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.
Okay. Ydoethur is correct and you are completely wrong. Judgement made. Happy now?
That has to be correct. The EU is about much more than trade. Whether the EU will ever go so far as to create a single state is open to question, but political integration goes hand in hand with economic integration. If one does not wish to be part of this process of political integration, it's fairly immaterial to be told that GDP in twenty years time will be a bit smaller than would otherwise have been the case.
A classic example of this choice is Irish Independence. People favoured political independence even knowing that the a break from the UK would have economic consequences.
To equate Brexit with genuine national independence movements disrespects the latter. The comparison is false and rather precious. But the point that Brexit, like such movements, is about "heart over head", about identity not money, is a good one.
It was the latter point. Brexit and Irish Independence were indeed not the same thing. Interestingly, though, there is an argument for saying Ireland did not become truly independent until 1979 (when de facto currency union stopped).
"Independence" is indeed a highly subjective term. It is also value-laden. That's why the word should never feature in the wording of any referendum seeking a decision on political separation, and generally it has not [EDIT] featured in such referenda.
i.e. If a part of the UK, whose citizens are altready within a political system with a high degree of devolved political autonomy, decided to secede from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, would those citizens and their political system enjoy more independence or less? It is at the very least a matter of debate now that the UK is outside of the EU in a meaningful way.
Any Scottish referendum should be on the basis of the most recent - Remain vs Leave.
Does he wonder what would have happened if he had actually negotiated with the EU instead of thinking it was 'too much of a faff' ?
He should feel ashamed.
Deep, deep, lifelong embarrassment I should think.
The EU just never believed he would walk away. Failure of Negotiating 1.01
And then May, Hammond and Robbins repeated that mistake.
Some here may belittle Boris as a clown but cometh the hour, cometh the man and he was exactly the kind of unpredictable leader that was needed.
I think it was @Casino_Royale that made the point on the aggressive fishing waters stance in no deal concentrating minds in the EU.
Those tough stances have ensured the EU compromised and did a deal realising the UK would force the no deal to mean no deal on both sides of it. They knew with May and Robbins they'd still get preferential access to the UK without needing to give anything in return in the no deal scenario.
"The EU caved on big points because we made them truly fear No Deal" -
This will be a key part of the Johnson spin on the deal over the next few days and weeks. Let's see how it holds up.
It looks as though third country status for agriculture has made it into the deal. That's a massive climbdown, the EU were absolutely adamant that the UK would have to sign up to dynamic alignment for agricultural standards for that, we haven't done the latter but we have the former.
The EU has in many areas made concessions, and I'm sure in many areas the UK has too. I think this could be the start of a much healthier UK/EU relationship. We don't hold up their integration project and they don't impose stupid laws and regulations on us.
Keep going you will soon have convinced yourself England is a world power again.
Mr. kinabalu, point of order: there's no deal yet.
And even when May had an agreement with the EU, it didn't end up going anywhere.
Ha. Collapses on Christmas Day, pandemic takes over, and it's WTO after all. Or it gets agreed but then thrown out by a member state. God, can you imagine. But no, it's done and dusted, I think. This is Brexit ground zero. Be interesting what the direction of travel is longer term. Whether we converge or diverge.
But that chap doesn;t include NI in his figures. NI wasn't in the EU during the last potato season. Very selective.
NI is 2%. From the same stats.
Still, hard chese on the NI farmers, as they said very loudly. And those Scottish farmers who serve them.
And it's quite a contrast. SNP being the pro business party. Tories being the **** business party.
Giving up 48% of your business to protect 7% is "pro-business"?
Only if you make further assumptions, such as that there will be no EU-UK trade. Which is rather the point aqt issue more generally today.
But then the 7% isn't given up so no worries?
The assumption is that E&W would stop importing seed potatoes from Scotland. Which would put their potato farmers in the same position, say, as NIrish potato farmers, etc. No seed, no ware to eat.
Seed potatoes can't just be grown anywhere. It's a climatic issue in large part - pests and so on. (And accumulated specialist experience.)
But that chap doesn;t include NI in his figures. NI wasn't in the EU during the last potato season. Very selective.
Also doesn't include the Canary Islands that are a big importer of Scottish seed potatoes and as the document says, the figures are guesstimates anyway.
Haggisontoast's argument appears to be that Scottish seed potato growers don't need to worry about the loss of a chunk of their business because they would lose more if the rUK also banned imports.
I think kinabalu in particular has kept a cool head on likely outcomes. Accidental no deal I do think was possible, but time and again people allowed hatred of Boris to mean he wanted no deal, when it looks like he really didn't. The difficulties in agreeing come down to competence and calculation.
Thanks, kle4.
The wild overestimation of the chances of No Deal came imo from 2 things which are in a sense the same thing. Remainers misread Johnson as being crazy enough to do it. Leavers misread him as being brave enough to do it.
He was brave enough to do so, which is why he does not need to. Which is what many of us said during the dark days of May and Robbins.
