t ‘will’ the same as intransigence. Which everyone keeps telling us is a characteristic of the EU ?
And damn it, you’ve got me trading analogies again.
Call me a demented patriot but I wouldn't write off the little Fiat:
The Diana conspiracy? That's a whole new can of worms. Did you know that Prince Philip was driving the Panda?
Meanwhile in the "hurrah we are tariff free what does paperwork matter" world of Shagger's capitulation deal, we are already seeing impacts. And this is before the actual paperwork kicks in.
Blockages at ports like Felixtowe means that products supposed to be shipped to the UK are ending up in the EU instead as shipping lines refuse to delay their schedules...
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
Another bit of game theory, which worries me a bit. Let's assume that the Channel borders aren't ready for what's about to happen. (They're not, are they? And I'm not convinced that another six month's transition time will reveal a magic solution, but you never know.)
If Boris agrees a deal, what happens next is his responsibility.
If Boris doesn't agree a deal, he can wave his Union Flag and blame Brussels.
If you were Boris, what would you do?
I'm about to make the mistake of assuming that lack of consistency might be a problem for Johnson, but I think he has marred such a strategy by insisting that No Deal would be great too.
A couple of things could help them. 1. Even if No Deal disruption is bad, the positive effect of rolling out Coronavirus vaccines could be greater in 2021 - avoiding a Brexit recession. 2. If they can deflect blame, or minimise the problems for a few months then people will adjust. The political impact hinges on whether disruption is blamed immediately on Johnson and Brexit itself. A Christmas Corona-surge provides good cover.
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
Economic size is not particularly relevant. It means, at the most, that the UK might suffer a more substantial shock but if we are willing to run that risk the EU have to decide whether they are willing to pay their share of the cost to teach us a lesson.
A no deal Brexit means the loss of tens of thousands of EU jobs. The impact is more diffuse although Eire and the fishing communities of France would be particularly badly affected. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of UK jobs as well as our trade re-orientates. In an economy with over 31m employed this is not the end of the world but it is far from optimal and it should be avoided if it can be. The same applies to the EU. Both parties have to decide if not having a deal is worth the cost.
I can't agree here at all. Economic size, or more accurately dispersal, is certainly relevant, because throughout the bloc the shock will be distributed in a vey different way. I'm afraid I must say that to me this reads a lot like a more educated incarnation of the illusions that have led us up to this point.
COVID is quite instructive. It has been catastrophic for some people, but most people are unaffected and spending money like it’s going out of fashion. I think the same would happen with no deal brexit.
Yes, I am quite well prepared for No Deal, with no direct exposure for me or my kin.
Indirectly though it could be quite severe, as those taxpayers who fund my salary take a hit, and therefore the tax base shrinks.
Just heard. Used to see him strolling around Hampstead from time to time. He looked pretty good for 89, so I'm a bit shocked.
We do all have to die and that's how I'd like to go. A full on life until late 80's then a speedy despatch.
If I linger uncomfortably then I'll euthanise.
If you are in the happy position to still be able to take that rouute. My personal horror would be trapped in a body that would not give me that option, after say a hugely debilitating stroke.
Maybe in a post-Brexit, post-Covid world, we can return to talking about issues such as this.
Meanwhile in retail world its not just brinksmanship between the UK and EU that is raising eyebrows. Those big price rises that Philip insists aren't coming are going down to the wire. At the moment suppliers are only trying to pass on the logistics oncosts they have already seen (<25%), the supermarkets having used "cost to serve" logistics shared savings as a revenue stream for the last few years aren't budging, the "you're on stop" point is just days away for companies with calendar year trading agreements.
FPT- PT you mentioned that 99% of hospitalizations and deaths are in the vaccine priority groups (i.e. over 50s plus those with disease putting them at serious risk). I believe that for deaths, but I don't think that can be right for hospitalizations. Do you have a source?
--AS
PS: not an aggressive question, I'd just like to know. Also I might not reply because I've fallen asleep so thanks in advance!
I heard Jonathan Van Tam say it after one of his weird train analogies.
Only scientist who comes up with weird analogies than us discussing Brexit.
Association of Consulting Actuaries paper confirms this figure:
Only on deaths, though. No mention of hospitalisations. The only relevant data I’ve found (if I ignore the ICNARC data on severe comorbidities, because they are indeed very severe) is weak. They also published an analysis of the under-18s who were severely ill or who died. These are, fortunately, a small number.
