Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Yes, but our prior arrangements were not a trade deal, and shouldn’t therefore be compared on a like for like basis.
That is pure sophistry. I thought this was meant to be a serious debate.
Will we be able to put PT back in his box now that the most wonderful deal has been achieved by the worlds best ever leader? Or will we have to put up with years of explanation as to why it’s so good.
You'll clearly need the benefits explaining to you. At length.
Wasn’t what he was finally arrested for a state crime? Which can’t be pardoned by the President.
He's surely not going to pardon her, is he?
I don’t believe he can, given what she’s accused of.
A more interesting question is what he does with Assange. That’s always been a strange case, as until Trump came to power it seems as though the US wasn’t actually terribly interested in him, Manning being more important in their eyes. But then he became a useful way for Trump to try and show he wasn’t a tool of Putin’s, so they dusted off the charges and refiled them, just as Sweden had to cease the rape investigations due to Statute of Limitations. This of course fed Assange’s delusions of importance very nicely, but seem to have had little practical effect other than to keep him locked up longer than he would otherwise have been for jumping bail.
Instinct says he probably won’t pardon him, as it would play badly with he patriotic base, and instead the charges will be quietly dropped under Biden and Assange deported to Australia. But you never quite know with Trump.
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
I'm not actually sure what OLB said is true anyway about this being the only trade deal in history that makes trade harder rather than easier. Didn't Trump's recent deal with Mexico and Canada include more barriers than NAFTA?
USMCA made trade harder in some areas and easier in others and its net economic impact is likely around zero, versus an estimated - 4% from a UK-EU FTA vs single market. The two aren't really comparable. See:
I’ll put that next to that late night tweet from the French stating that the U.K. had “conceded massively”.
As I said yesterday it is not the number of moves that you win that matters but their value. Winning a stack of low value high cost trades whilst losing a small number of really high value trades is not winning. That's how you end up with a deal where the EU moved more than you did but you've put a border in your own country
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Yes, but our prior arrangements were not a trade deal, and shouldn’t therefore be compared on a like for like basis.
That is pure sophistry. I thought this was meant to be a serious debate.
No, it’s a statement of fact. That is definitely part of a serious debate, although regrettably your previous statement was an example of hyperbole, both for the reasons I have stated and because as has been pointed out elsewhere even had your statement been correctly premised there are other examples of trade deals becoming more restrictive.
Ultimately, such statements are a big part of the reason why we lost the argument to Remain, because they undermine our credibility and cause people to stop listening to us.
You have a problem with that? Then stop making them. But don’t abuse me for pointing out that you are wrong.
I’ll put that next to that late night tweet from the French stating that the U.K. had “conceded massively”.
As I said yesterday it is not the number of moves that you win that matters but their value. Winning a stack of low value high cost trades whilst losing a small number of really high value trades is not winning. That's how you end up with a deal where the EU moved more than you did but you've put a border in your own country
Since we were fighting for one of the lowest value of all, we might expect some biggies hidden in there on the other side.
Mega concession from the EU wrt third country status on agriculture. The whole seed market block is a political fig leaf for them to say they did something despite the UK now not being aligned to EU agricultural standards and still having full export rights. It's a £13m export market by value, literally peanuts but it gives the EU an illusion of control.
Expect a lot more of these symbolic gestures in the deal for both sides where we or they maintain control over a tiny, tiny portion of some industry but ultimately both sides are free to get on with 99.9% of life and export to each other without too much fuss.
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
Mega concession from the EU wrt third country status on agriculture. The whole seed market block is a political fig leaf for them to say they did something despite the UK now not being aligned to EU agricultural standards and still having full export rights. It's a £13m export market by value, literally peanuts but it gives the EU an illusion of control.
Expect a lot more of these symbolic gestures in the deal for both sides where we or they maintain control over a tiny, tiny portion of some industry but ultimately both sides are free to get on with 99.9% of life and export to each other without too much fuss.
Aren't our agri standards higher?
No, they're much the same at the moment.
Doesn’t it depend somewhat on how strictly the member state enforces them? Or has the EU finally managed to crack down on that?
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Yes, but our prior arrangements were not a trade deal, and shouldn’t therefore be compared on a like for like basis.
That is pure sophistry. I thought this was meant to be a serious debate.
No, it’s a statement of fact. That is definitely part of a serious debate, although regrettably your previous statement was an example of hyperbole, both for the reasons I have stated and because as has been pointed out elsewhere even had your statement been correctly premised there are other examples of trade deals becoming more restrictive.
Ultimately, such statements are a big part of the reason why we lost the argument to Remain, because they undermine our credibility and cause people to stop listening to us.
You have a problem with that? Then stop making them. But don’t abuse me for pointing out that you are wrong.
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Let me restate mine. This is the first major trade deal between significant trading blocs that aims to put in place a trading environment more restrictive than that which preceded it. This really shouldn't be a controversial argument, in fact it is the most fundamental description of the situation we are in, I am hardly the only person making it. To argue that isn't the case because the EU single market isn't an FTA is sophistry.
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
It might have done, if Congress had waited for the right moment.
As it was they went too soon and found they couldn’t follow through.
The on mildly comforting thought in that is it’s not just our politicians who are shit.
Mega concession from the EU wrt third country status on agriculture. The whole seed market block is a political fig leaf for them to say they did something despite the UK now not being aligned to EU agricultural standards and still having full export rights. It's a £13m export market by value, literally peanuts but it gives the EU an illusion of control.
Expect a lot more of these symbolic gestures in the deal for both sides where we or they maintain control over a tiny, tiny portion of some industry but ultimately both sides are free to get on with 99.9% of life and export to each other without too much fuss.
It is not ‘literally peanuts.’ You can’t grow potatoes from peanuts.