Mr. Starry, you're a former No voter who thinks the SNP should've had an influence on the negotiations?
Foreign policy isn't and cannot be devolved.
Doesn't matter the Party in charge. If a country's government is completely excluded and it's voice unheard, despite an overwhelming vote from its electorate, then the political union cannot stand.
Scotland's sovereign government is Westminster and has been since 1707 as confirmed in the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Holyrood correctly is purely for domestic matters within Scotland
If you remember, the SNP manifesto said a once in a generation vote unless there is a material change in circumstances, which explicitly states Scotland being taken out of the EU against the wishes of her people. The people then elected the SNP both to the Scottish and UK Parliament on this manifesto. Denying the stated will of the people will not subdue the desire for independence, but only increase the demand.
You are clearly a diehard Remainer for whom the only validity in the Union is within the EU.
Tough, even last year after the Brexit vote 55% of Scots still did not vote SNP. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation.
If it rained tomorrow the SNP would say that was a mandate for independence, I could not care less what the SNP think or their latest whinge
Because you have no interest in democracy. "What the SNP think" is what the Scottish people think. There was a majority vote for independence parties in the last Holyrood elections and it will be greater again next year.
Why not just be clear and admit that the people of Scotland have no right to their own thoughts and must stay under the yoke of England. Because thats what you are saying.
Rubbish, 55% of Scottish voters did not vote SNP at the 2019 general election, what the SNP think is not what most Scots think.
You are an embarrassment to the party and to democracy.
The SNP were duly elected.
No, unlike non Tory Nat appeasers like you I stick to the party line that 2014 was a 'once in a generation' vote.
You also had no problem pushing for No Deal despite no polling evidence to support it and the 2019 Tory manifesto commitment to a deal, thankfully Boris thought otherwise but some democrat you are
Except you don't stick to the once in a generation line you go beyond it with Franco denials of democracy that are your own stark bonkers ravings and not the party line. Saying that the SNP only got 45% of the vote isn't the party line. The Tory party respects First Past the Post.
I never pushed for No Deal, I always said I wanted a deal so long as it met our red lines which were in the manifesto. I was prepared to accept No Deal if no deal was agreeable that met the terms of the manifesto, but thankfully that isn't necessary.
You are nothing more than a Nat appeaser, a mere tool for Sturgeon
I am a democrat. It is for the Scottish voters to determine how they vote.
If respecting the will of democracy makes me an appraiser then call me an appeaser. I'm not offended. I'm proud to believe in democracy.
You have no respect for the democratic once in a generation 2014 No to independence vote.
You were quite happy to impose No Deal without any democratic mandate for it from the winning 2019 Tory manifesto
Wrong on both counts.
The 2016 vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave would have satisfied the democratic element of that vote.
The 2014 vote made no mention of whether or not it was a 'once in a generation' vote. That was just a political tactic to try and win the vote for one side or another. Just as with manifestos it had not legal or democratic standing.
It is you who are showing scorn for democracy.
Even Salmond and Sturgeon said 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
The Tories won a majority last year to deliver Brexit with a Deal, we remain a parliamentary democracy not a direct democracy however much a non Tory libertarian like you might wish that
Now this is insane. We are supposed to respect a referendum vote on principle because we are a parliamentary democracy, several elections later?!
Precisely!
HYUFD wants to prioritise a nearly a decade old direct democracy vote over the Parliamentary election next year. Madness.
It's more a question of refusing to allow someone to keep rolling a dice to settle a bet until it comes up with the outcome they want, when the last time they rolled it they claimed prior to losing that the result would be definitive, especially when in choosing to make that claim they tried to put a bit of added bias on the dice.
A generation is 33 years, the average age of a mother when giving birth.
But that chap doesn;t include NI in his figures. NI wasn't in the EU during the last potato season. Very selective.
NI is 2%. From the same stats.
Still, hard chese on the NI farmers, as they said very loudly. And those Scottish farmers who serve them.
And it's quite a contrast. SNP being the pro business party. Tories being the **** business party.
Giving up 48% of your business to protect 7% is "pro-business"?
Only if you make further assumptions, such as that there will be no EU-UK trade. Which is rather the point aqt issue more generally today.
But then the 7% isn't given up so no worries?
The assumption is that E&W would stop importing seed potatoes from Scotland. Which would put their potato farmers in the same position, say, as NIrish potato farmers, etc. No seed, no ware to eat.
Seed potatoes can't just be grown anywhere. It's a climatic issue in large part - pests and so on. (And accumulated specialist experience.)
Sure, but you're making the assumption that the current 7% in the EU will also stop purchasing from Scotland and they won't just deal with whatever additional steps are necessary. Until we see the deal text it's not clear that this is a huge issue.
As I said earlier, this is a nice wedge issue for the EU to get people to focus on because they've granted the UK third country status without dynamic alignment for agricultural standards. It does seem as though their "look, a squirrel" strategy is working so well done to them.