However, my instinctive hypothesis, given they were young, would have been that they would overwhelmingly have had other conditions, but the opposite turned out to be true. The majority of those taken to ICU had no other conditions at all. Not even mild asthma, or diabetes, or anything.
Those very few who sadly died did, however, almost exclusively come from the minority with existing conditions.
It is, as I say, weak evidence at best, but the fact it went in the exact opposite direction of what we’d assume in the scenario where younger people are only at risk of hospitalisation with other conditions did stand out.
Random question - once vaccinated, are you still required to do all the isolation required if Test and Trace get in touch with you because someone else flagged you as a close contact?
If not, is it something we can expect to ultimately change, or stay the same?
No one out side the studies has reached that point yet, so we do have a few weeks to decide. Currently, vaccinated people should isolate. The extent of asymptomatic disease that they carry is still unclear.
And there's a medical answer - which relates to the possibility that a vaccinated person could still carry the virus and infect others (the AZ trial appears to show that the vaccinated can get an asymptomatic infection?) - and a political one: we will have a vaccine rollout that will take much of next year, and the we're not going to want a 'sheep and goats' society where restrictions apply to some people but not to others. That's why Boris still had to self isolate when he came up on the contact database, despite having recently been a confirmed infection case; there aren't any exceptions for people likely to be immune.
Random question - once vaccinated, are you still required to do all the isolation required if Test and Trace get in touch with you because someone else flagged you as a close contact?
If not, is it something we can expect to ultimately change, or stay the same?
No one out side the studies has reached that point yet, so we do have a few weeks to decide. Currently, vaccinated people should isolate. The extent of asymptomatic disease that they carry is still unclear.
And there's a medical answer - which relates to the possibility that a vaccinated person could still carry the virus and infect others (the AZ trial appears to show that the vaccinated can get an asymptomatic infection?) - and a political one: we will have a vaccine rollout that will take much of next year, and the we're not going to want a 'sheep and goats' society where restrictions apply to some people but not to others. That's why Boris still had to self isolate when he came up on the contact database, despite having recently been a confirmed infection case; there aren't any exceptions for people likely to be immune.
It will pretty much break down anyway. Those who have had both injections are unlikely to comply with any self-isolation requirements.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
Another bit of game theory, which worries me a bit. Let's assume that the Channel borders aren't ready for what's about to happen. (They're not, are they? And I'm not convinced that another six month's transition time will reveal a magic solution, but you never know.)
If Boris agrees a deal, what happens next is his responsibility.
If Boris doesn't agree a deal, he can wave his Union Flag and blame Brussels.
If you were Boris, what would you do?
We can be quite sure that the clown is weighing all this up entirely on the basis of his self interest.
Nevertheless I would be amazed if he could brush off the consequences of a no deal quite so easily.
We don't need a magic solution, at least not right away, but we do need the type of solution that requires a bit of foresight, and some common sense and hard work. The type that a responsible government would already have prepared.
Another bit of game theory, which worries me a bit. Let's assume that the Channel borders aren't ready for what's about to happen. (They're not, are they? And I'm not convinced that another six month's transition time will reveal a magic solution, but you never know.)
If Boris agrees a deal, what happens next is his responsibility.
If Boris doesn't agree a deal, he can wave his Union Flag and blame Brussels.
If you were Boris, what would you do?
He is between the devil and the deep blue sea. The devil is that Brexit isn't the silver bullet that was promised. Whilst people voted to leave for a variety of reasons the actually departure won't cure the ills that drove people's decisions.
As it stands he has two options - a paper deal which he described as oven ready, or no deal which he described as no problem. Neither is true. No deal will be the catastrofuck that has been written off as the whining of experts and remoaners. Deal will make people less free and less well off than they were. On one hand the wrath of the electorate for realising the prize is a box with a dog turd in it. On the other hand the Nigel leading the Brexit Betrayal party denouncing all the problems as being down to not doing Brexit properly.
I was wrong on one point, though: I never believed for a moment that we would ever see those empty GP waiting rooms and NHS hospital outpatient clinics that the Leave campaign showed in that 2016 campaign broadcast....
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
But size both doesn't matter and that isn't the relationship between them. People like you make much of the fact the EU is bigger than the UK but don't put much thought beyond that. Size isn't everything and the UK is not some weak, small milk float.
The EU combined is the world's second largest economy, the UK is the world's sixth largest.