They won't be able to grow potatoes from UK seeds, either. So it's as good as peanuts.
Are we going to have another crack at the Groundnut Scheme, to celebrate Brexmas?
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Cling to the notion that this deal is "much much worse than our prior arrangements" - with the EU.
But let's see how in the wider picture, the totality of our trade arrangments with the rest of the world looks in five or ten years time. Arrrangments we could not enter into whilst in the EU. Go Truss, go. See what else you can achieve.
"But...but...but the EU's grand scale will get leverage the UK never could achieve...." you will counter. We will see. It is just as likely that in those third party talks, the EU gave away the things that benefitted the UK to get wins for a bunch of countries on the Med.
I personally think Frost has got a very satisfactory outcome, considering the UK's supine posture he inherited from May and Bobbins Robbins. He was ably helped by the creation of the character of Slightly Mad Boris, who convinced the EU that he was slightly mad enough to actually go ahead with No Deal. A trick his predecessors singularly failed to pull off. The Internal Markets Bill was a genius move in this regard. Somebody who was prepared to suffer the opprobrium of the UK's collected ex-PMs really didn't know how to play by the EU's rules, did he? By God, he might just fuck it up for us all..... Bravo, Boris, bravo. A fine piece of method acting.
That's what the Telegraph is saying. Nothing in the Guardian that I can find. Such a pattern of selective briefing would be consistent with Starmer preparing to back the deal, because he'd want that to communicated first to a Leave-supporting paper and their readership.
Any fireworks from diehard Labour remainer MPs will be a damp squib. There'll be a significant rebellion but it will count for nothing and it will help Starmer put the issue of Brexit to bed. It will stymie the Tories' attempt to portray Labour as a party led by an arch-Remainer committed to rejoining by the back door. Things will move on.
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Yes, but our prior arrangements were not a trade deal, and shouldn’t therefore be compared on a like for like basis.
That is pure sophistry. I thought this was meant to be a serious debate.
No, it’s a statement of fact. That is definitely part of a serious debate, although regrettably your previous statement was an example of hyperbole, both for the reasons I have stated and because as has been pointed out elsewhere even had your statement been correctly premised there are other examples of trade deals becoming more restrictive.
Ultimately, such statements are a big part of the reason why we lost the argument to Remain, because they undermine our credibility and cause people to stop listening to us.
You have a problem with that? Then stop making them. But don’t abuse me for pointing out that you are wrong.
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Let me restate mine. This is the first major trade deal between significant trading blocs that aims to put in place a trading environment more restrictive than that which preceded it. This really shouldn't be a controversial argument, in fact it is the most fundamental description of the situation we are in, I am hardly the only person making it. To argue that isn't the case because the EU single market isn't an FTA is sophistry.
Then let me put it to you in simple terms. You are wrong. Because countries separate all the time, and the EU is considered a country Sui Generis, and put in place more restrictive arrangements than they had before. Ukraine and Russia. Ireland and the UK. Australia and Papua New Guinea. The UK and New Zealand.
Your point would have validity if EU membership were just about trade, but it isn’t. So we leave our membership, over many matters, and negotiate a new relationship that is just about trade. It is nonsensical to suggest that this a more restrictive trade deal replacing a less restrictive one. You are comparing apples and scones.
Yes the EU is a free trade area but it is also more than that, and to pretend otherwise is not sophistry, it’s dishonesty.
Now, you have claimed sophismon my part, because you don’t like what I’ve shown. Those are facts. Sophism cannot be argued on facts. If you want to argue against facts, go to the Skwawkbox. Otherwise, come back to reality and we can engage again. In the meanwhile, I have a wall to paint.
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
The Founding Fathers were, in many ways, utter morons.
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Cling to the notion that this deal is "much much worse than our prior arrangements" - with the EU.
But let's see how in the wider picture, the totality of our trade arrangments with the rest of the world looks in five or ten years time. Arrrangments we could not enter into whilst in the EU. Go Truss, go. See what else you can achieve.
"But...but...but the EU's grand scale will get leverage the UK never could achieve...." you will counter. We will see. It is just as likely that in those third party talks, the EU gave away the things that benefitted the UK to get wins for a bunch of countries on the Med.
I personally think Frost has got a very satisfactory outcome, considering the UK's supine posture he inherited from May and Bobbins Robbins. He was ably helped by the creation of the character of Slightly Mad Boris, who convinced the EU that he was slightly mad enough to actually go ahead with No Deal. A trick his predecessors singularly failed to pull off. The Internal Markets Bill was a genius move in this regard. Somebody who was prepared to suffer the opprobrium of the UK's collected ex-PMs really didn't know how to play by the EU's rules, did he? By God, he might just fuck it up for us all..... Bravo, Boris, bravo. A fine piece of method acting.
It is easy to play the fuckwit when he is a fuckwit!
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
It might have done, if Congress had waited for the right moment.
As it was they went too soon and found they couldn’t follow through.
The on mildly comforting thought in that is it’s not just our politicians who are shit.
I suppose you mean the emphasis to be on the word "our". I'm afraid it should be on the word "politicians".
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
Here was me thinking NoDeal was going to be the final nail in the Independence coffin what with the prospect of Razor Wire and Machine Gun posts from Berwick to Gretna.
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Yes, but our prior arrangements were not a trade deal, and shouldn’t therefore be compared on a like for like basis.
That is pure sophistry. I thought this was meant to be a serious debate.
No, it’s a statement of fact. That is definitely part of a serious debate, although regrettably your previous statement was an example of hyperbole, both for the reasons I have stated and because as has been pointed out elsewhere even had your statement been correctly premised there are other examples of trade deals becoming more restrictive.