The relevant size ratio between the EU and the UK is comparable to that between the UK and Saudi Arabia, even with all the oil Saudi Arabia deals with. I wonder how many here would say Saudi Arabia is a milk float relative to the UK?
Random question - once vaccinated, are you still required to do all the isolation required if Test and Trace get in touch with you because someone else flagged you as a close contact?
If not, is it something we can expect to ultimately change, or stay the same?
No one out side the studies has reached that point yet, so we do have a few weeks to decide. Currently, vaccinated people should isolate. The extent of asymptomatic disease that they carry is still unclear.
And there's a medical answer - which relates to the possibility that a vaccinated person could still carry the virus and infect others (the AZ trial appears to show that the vaccinated can get an asymptomatic infection?) - and a political one: we will have a vaccine rollout that will take much of next year, and the we're not going to want a 'sheep and goats' society where restrictions apply to some people but not to others. That's why Boris still had to self isolate when he came up on the contact database, despite having recently been a confirmed infection case; there aren't any exceptions for people likely to be immune.
It will pretty much break down anyway. Those who have had both injections are unlikely to comply with any self-isolation requirements.
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
I think you raise an important about Putin. Putin has made Russia relevant despite a post-USSR weakened hand by causing problems for people. Putin has won. Has Russia really won? Former satellites like Poland have powered ahead economically while Russia languishes economically.
I have no doubt a Brexit Britain can join Russia in the awkward squad. II doubt very much that it will do it any good. Inconvenienced parties adopt protections.
On topic: Freedom and Sovereignty. To my mind, Brexit means the loss of freedom. My cousin, for example, is an orchestral musician whose market is the orchestras of Europe. One night she might play in Stockholm, another night in Vienna. Brexit is career-ending. She loses her freedom to play in any European orchestra that will take her.
Brexit also means the loss of sovereignty in a practical sense. We end up with less of what we want and what we would choose, if we could. How is that sovereignty ?
There comes a point (and it might have been yesterday) when even if a deal is agreed it is too late to ratify or implement it.
In practice, if the deal provides for continuing trade on something close to current arrangements, they'll be allowed to continue pending ratification.
On topic: Freedom and Sovereignty. To my mind, Brexit means the loss of freedom. My cousin, for example, is an orchestral musician whose market is the orchestras of Europe. One night she might play in Stockholm, another night in Vienna. Brexit is career-ending. She loses her freedom to play in any European orchestra that will take her.
And this is the problem
I agree with you entirely, Brexit is a loss of freedom for many, but enough people felt threatened by that freedom they voted to end it.
Some brilliant comments on there. Apparently if it's no deal and the EU impose tariffs we can just buy things from elsewhere and avoid the tariffs.
This is the problem. Morons who don't have a clue how things work. If people buying cars have to pay a 10% import tariff it's 10% on cars from anywhere. If people eating food have to pay tariffs you can't bypass it buying from somewhere else.
This is why Shagger will desperately avoid no deal if he can. Because the consequence of how the world works not being as they have told people won't go down well. Its not EU tariffs. Its tariffs. Its not other people paying the tariffs it's you the consumer. Its not sovereignty over faceless EU courts it's subservience to even more faceless WTO courts
I am not sure you understand how this works. So if the EU decide to impose a 10% tariff on UK produced cars then we may well retaliate on EU produced cars. That would increase the price to the UK consumer unless the EU exporter was willing to absorb the cost. But it has nothing to do with our arrangements with Japan, for example. If we have an agreement with Japan that does not involve tariffs then the UK consumer would be able to buy a tariff free car from there making that car more competitive than the EU one.
In this way the balance of our trade would change. We would, at the margins, import less from the EU and more from elsewhere. Ideally we would have some import substitution as well. Tariffs in this way are a self inflicted wound for the EU who have run a large surplus with us for 20 years. They are designed to protect the EU manufacturers from unfair competition from the UK but they come at the cost of exports and jobs.
Sure, if the EU impose a higher tariff than the WTO. But the Mail commenters seem to think the only tariffs are from the EU. Unless we agree a zero tariff deal with someone like Japan to allow them to easily close down their factories here then there are tariffs. You can't avoid them by going somewhere else.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
Tariffs are a much smaller deal than they used to be unless they are being used for political purposes like Trump's tariffs on China. This is because they are much lower than they used to be and most people recognise that they involve an element of self harm. Free trade, no tariff deals are the norm these days and the UK is a large and attractive market. The EU will go to them as a very last resort but they are not much of a threat.
True. My big deal remains the imposition of a customs border. The UK will have to find a world's first solution to customs allowing for delay-free transit. And get the french to adopt it! Or wverything grinds to the inevitable halt that always happens at fixed borders. The only way we avoid the crushing delays is to do less trade which makes us poorer.
Another bit of game theory, which worries me a bit. Let's assume that the Channel borders aren't ready for what's about to happen. (They're not, are they? And I'm not convinced that another six month's transition time will reveal a magic solution, but you never know.)
If Boris agrees a deal, what happens next is his responsibility.
If Boris doesn't agree a deal, he can wave his Union Flag and blame Brussels.
If you were Boris, what would you do?
We can be quite sure that the clown is weighing all this up entirely on the basis of his self interest.
Nevertheless I would be amazed if he could brush off the consequences of a no deal quite so easily.
We don't need a magic solution, at least not right away, but we do need the type of solution that requires a bit of foresight, and some common sense and hard work. The type that a responsible government would already have prepared.
I think no deal is very likely for exactly the reason that Stuart gives.
If Boris agrees a deal, then he is fully responsible for the disruption following our exit from the SM and CU, and we will still be bound to some extent to EU rules. He won't have many friends left: Joe Public will be pissed off by the disruption and blame him; while the Faragists will be apoplectic and will make hay blaming all our ills on his "caving" to Brussels.
If there is no deal, then the disruption will, of course, be substantially greater, but Boris will be much more able to blame the EU for our state, the headbangers will be neutered, and the blitz spirit can be invoked. We liberals have often underestimated the willingness of a large segment of the populace to believe in rhetoric that flies in the face of facts (see D. Trump, supporters of). We may be doing so again.
P.S. Another excellent header by Cyclefree. Thanks you!
Just a heads-up for @admin: I shared a link to this article on FB, and every one of my friends (eight so far) who tried to click on it got a browser message saying it was an uncertificated site.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
..never mind the billions the EU won't be getting from us.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
..never mind the billions the EU won't be getting from us.
On topic: Freedom and Sovereignty. To my mind, Brexit means the loss of freedom. My cousin, for example, is an orchestral musician whose market is the orchestras of Europe. One night she might play in Stockholm, another night in Vienna. Brexit is career-ending. She loses her freedom to play in any European orchestra that will take her.
And this is the problem
I agree with you entirely, Brexit is a loss of freedom for many, but enough people felt threatened by that freedom they voted to end it.
Their "win" is our loss.
And they want us to cheer...
That sums up Brexit.
I can no longer retire to France with all my lifetime earned UK benefits intact. A simple enough desire.
Brexiteers get their "sovereignty" (whatever that might be- I have read several definitions on here) and more importantly Boris Johnson realised his dream of becoming Prime Minister.
Just a heads-up for @admin: I shared a link to this article on FB, and every one of my friends (eight so far) who tried to click on it got a browser message saying it was an uncertificated site.
Update: one friend was redirected to an 'instant millionaire' gambling site
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
Interesting but the odds are very much the other way. As the US declines the EU could well move on from being the biggest trading block in the world into being one of the most powerful political blocks. Losing the UK with their permanent hand brake on is likely to help them. The EU is almost certain to take a place on the security council and the UK could lose theirs.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
You are one of many Remainers who post on PB and have subsequently enthusiastically bought into Brexit.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
In part it is about protecting the EU institution. All membership organisations need to maximise the value of membership. If you are out you don't get what you get when you are in. I wouldn't assume others will follow us out the door (aka "free themselves from the EU yoke"). Brexit has so far had the opposite effect of making people in the EU appreciate what they have got.
Just a heads-up for @admin: I shared a link to this article on FB, and every one of my friends (eight so far) who tried to click on it got a browser message saying it was an uncertificated site.
Update: one friend was redirected to an 'instant millionaire' gambling site
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
Economic size is not particularly relevant. It means, at the most, that the UK might suffer a more substantial shock but if we are willing to run that risk the EU have to decide whether they are willing to pay their share of the cost to teach us a lesson.
A no deal Brexit means the loss of tens of thousands of EU jobs. The impact is more diffuse although Eire and the fishing communities of France would be particularly badly affected. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of UK jobs as well as our trade re-orientates. In an economy with over 31m employed this is not the end of the world but it is far from optimal and it should be avoided if it can be. The same applies to the EU. Both parties have to decide if not having a deal is worth the cost.