Ultimately, such statements are a big part of the reason why we lost the argument to Remain, because they undermine our credibility and cause people to stop listening to us.
You have a problem with that? Then stop making them. But don’t abuse me for pointing out that you are wrong.
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Let me restate mine. This is the first major trade deal between significant trading blocs that aims to put in place a trading environment more restrictive than that which preceded it. This really shouldn't be a controversial argument, in fact it is the most fundamental description of the situation we are in, I am hardly the only person making it. To argue that isn't the case because the EU single market isn't an FTA is sophistry.
Then let me put it to you in simple terms. You are wrong. Because countries separate all the time, and the EU is considered a country Sui Generis, and put in place more restrictive arrangements than they had before. Ukraine and Russia. Ireland and the UK. Australia and Papua New Guinea. The UK and New Zealand.
Your point would have validity if EU membership were just about trade, but it isn’t. So we leave our membership, over many matters, and negotiate a new relationship that is just about trade. It is nonsensical to suggest that this a more restrictive trade deal replacing a less restrictive one. You are comparing apples and scones.
I'll leave others to judge the relative merits of our arguments.
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
It might have done, if Congress had waited for the right moment.
As it was they went too soon and found they couldn’t follow through.
The on mildly comforting thought in that is it’s not just our politicians who are shit.
Talking to more or less any foreigner will cure you of that notion.
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Cling to the notion that this deal is "much much worse than our prior arrangements" - with the EU.
But let's see how in the wider picture, the totality of our trade arrangments with the rest of the world looks in five or ten years time. Arrrangments we could not enter into whilst in the EU. Go Truss, go. See what else you can achieve.
"But...but...but the EU's grand scale will get leverage the UK never could achieve...." you will counter. We will see. It is just as likely that in those third party talks, the EU gave away the things that benefitted the UK to get wins for a bunch of countries on the Med.
I personally think Frost has got a very satisfactory outcome, considering the UK's supine posture he inherited from May and Bobbins Robbins. He was ably helped by the creation of the character of Slightly Mad Boris, who convinced the EU that he was slightly mad enough to actually go ahead with No Deal. A trick his predecessors singularly failed to pull off. The Internal Markets Bill was a genius move in this regard. Somebody who was prepared to suffer the opprobrium of the UK's collected ex-PMs really didn't know how to play by the EU's rules, did he? By God, he might just fuck it up for us all..... Bravo, Boris, bravo. A fine piece of method acting.
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Yes, but our prior arrangements were not a trade deal, and shouldn’t therefore be compared on a like for like basis.
That is pure sophistry. I thought this was meant to be a serious debate.
No, it’s a statement of fact. That is definitely part of a serious debate, although regrettably your previous statement was an example of hyperbole, both for the reasons I have stated and because as has been pointed out elsewhere even had your statement been correctly premised there are other examples of trade deals becoming more restrictive.
Ultimately, such statements are a big part of the reason why we lost the argument to Remain, because they undermine our credibility and cause people to stop listening to us.
You have a problem with that? Then stop making them. But don’t abuse me for pointing out that you are wrong.
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Let me restate mine. This is the first major trade deal between significant trading blocs that aims to put in place a trading environment more restrictive than that which preceded it. This really shouldn't be a controversial argument, in fact it is the most fundamental description of the situation we are in, I am hardly the only person making it. To argue that isn't the case because the EU single market isn't an FTA is sophistry.
Then let me put it to you in simple terms. You are wrong. Because countries separate all the time, and the EU is considered a country Sui Generis, and put in place more restrictive arrangements than they had before. Ukraine and Russia. Ireland and the UK. Australia and Papua New Guinea. The UK and New Zealand.
Your point would have validity if EU membership were just about trade, but it isn’t. So we leave our membership, over many matters, and negotiate a new relationship that is just about trade. It is nonsensical to suggest that this a more restrictive trade deal replacing a less restrictive one. You are comparing apples and scones.
I'll leave others to judge the relative merits of our arguments.
I’ll take your lack of reply as a concession, although an apology would be nice too.
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Yes, but our prior arrangements were not a trade deal, and shouldn’t therefore be compared on a like for like basis.
That is pure sophistry. I thought this was meant to be a serious debate.
No, it’s a statement of fact. That is definitely part of a serious debate, although regrettably your previous statement was an example of hyperbole, both for the reasons I have stated and because as has been pointed out elsewhere even had your statement been correctly premised there are other examples of trade deals becoming more restrictive.
Ultimately, such statements are a big part of the reason why we lost the argument to Remain, because they undermine our credibility and cause people to stop listening to us.
You have a problem with that? Then stop making them. But don’t abuse me for pointing out that you are wrong.
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Let me restate mine. This is the first major trade deal between significant trading blocs that aims to put in place a trading environment more restrictive than that which preceded it. This really shouldn't be a controversial argument, in fact it is the most fundamental description of the situation we are in, I am hardly the only person making it. To argue that isn't the case because the EU single market isn't an FTA is sophistry.
Then let me put it to you in simple terms. You are wrong. Because countries separate all the time, and the EU is considered a country Sui Generis, and put in place more restrictive arrangements than they had before. Ukraine and Russia. Ireland and the UK. Australia and Papua New Guinea. The UK and New Zealand.
Your point would have validity if EU membership were just about trade, but it isn’t. So we leave our membership, over many matters, and negotiate a new relationship that is just about trade. It is nonsensical to suggest that this a more restrictive trade deal replacing a less restrictive one. You are comparing apples and scones.
I'll leave others to judge the relative merits of our arguments.
I’ll take your lack of reply as a concession, although an apology would be nice too.
BBC saying the deal will pass with substantial labour support
Starmer to endorse deal will be the next political battle for labour
I don't think so. Some may abstain, or even vote against, but with the alternative being No Deal, the majority of Labour will back it. Europe is simply not the divisive issue for Labour that it is for Tories.
Obviously with renegotiation in the next manifesto to improve it. I expect LibDems to abstain and have EEA in the next manifesto.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
As MaxPB point out, it was a symbolic sacrifice. That it uniquely affects Scotland, intentionally or just carelessly, is the point. A relatively minor one (unless you work in that particular industry), but it reinforces the narrative.
Mega concession from the EU wrt third country status on agriculture. The whole seed market block is a political fig leaf for them to say they did something despite the UK now not being aligned to EU agricultural standards and still having full export rights. It's a £13m export market by value, literally peanuts but it gives the EU an illusion of control.
Expect a lot more of these symbolic gestures in the deal for both sides where we or they maintain control over a tiny, tiny portion of some industry but ultimately both sides are free to get on with 99.9% of life and export to each other without too much fuss.
It is not ‘literally peanuts.’ You can’t grow potatoes from peanuts.
They won't be able to grow potatoes from UK seeds, either. So it's as good as peanuts.
Scotland will have to talk nicely to some English farmers, for use of their fields in which to plant these seed potatoes that will otherwise be rotting in Scottish barns.
I suspect this issue will get quietly resolved when Europe realises it has no alternative source of seed potatoes. One of a number of hard edges that will get planed off the deal in coming months. Because there will no longer be any point in depriving the EU just to achieve a meaningless win against the UK.
BBC saying the deal will pass with substantial labour support
Starmer to endorse deal will be the next political battle for labour
I don't think so. Some may abstain, or even vote against, but with the alternative being No Deal, the majority of Labour will back it. Europe is simply not the divisive issue for Labour that it is for Tories.
Obviously with renegotiation in the next manifesto to improve it. I expect LibDems to abstain and have EEA in the next manifesto.
It was Labour's mad policy on Europe which cost it an election victory last year
Worth bearing in mind that this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade. On average, economists think it will subtract about 4% from UK GDP in the long run, relative to single market membership. If they are right this cost is far greater than the net payments we made as an EU member. Still, it is better than no deal, and for that at least we should be thankful.
Well, no it really isn’t, and I say that as a Remainer. The EU wasn’t just about trade, or it’s unlikely we’d ever have left it. It also had major sociopolitical ramifications that were, to put it mildly, not universally popular.
This deal *is* designed to make trade easier than it would be in a clean break. So from that point of view it might fairly be compared to the free trade deals in the former Soviet Union, or Greenland’s arrangements with Denmark after 1985, which in itself sees your point fail.
If you are arguing that UK-EU trade won't be harder on Jan 1st after this deal takes effect than on Dec 31st under existing rules then you are demonstrably wrong. Of course it is better than no deal, which is why I said precisely that.
Yes, but my point is that you are making a totally false statement. Your implication is we have negotiated a trade deal to make trade harder. We haven’t. We left a political system, rightly or wrongly, and negotiated a trade deal to free up trade in this new political situation rather than trade on WTO terms. Which actually happens very frequently. So whatever your private views on leave or remain, it is you who is ‘demonstrably wrong’ in your claim that ‘this is the first trade deal in history designed to make it harder not easier to trade.‘
It is common in analysing trade deals to compare what has been negotiated with what went before, rather than with some hypothetical third scenario. Since I have repeatedly said that the deal is better than this hypothetical third scenario I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes it is better than no deal, but much much worse than our prior arrangements.
Yes, but our prior arrangements were not a trade deal, and shouldn’t therefore be compared on a like for like basis.
That is pure sophistry. I thought this was meant to be a serious debate.
No, it’s a statement of fact. That is definitely part of a serious debate, although regrettably your previous statement was an example of hyperbole, both for the reasons I have stated and because as has been pointed out elsewhere even had your statement been correctly premised there are other examples of trade deals becoming more restrictive.
Ultimately, such statements are a big part of the reason why we lost the argument to Remain, because they undermine our credibility and cause people to stop listening to us.
You have a problem with that? Then stop making them. But don’t abuse me for pointing out that you are wrong.
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Let me restate mine. This is the first major trade deal between significant trading blocs that aims to put in place a trading environment more restrictive than that which preceded it. This really shouldn't be a controversial argument, in fact it is the most fundamental description of the situation we are in, I am hardly the only person making it. To argue that isn't the case because the EU single market isn't an FTA is sophistry.
You can expect an excess of sophistry on here in near future. Will be full scale ballets on pin heads for sure , plenty of spitfires, dunkirk and blitz spirit as well as "we won the war" etc
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
The SNP majority next year is nailed on
Not after this news it isn't, the previous Holyrood polls were with the presumption of No Deal, add in Unionist tactical voting too and Sturgeon risks disaster next year a la May 2017
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
The Founding Fathers were, in many ways, utter morons.
As a cobbled together compromise, the US Constitution has been remarkably successful. And which of us can accurately plan for two centuries hence ?
Talking of cobbled together compromises, I don’t expect the UK/EU deal to last as long.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
The SNP majority next year is nailed on
No, it just takes a small slip in the SNP vote share to stop them getting a majority. There is a big gap between constituency and list vote. They have to absolutely smash the constituency vote to avoid the list voting screwing them out of a majority.
BBC saying the deal will pass with substantial labour support
Starmer to endorse deal will be the next political battle for labour
I don't think so. Some may abstain, or even vote against, but with the alternative being No Deal, the majority of Labour will back it. Europe is simply not the divisive issue for Labour that it is for Tories.
Obviously with renegotiation in the next manifesto to improve it. I expect LibDems to abstain and have EEA in the next manifesto.
Why wouldn't Labour abstain? The deal will pass anyway, provided they don't vote against it, so what's the downside of abstaining?