I can't agree here at all. Economic size, or more accurately dispersal, is certainly relevant, because throughout the bloc the shock will be distributed in a vey different way. I'm afraid I must say that to me this reads a lot like a more educated incarnation of the illusions that have led us up to this point.
COVID is quite instructive. It has been catastrophic for some people, but most people are unaffected and spending money like it’s going out of fashion. I think the same would happen with no deal brexit.
BBC saying Trump has since the election raised $250,000,000 - only a small part of which has actually gone to the legal cases, the rest ready to be syphoned off by Trump himself. So no wonder he isnt conceding.
AZ Dem 1.02 GA Dem 1.02 MI Dem 1.02 NV Dem 1.02 PA Dem 1.02 WI Dem 1.03
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.05 Trump exit date 2021 1.05
Is there any reason why Trump not leaving before end of term has come in so much? Seem to remember it was 1.11 a few days ago. I would have thought the only likely way that Trump leaves before the end of his term would be if he resigns to grant himself a pardon, not sure why that has become significantly less likely. If anything the chance of him winning disappearing (if punters ever believed them) makes it more likely that he WILL leave before the end of his term, or? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems illogical. NB can't see the actual market myself.
Random question - once vaccinated, are you still required to do all the isolation required if Test and Trace get in touch with you because someone else flagged you as a close contact?
If not, is it something we can expect to ultimately change, or stay the same?
No one out side the studies has reached that point yet, so we do have a few weeks to decide. Currently, vaccinated people should isolate. The extent of asymptomatic disease that they carry is still unclear.
I don't see anything other than the "safe" (ie current isolation status until after 2nd jab) being done here unless there is an earthquake in the evidence. And I don't think I see that until after several months' study (which makes the point largely mute).
Further, if any politician signs down to early release (literally ), then we have seen exactly how that will be used in politics. Critiquing politcians will back both sides depending which is of the most political benefit, whilst thinking that they have a non-political smokescreen. That is what we have seen throughout.
So I don't see it, without a unified proposal from the medical authorities as an absolute minimum. And I still don't think it would happen.
The turning point in lockdown advice may be when the high risk groups are no longer at risk, which imo might be March.
BBC saying Trump has since the election raised $250,000,000 - only a small part of which has actually gone to the legal cases, the rest ready to be syphoned off by Trump himself. So no wonder he isnt conceding.
On topic: Freedom and Sovereignty. To my mind, Brexit means the loss of freedom. My cousin, for example, is an orchestral musician whose market is the orchestras of Europe. One night she might play in Stockholm, another night in Vienna. Brexit is career-ending. She loses her freedom to play in any European orchestra that will take her.
And this is the problem
I agree with you entirely, Brexit is a loss of freedom for many, but enough people felt threatened by that freedom they voted to end it.
Their "win" is our loss.
And they want us to cheer...
That sums up Brexit.
I can no longer retire to France with all my lifetime earned UK benefits intact. A simple enough desire.
Brexiteers get their "sovereignty" (whatever that might be- I have read several definitions on here) and more importantly Boris Johnson realised his dream of becoming Prime Minister.
It's a shame he isn't enjoying the job while he is in it, because he sure isn't going to enjoy seeing historians get to grips with his time, once he is gone.
I don’t think that I agree with @Cyclefree’s analysis. This is not just a power play.
Both sides want a deal or, perhaps more accurately, neither side wants the blame for failing to have a deal. The UK probably wants a deal more because it has a bigger impact on it. So the EU has the power, right?
Not necessarily. In my experience a party that is willing to gamble more, to take the bigger risk, often gets what it wants. Their position may be irrational but if they hold in there sometimes the other side’s desire for a deal means agreement is reached on terms closer to what the reckless party wants than you would expect.
The UK is being reckless here. They are giving the impression of being genuinely willing to risk no deal. That may be what they end up with. But it’s not a sure thing, whatever the objective measure of their respective strengths are.
Interesting point . I think there’s two ways to look at this .The UK has both a weak and strong hand which might seem strange at the same time .
The weak part is the EU has the much bigger market and no deal is likely to harm the UK more , the strong part is Johnson is now viewed as willing to burn the whole house down . The EU might be wondering that he might just be crazy enough to go for no deal . I personally think the sovereignty argument is a pile of tosh as all trade agreements mean you give some of that up especially with a big market but he can always revert to that and will have a mostly willing press to argue for him . Personally I don’t see any downsides to him getting a deal . He has an 80 seat majority , the ERG don’t have enough votes to cause him problems . Even if they hate the deal and say they put the letters in , he’d comfortably win that vote . The next election is years away , the public are unlikely to be voting on Brexit if he gets a deal but could well do if he doesn’t and the economy suffers. Interestingly any deal will go to a vote , legally this doesn’t need to happen but I suspect it’s only being done to put Labour in a difficult position .