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
The SNP majority next year is nailed on
Not after this news it isn't, the previous polls were with the presumption of No Deal, add in Unionist tactical voting too and Sturgeon risks disaster next year a la May 2017
To be honest you are misleading yourself on this one
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
Here was me thinking NoDeal was going to be the final nail in the Independence coffin what with the prospect of Razor Wire and Machine Gun posts from Berwick to Gretna.
Now a deal is the final nail.
Interesting. That's a lot of different nails.
Hard to keep up with unionists hammering them in for sure. PS: it is actually No Deal in sheep's clothing so BAU Over 4 years to just capitulate is amazing work
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
The Founding Fathers were, in many ways, utter morons.
When did the senate gain the power to remove from the House ? The first senate wasn't convened till 1789. Furthermore when was a supermajority required - only a question. Perhaps I'm missing something from Madison here.
Oh Lord - found it - Art 1 of the const.
The constitution's framers vested the Senate with this power for several reasons. First, they believed senators would be better educated, more virtuous, and more high-minded than members of the House of Representatives and thus uniquely able to decide responsibly the most difficult of political questions. Second, they believed that the Senate, being a numerous body, would be well suited to handle the procedural demands of an impeachment trial, in which it, unlike judges and the judiciary system, would "never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutor, or in the construction of it by judges, as in the common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65).
Looks like Hamilton didn't anticipate the combination of the modern day GOP and Trump. Anyway they have the power, the GOP owns all these pardons now. You'd hope they'd be punished at the ballot box for their nonsense.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
The SNP majority next year is nailed on
Not after this news it isn't, the previous polls were with the presumption of No Deal, add in Unionist tactical voting too and Sturgeon risks disaster next year a la May 2017
To be honest you are misleading yourself on this one
Sturgeon like May pre 2017 has built up a huge poll lead so anything less than a landslide SNP majority next year will now be a humiliation for her, as the failure to win a Tory landslide and the loss of her majority was for May in 2017.
Boris is determined to make everyone's Christmas as miserable as possible by announcing a deal, and setting leaver against remainer for ever and a day.
I’m fairly certain that no deal would have been worse for that.
BBC saying the deal will pass with substantial labour support
Starmer to endorse deal will be the next political battle for labour
I don't think so. Some may abstain, or even vote against, but with the alternative being No Deal, the majority of Labour will back it. Europe is simply not the divisive issue for Labour that it is for Tories.
Obviously with renegotiation in the next manifesto to improve it. I expect LibDems to abstain and have EEA in the next manifesto.
Why wouldn't Labour abstain? The deal will pass anyway, provided they don't vote against it, so what's the downside of abstaining?
It looks completely vacuous. Starmer has a difficult gig either way but abstention simply won't cut it.
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
The Founding Fathers were, in many ways, utter morons.
When did the senate gain the power to remove from the House ? The first senate wasn't convened till 1789. Furthermore when was a supermajority required - only a question. Perhaps I'm missing something from Madison here.
This was from the debate at the Constitutional Convention. Madison and the pardoners won that debate; the argument with which they prevailed has proved somewhat specious.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
Here was me thinking NoDeal was going to be the final nail in the Independence coffin what with the prospect of Razor Wire and Machine Gun posts from Berwick to Gretna.
Now a deal is the final nail.
Interesting. That's a lot of different nails.
Hard to keep up with unionists hammering them in for sure. PS: it is actually No Deal in sheep's clothing so BAU Over 4 years to just capitulate is amazing work
Can I interest you in some snake oil, while stocks last. It will be selling well today.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
As MaxPB point out, it was a symbolic sacrifice. That it uniquely affects Scotland, intentionally or just carelessly, is the point. A relatively minor one (unless you work in that particular industry), but it reinforces the narrative.
Even these tiny "victories" will eventually be incorporated into the deal when people have stopped paying attention. Right now both the UK and EU need to sell this politically because the economics of no deal are pretty awful. Once the need for that political win goes away, the minor issues get settled with a few 2am press releases that nobody notices.
Really the next big step for both sides will be customs measures and a trusted traders scheme that covers 98-99% of UK/EU trade virtually eliminating the customs border as we are going to do for the vast majority of GB/NI trade.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
The SNP majority next year is nailed on
Not after this news it isn't, the previous polls were with the presumption of No Deal, add in Unionist tactical voting too and Sturgeon risks disaster next year a la May 2017
To be honest you are misleading yourself on this one
Sturgeon like May pre 2017 has built up a huge poll lead so anything less than a landslide SNP majority next year will now be a humiliation for her, as the failure to win a Tory landslide and the loss of her majority was for May in 2017.
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
It might have done, if Congress had waited for the right moment.
As it was they went too soon and found they couldn’t follow through.
The on mildly comforting thought in that is it’s not just our politicians who are shit.
I don’t think the timing would have made any difference.
I'm getting a little concerned locally re the vaccine. My father who is 94 called his surgery (a large surgery). They apparently have no plans whatever to vaccinate anybody currently. No idea what is going on.
BBC saying the deal will pass with substantial labour support
Starmer to endorse deal will be the next political battle for labour
I don't think so. Some may abstain, or even vote against, but with the alternative being No Deal, the majority of Labour will back it. Europe is simply not the divisive issue for Labour that it is for Tories.
Obviously with renegotiation in the next manifesto to improve it. I expect LibDems to abstain and have EEA in the next manifesto.
Why wouldn't Labour abstain? The deal will pass anyway, provided they don't vote against it, so what's the downside of abstaining?