Indeed, DavidL.
The time honored way to win at Chicken may appear irrational, but is highly rational. You signal your absolute determination to win by throwing your steering wheel out of the window (while the other driver is watching so he/she knows what you have done). The other driver then knows that he/she cannot win - the 'best' they can achieve is a head-on collision, so the only rational option left at that point is for that other driver to steer away and lose.
Will is about the most important thing in negotiations - look at Putin.
But it would be a head-on collision between a medium-sized van and a largeish but lighter milk-float. The EU and Britain are not equal in economic size, and this is why Johnson's technique hasn't worked so far.
But size both doesn't matter and that isn't the relationship between them. People like you make much of the fact the EU is bigger than the UK but don't put much thought beyond that. Size isn't everything and the UK is not some weak, small milk float.
The EU combined is the world's second largest economy, the UK is the world's sixth largest.
The relevant size ratio between the EU and the UK is comparable to that between the UK and Saudi Arabia, even with all the oil Saudi Arabia deals with. I wonder how many here would say Saudi Arabia is a milk float relative to the UK?
Most people would say that Saudi Arabia is further away than Europe. In the gravitational model of international trade, distance (or distance squared) counts as well as size, and Dominic Raab just texted me to say France is just past Dover. He's probably never been to Northern Ireland.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
AZ Dem 1.02 GA Dem 1.02 MI Dem 1.02 NV Dem 1.02 PA Dem 1.02 WI Dem 1.03
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.05 Trump exit date 2021 1.05
Is there any reason why Trump not leaving before end of term has come in so much? Seem to remember it was 1.11 a few days ago. I would have thought the only likely way that Trump leaves before the end of his term would be if he resigns to grant himself a pardon, not sure why that has become significantly less likely. If anything the chance of him winning disappearing (if punters ever believed them) makes it more likely that he WILL leave before the end of his term, or? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems illogical. NB can't see the actual market myself.
The Trump prices collapsed right after SCOTUS threw out their case, so the correct answer is that the people who were betting on Trump are the stupidest people in the world.
Just a heads-up for @admin: I shared a link to this article on FB, and every one of my friends (eight so far) who tried to click on it got a browser message saying it was an uncertificated site.
Update: one friend was redirected to an 'instant millionaire' gambling site
No, that's this one.
You can easily win millions from the tips on this site - you just need a spare billion to put on Biden
BBC saying Trump has since the election raised $250,000,000 - only a small part of which has actually gone to the legal cases, the rest ready to be syphoned off by Trump himself. So no wonder he isnt conceding.
I've also posted a link to pb on Twitter before and had people say they got taken to some spam site, I'm pretty sure they didn't mean this one but it always loads correctly for me...
For £7.5 billion, you'd get an equivalent amount of power from the Cardiff Tidal Lagoon. Paid for without subsidy, by private investment. Zero carbon, zero waste. The planning is well advanced, it could be producing by 2030.
Nuclear might have been an answer, once. No longer.
Freedom to ignore the pathetic, self serving, myopic europhile wankery of people like him, or, indeed, you?
One of the GREAT benefits of Brexit is that Remoaners will finally have to STFU, because, quite frankly, no one will care. Listening to people like Maugham or Dunt or Alibhai-Brown will be the 21st century equivalent of going to Bedlam to laugh at the loonies. Entertaining in a way, but really quite inhumane and ultimately very dull. Let them rant and wear their tricorn hats and think they are Napoleon. Let them do it unobserved
Just a heads-up for @admin: I shared a link to this article on FB, and every one of my friends (eight so far) who tried to click on it got a browser message saying it was an uncertificated site.
Update: one friend was redirected to an 'instant millionaire' gambling site
It is one and the same. I get it a lot. It's very annoying. Often ok for weeks then repeatedly for days. It often takes 5 attempts to log in instead of getting the scam site.
A very fine header cyclefree. I didn't manage to read it yesterday.
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
The EU is screwed, once we are properly out and seen to be doing ok, others will want to free themsemves from the EU yoke. I voted remain, but the EU "negotiation" is not about the deal, ,its about protecting the EU institution.