The Tories' political line against Starmer is that he is at heart an arch-Remainer who led the attempts to secure a 2nd referendum and would be angling to rejoin by the back door. All other lines of attack he has batted off, but I think that that one has some continuing resonance with Leavers. Voting in favour of the trade agreement will leave that line of attack dead in the water. Abstaining won't.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
The SNP majority next year is nailed on
Not after this news it isn't, the previous polls were with the presumption of No Deal, add in Unionist tactical voting too and Sturgeon risks disaster next year a la May 2017
To be honest you are misleading yourself on this one
Sturgeon like May pre 2017 has built up a huge poll lead so anything less than a landslide SNP majority next year will now be a humiliation for her, as the failure to win a Tory landslide and the loss of her majority was for May in 2017.
BBC saying the deal will pass with substantial labour support
Starmer to endorse deal will be the next political battle for labour
I don't think so. Some may abstain, or even vote against, but with the alternative being No Deal, the majority of Labour will back it. Europe is simply not the divisive issue for Labour that it is for Tories.
Obviously with renegotiation in the next manifesto to improve it. I expect LibDems to abstain and have EEA in the next manifesto.
Why wouldn't Labour abstain? The deal will pass anyway, provided they don't vote against it, so what's the downside of abstaining?
It looks completely vacuous. Starmer has a difficult gig either way but abstention simply won't cut it.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
The SNP majority next year is nailed on
Not after this news it isn't, the previous polls were with the presumption of No Deal, add in Unionist tactical voting too and Sturgeon risks disaster next year a la May 2017
To be honest you are misleading yourself on this one
Sturgeon like May pre 2017 has built up a huge poll lead so anything less than a landslide SNP majority next year will now be a humiliation for her, as the failure to win a Tory landslide and the loss of her majority was for May in 2017.
Good morning (again). Now back from standing in the freezing cold queuing for Mrs C and my January meals; the free-range turkey which when originally ordered was expected to be required for six, and will now, thanks to Covid, be for two. Note from the previous thread that there was an outage with vanilla; glad it wasn't just me, and delighted that Pb is back. On the big news of the day, I will believe our PM has got a deal when he's signed it. Preferably in his own blood. He's thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy; I suspect that the need for ironclad guarantees from the British side is what has been delaying the EU's people.
I hope Labour will vote this through and we can move on.
I note Guido's analysis from the UK Government shows the majority of what the UK wanted, it didn't get? I can't say I am surprised by that but still, the idea we held every card as we were often told has been conclusively - it seems - proved to be false.
Still, I hope this is the end of this and we can now move as a country. It's time for Labour to vote this through to stop No Deal and then we can start to attack the Tories on their woeful running of the country over the last decade and their terrible handling of the pandemic over the last year.
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
The Founding Fathers were, in many ways, utter morons.
When did the senate gain the power to remove from the House ? The first senate wasn't convened till 1789. Furthermore when was a supermajority required - only a question. Perhaps I'm missing something from Madison here.
This was from the debate at the Constitutional Convention. Madison and the pardoners won that debate; the argument with which they prevailed has proved somewhat specious.
Apropos of nothing the founding Fathers expected there to be regular constitutional conventions and constant revision of the constitution. Later in Life Maidson lamented that the machinations of the states and parties meant it was now impossible to change the constitution. They truly didn't anticipate that once people got power they would be reluctant to yield it,
I'm getting a little concerned locally re the vaccine. My father who is 94 called his surgery (a large surgery). They apparently have no plans whatever to vaccinate anybody currently. No idea what is going on.
It does sound very localised: I’ve had a text from my surgery to say they are starting vaccinations and I will get a message when they have something for me.
BBC saying the deal will pass with substantial labour support
Starmer to endorse deal will be the next political battle for labour
I don't think so. Some may abstain, or even vote against, but with the alternative being No Deal, the majority of Labour will back it. Europe is simply not the divisive issue for Labour that it is for Tories.
Obviously with renegotiation in the next manifesto to improve it. I expect LibDems to abstain and have EEA in the next manifesto.
Why wouldn't Labour abstain? The deal will pass anyway, provided they don't vote against it, so what's the downside of abstaining?
The Tories' political line against Starmer is that he is at heart an arch-Remainer who led the attempts to secure a 2nd referendum and would be angling to rejoin by the back door. All other lines of attack he has batted off, but I think that that one has some continuing resonance with Leavers. Voting in favour of the trade agreement will leave that line of attack dead in the water. Abstaining won't.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
Here was me thinking NoDeal was going to be the final nail in the Independence coffin what with the prospect of Razor Wire and Machine Gun posts from Berwick to Gretna.
Now a deal is the final nail.
Interesting. That's a lot of different nails.
At least they're changed so often that there's not the slightest chance of any of them getting rusty
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
The SNP majority next year is nailed on
Not after this news it isn't, the previous polls were with the presumption of No Deal, add in Unionist tactical voting too and Sturgeon risks disaster next year a la May 2017
To be honest you are misleading yourself on this one
Sturgeon like May pre 2017 has built up a huge poll lead so anything less than a landslide SNP majority next year will now be a humiliation for her, as the failure to win a Tory landslide and the loss of her majority was for May in 2017.
George Mason, 1787... (The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison: “ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
The Founding Fathers were, in many ways, utter morons.
When did the senate gain the power to remove from the House ? The first senate wasn't convened till 1789. Furthermore when was a supermajority required - only a question. Perhaps I'm missing something from Madison here.
Oh Lord - found it - Art 1 of the const.
The constitution's framers vested the Senate with this power for several reasons. First, they believed senators would be better educated, more virtuous, and more high-minded than members of the House of Representatives and thus uniquely able to decide responsibly the most difficult of political questions. Second, they believed that the Senate, being a numerous body, would be well suited to handle the procedural demands of an impeachment trial, in which it, unlike judges and the judiciary system, would "never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutor, or in the construction of it by judges, as in the common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65).
Looks like Hamilton didn't anticipate the combination of the modern day GOP and Trump. Anyway they have the power, the GOP owns all these pardons now. You'd hope they'd be punished at the ballot box for their nonsense.
Until the 17th ammendment in 1913, Senators were appointed by state legislatures rather than elected*, so as originally envisaged Senators were quite likely to be a level above Representatives.
*by 1913 many states had already switched to this, with the state legislatures a rubber stamp exercise.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
As MaxPB point out, it was a symbolic sacrifice. That it uniquely affects Scotland, intentionally or just carelessly, is the point. A relatively minor one (unless you work in that particular industry), but it reinforces the narrative.
Even these tiny "victories" will eventually be incorporated into the deal when people have stopped paying attention. Right now both the UK and EU need to sell this politically because the economics of no deal are pretty awful. Once the need for that political win goes away, the minor issues get settled with a few 2am press releases that nobody notices.
Really the next big step for both sides will be customs measures and a trusted traders scheme that covers 98-99% of UK/EU trade virtually eliminating the customs border as we are going to do for the vast majority of GB/NI trade.
Fingers crossed. But as you point out, it was a symbol with a purpose - but it was also a symbol of the US government’s attitude to Scotland. These things have an effect larger than the economic realities.
I'm getting a little concerned locally re the vaccine. My father who is 94 called his surgery (a large surgery). They apparently have no plans whatever to vaccinate anybody currently. No idea what is going on.
It's gradually winding up here, with more surgeries and health centres coming on stream. My in-laws (both late 80s) have just been given a date of 5th Jan for the first jab.
Labour definitely needs to support the deal and vote in favour. It's the only way to neutralise the issue forever. Otherwise Boris can call them no deal supporters or that they want to take the UK back into the EU.
Good morning (again). Now back from standing in the freezing cold queuing for Mrs C and my January meals; the free-range turkey which when originally ordered was expected to be required for six, and will now, thanks to Covid, be for two. Note from the previous thread that there was an outage with vanilla; glad it wasn't just me, and delighted that Pb is back. On the big news of the day, I will believe our PM has got a deal when he's signed it. Preferably in his own blood. He's thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy; I suspect that the need for ironclad guarantees from the British side is what has been delaying the EU's people.
I'm wondering if it's now at the stage where he has to sign it regardless of any outstanding issues.
Given today's press, I don't see how he can explain a failure to close out the deal now.
FPT - as it happens I watched Die Hard 2 last night as well!
Slightly dated now. Very fresh in the 90s, but everyone smoking and using payphones?
Still, very much felt like a Christmas action film. Dunno when it was released.
June (1990). Weirdly, Holly can ring John from economy class in a flying aeroplane, but the call goes to his pager and he has to call back from a payphone. And faxes are cutting edge.
I very much doubt the UK will rejoin in the future as our trading agreements with the rest of the world will change quite dramatically
Yet to see them sign any deal that is as good a deal as we have in EU, has anyone any evidence of where they got an improved deal for all the expense and hassle???? PS: I don't mean a miniscule opportunity like selling stilton to Japan either for worse terms
From the 1st January the UK is free to strike deals and the biggest prize is the TPP which I expect us to join in the next couple of years, especially as Joe Biden is now likely to take the US into the partnership
It is hard to see what the TPP has to do with us. Although we might want to strike a trade deal with it, going so far as to join the thing would involve submitting to the sort of foreign rules and arbitration that we have just struggled to escape.
It will be the world's largest trading block once the US joins and avoids a UK-US deal
I'm not convinced the US is actually going to join.
But even if they don't, the moment we join it will already be a larger bloc than the EU - and much faster growing too.
Comments
"Nope. Still can't see any...."
A more interesting question is what he does with Assange. That’s always been a strange case, as until Trump came to power it seems as though the US wasn’t actually terribly interested in him, Manning being more important in their eyes. But then he became a useful way for Trump to try and show he wasn’t a tool of Putin’s, so they dusted off the charges and refiled them, just as Sweden had to cease the rape investigations due to Statute of Limitations. This of course fed Assange’s delusions of importance very nicely, but seem to have had little practical effect other than to keep him locked up longer than he would otherwise have been for jumping bail.
Instinct says he probably won’t pardon him, as it would play badly with he patriotic base, and instead the charges will be quietly dropped under Biden and Assange deported to Australia. But you never quite know with Trump.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Mexico–Canada_Agreement
Ultimately, such statements are a big part of the reason why we lost the argument to Remain, because they undermine our credibility and cause people to stop listening to us.
You have a problem with that? Then stop making them. But don’t abuse me for pointing out that you are wrong.
(The president) “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
James Madison:
“ There is one security in this case to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him (with a pardon), the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
That worked out well.
I’ve always preferred “a victory for common sense” - though that ship sailed long ago...
When transactions are electronic it ceases to matter much what the currency is.
As it was they went too soon and found they couldn’t follow through.
The on mildly comforting thought in that is it’s not just our politicians who are shit.
Less than 1% of Scots work with seed potatoes and the government is still pushing for their inclusion anyway.
The Deal will be disastrous news for Sturgeon who was praying for No Deal to push for independence.
There is now the prospect the SNP will not even get a majority next year and when Boris refuses indyref2 the SNP will descend into civil war
But let's see how in the wider picture, the totality of our trade arrangments with the rest of the world looks in five or ten years time. Arrrangments we could not enter into whilst in the EU. Go Truss, go. See what else you can achieve.
"But...but...but the EU's grand scale will get leverage the UK never could achieve...." you will counter. We will see. It is just as likely that in those third party talks, the EU gave away the things that benefitted the UK to get wins for a bunch of countries on the Med.