You are one of many Remainers who post on PB and have subsequently enthusiastically bought into Brexit.
The opinion polls must be wrong.
I havent bought into brexit at all. I still think we are better off overall in, for all the EU's sins. However i loathe the likes or Barnier.
Comments
A no deal Brexit means the loss of tens of thousands of EU jobs. The impact is more diffuse although Eire and the fishing communities of France would be particularly badly affected. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of UK jobs as well as our trade re-orientates. In an economy with over 31m employed this is not the end of the world but it is far from optimal and it should be avoided if it can be. The same applies to the EU. Both parties have to decide if not having a deal is worth the cost.
It's as if the WTO has been sold to them as the place where the UK does what it likes for free. Its even more bureaucratic than the EU
If I linger uncomfortably then I'll euthanise.
There is a way to free yourselves from slavery and slay this enemy! Just keep voting for Farage
--AS
https://twitter.com/Davethe25219352/status/1338171479343702017
But if you’re in a Fiat Panda, and the oncoming vehicle is an SUV, then the dynamic changes a little.
And in the case, isn’t ‘will’ the same as intransigence. Which everyone keeps telling us is a characteristic of the EU ?
And damn it, you’ve got me trading analogies again.
The EU has wider issues and attachment to its project to consider as well, and there’s a lot more there than many Brits realise.
The OP has a point that recklessness in negotiation can sometimes pay off with an extra point or two, at the risk of losing everything. As a negotiator for many years, I have seen it done, and also seen it go wrong.
But the fundamental point - that the EU isn’t going to grant free access to its market without safeguards that we won’t undercut its standards - is a reasonable one, and won’t be magicked away by any amount of clownish bluster.
If not, is it something we can expect to ultimately change, or stay the same?
If Boris agrees a deal, what happens next is his responsibility.
If Boris doesn't agree a deal, he can wave his Union Flag and blame Brussels.
If you were Boris, what would you do?
As it stands he has two options - a paper deal which he described as oven ready, or no deal which he described as no problem. Neither is true. No deal will be the catastrofuck that has been written off as the whining of experts and remoaners. Deal will make people less free and less well off than they were. On one hand the wrath of the electorate for realising the prize is a box with a dog turd in it. On the other hand the Nigel leading the Brexit Betrayal party denouncing all the problems as being down to not doing Brexit properly.
Blockages at ports like Felixtowe means that products supposed to be shipped to the UK are ending up in the EU instead as shipping lines refuse to delay their schedules...
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sourcing/british-food-trapped-in-europe-as-port-chaos-spreads/651282.article
A couple of things could help them.
1. Even if No Deal disruption is bad, the positive effect of rolling out Coronavirus vaccines could be greater in 2021 - avoiding a Brexit recession.
2. If they can deflect blame, or minimise the problems for a few months then people will adjust. The political impact hinges on whether disruption is blamed immediately on Johnson and Brexit itself. A Christmas Corona-surge provides good cover.
Indirectly though it could be quite severe, as those taxpayers who fund my salary take a hit, and therefore the tax base shrinks.
Maybe in a post-Brexit, post-Covid world, we can return to talking about issues such as this.
The only relevant data I’ve found (if I ignore the ICNARC data on severe comorbidities, because they are indeed very severe) is weak.
They also published an analysis of the under-18s who were severely ill or who died. These are, fortunately, a small number.
However, my instinctive hypothesis, given they were young, would have been that they would overwhelmingly have had other conditions, but the opposite turned out to be true. The majority of those taken to ICU had no other conditions at all. Not even mild asthma, or diabetes, or anything.
Those very few who sadly died did, however, almost exclusively come from the minority with existing conditions.
It is, as I say, weak evidence at best, but the fact it went in the exact opposite direction of what we’d assume in the scenario where younger people are only at risk of hospitalisation with other conditions did stand out.
https://twitter.com/donnyc1975/status/1338381033251758085
Nevertheless I would be amazed if he could brush off the consequences of a no deal quite so easily.
We don't need a magic solution, at least not right away, but we do need the type of solution that requires a bit of foresight, and some common sense and hard work. The type that a responsible government would already have prepared.
The EU combined is the world's second largest economy, the UK is the world's sixth largest.
The relevant size ratio between the EU and the UK is comparable to that between the UK and Saudi Arabia, even with all the oil Saudi Arabia deals with. I wonder how many here would say Saudi Arabia is a milk float relative to the UK?