I personally think Frost has got a very satisfactory outcome, considering the UK's supine posture he inherited from May and Bobbins Robbins. He was ably helped by the creation of the character of Slightly Mad Boris, who convinced the EU that he was slightly mad enough to actually go ahead with No Deal. A trick his predecessors singularly failed to pull off. The Internal Markets Bill was a genius move in this regard. Somebody who was prepared to suffer the opprobrium of the UK's collected ex-PMs really didn't know how to play by the EU's rules, did he? By God, he might just fuck it up for us all..... Bravo, Boris, bravo. A fine piece of method acting.
Starmer to endorse deal will be the next political battle for labour
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/23/sir-keir-starmer-urge-shadow-cabinet-back-brexit-trade-deal/
Any fireworks from diehard Labour remainer MPs will be a damp squib. There'll be a significant rebellion but it will count for nothing and it will help Starmer put the issue of Brexit to bed. It will stymie the Tories' attempt to portray Labour as a party led by an arch-Remainer committed to rejoining by the back door. Things will move on.
Your point would have validity if EU membership were just about trade, but it isn’t. So we leave our membership, over many matters, and negotiate a new relationship that is just about trade. It is nonsensical to suggest that this a more restrictive trade deal replacing a less restrictive one. You are comparing apples and scones.
Yes the EU is a free trade area but it is also more than that, and to pretend otherwise is not sophistry, it’s dishonesty.
Now, you have claimed sophismon my part, because you don’t like what I’ve shown. Those are facts. Sophism cannot be argued on facts. If you want to argue against facts, go to the Skwawkbox. Otherwise, come back to reality and we can engage again. In the meanwhile, I have a wall to paint.
Have a good morning.
Edited because ‘FTA’ is ambiguous.
Now a deal is the final nail.
Interesting. That's a lot of different nails.
Have a good morning.
Obviously with renegotiation in the next manifesto to improve it. I expect LibDems to abstain and have EEA in the next manifesto.
A relatively minor one (unless you work in that particular industry), but it reinforces the narrative.
I suspect this issue will get quietly resolved when Europe realises it has no alternative source of seed potatoes. One of a number of hard edges that will get planed off the deal in coming months. Because there will no longer be any point in depriving the EU just to achieve a meaningless win against the UK.
Talking of cobbled together compromises, I don’t expect the UK/EU deal to last as long.
PS: it is actually No Deal in sheep's clothing so BAU
Over 4 years to just capitulate is amazing work
Furthermore when was a supermajority required - only a question. Perhaps I'm missing something from Madison here.
Oh Lord - found it - Art 1 of the const.
The constitution's framers vested the Senate with this power for several reasons. First, they believed senators would be better educated, more virtuous, and more high-minded than members of the House of Representatives and thus uniquely able to decide responsibly the most difficult of political questions. Second, they believed that the Senate, being a numerous body, would be well suited to handle the procedural demands of an impeachment trial, in which it, unlike judges and the judiciary system, would "never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutor, or in the construction of it by judges, as in the common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65).
Looks like Hamilton didn't anticipate the combination of the modern day GOP and Trump.
Anyway they have the power, the GOP owns all these pardons now. You'd hope they'd be punished at the ballot box for their nonsense.
The narrative has been set
A considered decision to abstain is not a cop out. It is like making the effort to turn up at the polling station and deliberately spoil ones' ballot.
Should this come to pass, what is the point of supporting an opposition party that does not oppose?
Speak for yourself; I shall nurture my resentments.
Madison and the pardoners won that debate; the argument with which they prevailed has proved somewhat specious.
Really the next big step for both sides will be customs measures and a trusted traders scheme that covers 98-99% of UK/EU trade virtually eliminating the customs border as we are going to do for the vast majority of GB/NI trade.
Slightly dated now. Very fresh in the 90s, but everyone smoking and using payphones?
Still, very much felt like a Christmas action film. Dunno when it was released.
Expect the French to say they've secured leaseback on the Isle of Wight, and that all fishing boats in UK waters in future must carry the tricolour.
In reality, I'll be looking for about a 55:45 balance in concessions here, where I expected more like 60:40.
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/1342026119172804609?s=20
Note from the previous thread that there was an outage with vanilla; glad it wasn't just me, and delighted that Pb is back.
On the big news of the day, I will believe our PM has got a deal when he's signed it. Preferably in his own blood. He's thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy; I suspect that the need for ironclad guarantees from the British side is what has been delaying the EU's people.
I hope Labour will vote this through and we can move on.
I note Guido's analysis from the UK Government shows the majority of what the UK wanted, it didn't get? I can't say I am surprised by that but still, the idea we held every card as we were often told has been conclusively - it seems - proved to be false.
Still, I hope this is the end of this and we can now move as a country. It's time for Labour to vote this through to stop No Deal and then we can start to attack the Tories on their woeful running of the country over the last decade and their terrible handling of the pandemic over the last year.
Have a lovely day.
I won't get excited until (a) the Deal is officially announced (b) I've read it and (c) it's fully ratified.
Then, if it's all good, I will post my thoughts about it on here. And have some champagne.
From a Remainer point of view? Remain is not an option. It's either this Deal or No Deal.
From a Brexiteer point of view? There are Labour MPs who want to Brexit with No Deal? Who are they are? And how does No Deal help their constituents?
*by 1913 many states had already switched to this, with the state legislatures a rubber stamp exercise.
But as you point out, it was a symbol with a purpose - but it was also a symbol of the US government’s attitude to Scotland.
These things have an effect larger than the economic realities.
Given today's press, I don't see how he can explain a failure to close out the deal now.
I was struck by how like Airplane a lot of it is.
But even if they don't, the moment we join it will already be a larger bloc than the EU - and much faster growing too.