I have no doubt a Brexit Britain can join Russia in the awkward squad. II doubt very much that it will do it any good. Inconvenienced parties adopt protections.
On topic: Freedom and Sovereignty. To my mind, Brexit means the loss of freedom. My cousin, for example, is an orchestral musician whose market is the orchestras of Europe. One night she might play in Stockholm, another night in Vienna. Brexit is career-ending. She loses her freedom to play in any European orchestra that will take her.
Brexit also means the loss of sovereignty in a practical sense. We end up with less of what we want and what we would choose, if we could. How is that sovereignty ?
We get some pilchards.
I agree with you entirely, Brexit is a loss of freedom for many, but enough people felt threatened by that freedom they voted to end it.
Their "win" is our loss.
And they want us to cheer...
https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-boris-johnson-shops-stockpile-deadline-looms-2020-12?amp&r=US&IR=T&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2weeS__i5P4Axbet4KPse__hDkOKLLxWXhQINe2OaHj9KzblSNMqSjcG0
If Boris agrees a deal, then he is fully responsible for the disruption following our exit from the SM and CU, and we will still be bound to some extent to EU rules. He won't have many friends left: Joe Public will be pissed off by the disruption and blame him; while the Faragists will be apoplectic and will make hay blaming all our ills on his "caving" to Brussels.
If there is no deal, then the disruption will, of course, be substantially greater, but Boris will be much more able to blame the EU for our state, the headbangers will be neutered, and the blitz spirit can be invoked. We liberals have often underestimated the willingness of a large segment of the populace to believe in rhetoric that flies in the face of facts (see D. Trump, supporters of). We may be doing so again.
P.S. Another excellent header by Cyclefree. Thanks you!
I heard on radio yesterday that negotiating deals is what the EU excels at. Apparently there is nowhere in the world better.
Something else we will lose in this quest for the chimera called sovereignty
https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1338240532032737281
What he should have said was 'Give me a break!I can't explain what he meant. He talks through his arse!!
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-stockpiling-food-due-threat-19430588
I can no longer retire to France with all my lifetime earned UK benefits intact. A simple enough desire.
Brexiteers get their "sovereignty" (whatever that might be- I have read several definitions on here) and more importantly Boris Johnson realised his dream of becoming Prime Minister.
Biden 1.03
Democrats 1.02
Biden PV 1.02
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.03
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.02
Trump ECV 210-239 1.03
Biden ECV 300-329 1.03
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.03
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.03
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 no offers
AZ Dem 1.02
GA Dem 1.02
MI Dem 1.02
NV Dem 1.02
PA Dem 1.02
WI Dem 1.03
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.05
Trump exit date 2021 1.05
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1338399459739373568
The opinion polls must be wrong.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/lockdown-savings-give-households-a-7-000-christmas-present-hnl0vbfv9 (£££)
I would have thought the only likely way that Trump leaves before the end of his term would be if he resigns to grant himself a pardon, not sure why that has become significantly less likely. If anything the chance of him winning disappearing (if punters ever believed them) makes it more likely that he WILL leave before the end of his term, or?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems illogical. NB can't see the actual market myself.
BBC News - Sizewell C: Government in talks to fund £20bn nuclear plant
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55299511
Further, if any politician signs down to early release (literally
So I don't see it, without a unified proposal from the medical authorities as an absolute minimum. And I still don't think it would happen.
The turning point in lockdown advice may be when the high risk groups are no longer at risk, which imo might be March.
Political analysis 101 level.
Which just shows how little those currency traders understand trade, negotiation and economics.
(That's how it works, isn't it? I'm trying to get with the program.)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/10/16/donald-trump-has-at-least-1-billion-in-debt-more-than-twice-the-amount-he-suggested/
but still a lot of money.
I'm hoping many of his angrier supporters realise they've been duped by a member of the metropolitan elite that they hate.
BBC News - Covid-19: Trump rejects plan for early vaccines at White House
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55298015
Nuclear might have been an answer, once. No longer.
One of the GREAT benefits of Brexit is that Remoaners will finally have to STFU, because, quite frankly, no one will care. Listening to people like Maugham or Dunt or Alibhai-Brown will be the 21st century equivalent of going to Bedlam to laugh at the loonies. Entertaining in a way, but really quite inhumane and ultimately very dull. Let them rant and wear their tricorn hats and think they are Napoleon. Let them do it unobserved