Does he wonder what would have happened if he had actually negotiated with the EU instead of thinking it was 'too much of a faff' ?
He should feel ashamed.
Deep, deep, lifelong embarrassment I should think.
The EU just never believed he would walk away. Failure of Negotiating 1.01
And then May, Hammond and Robbins repeated that mistake.
Some here may belittle Boris as a clown but cometh the hour, cometh the man and he was exactly the kind of unpredictable leader that was needed.
I think it was @Casino_Royale that made the point on the aggressive fishing waters stance in no deal concentrating minds in the EU.
Those tough stances have ensured the EU compromised and did a deal realising the UK would force the no deal to mean no deal on both sides of it. They knew with May and Robbins they'd still get preferential access to the UK without needing to give anything in return in the no deal scenario.
"The EU caved on big points because we made them truly fear No Deal" -
This will be a key part of the Johnson spin on the deal over the next few days and weeks. Let's see how it holds up.
It looks as though third country status for agriculture has made it into the deal. That's a massive climbdown, the EU were absolutely adamant that the UK would have to sign up to dynamic alignment for agricultural standards for that, we haven't done the latter but we have the former.
The EU has in many areas made concessions, and I'm sure in many areas the UK has too. I think this could be the start of a much healthier UK/EU relationship. We don't hold up their integration project and they don't impose stupid laws and regulations on us.
Keep going you will soon have convinced yourself England is a world power again.
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I noticed this comment from @Casino_Royale on a previous thread:
"You can reform the country in the direction you want to take it BUT the electorate *must* be convinced you love it first - and that means its history, its people (all of them), its mission and the potential for its future."
As a general point it is fine.
But.
Have the Tories always really loved "the people (all of them)"?
Not much love shown for working-class communities who saw many of them destroyed during the 1980's, not much love for the sense of place and solidarity and the bonds of family that meant so much to people living there. Not much love for the Irish, many of whom moved here and built much of Britain's infrastructure and were condescended to - and worse - by a party more intent on protecting those who were intent on mistreating Irish Catholics in their own country. Not much love shown for the Windrush generation and those who came after from all corners of the Empire they claim to love.
My objection to to those who claim the Tories are somehow inherently more patriotic than Labour is that too many have a somewhat limited view of how far that patriotism goes, too limited an understanding of the history of this country, too ungenerous a view of the many peoples who have made up Britain and its history.
And so the claim to "patriotism" does not come across as a genuine love for country and all its people in all its many aspects but a rather narrower partial and often ignorant view based on a cartoonish understanding of Britain and its history.
I often feel that my Irish-Italian family have a much better understanding of and admiration for the best of Britain but also a better understanding of the complexity of Britain's history than some of the shouty so-called "patriots" with their reductive view of Britain and xenophobic approach to anyone not sharing their views.
I do not include @Casino_Royale in this latter category, btw.
Anyway, it is a beautiful crisp sunny day here so I am off out.
I only note that the sheep are back surrounding my barn again and several of them have been using my car as a scratching post.
Later, no doubt, I will be able to watch "my" flocks by night.
I agree entirely. There are too many "patriots" who despise too many of their own countrymen. Just look at the sneering at metropolitans, vegans, CNDers, trade unionists, etc. There are far more types of Briton than union flag waving Tories would like, and very little love expressed for them.
Edinburgh Coronavirus growth is deeply concerning.
I'd imagine the mutant strain is in Edinburgh and Glasgow by now and the rest of Europe too. It's going to be a tough few months.
The contrast between Glasgow and Edinburgh couldn't be starker
Edinburgh
Glasgow
In terms of absolute number Glasgow is worse but direction of travel is always the thing.
Yes, but look at how the fall in rates in Glasgow has halted, to me that looks like the new strain is taking off and replacing the old one, it rises as the old strain falls.
Mr. Starry, you're a former No voter who thinks the SNP should've had an influence on the negotiations?
Foreign policy isn't and cannot be devolved.
Doesn't matter the Party in charge. If a country's government is completely excluded and it's voice unheard, despite an overwhelming vote from its electorate, then the political union cannot stand.
Scotland's sovereign government is Westminster and has been since 1707 as confirmed in the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Holyrood correctly is purely for domestic matters within Scotland
If you remember, the SNP manifesto said a once in a generation vote unless there is a material change in circumstances, which explicitly states Scotland being taken out of the EU against the wishes of her people. The people then elected the SNP both to the Scottish and UK Parliament on this manifesto. Denying the stated will of the people will not subdue the desire for independence, but only increase the demand.
You are clearly a diehard Remainer for whom the only validity in the Union is within the EU.
Tough, even last year after the Brexit vote 55% of Scots still did not vote SNP. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation.
If it rained tomorrow the SNP would say that was a mandate for independence, I could not care less what the SNP think or their latest whinge
Because you have no interest in democracy. "What the SNP think" is what the Scottish people think. There was a majority vote for independence parties in the last Holyrood elections and it will be greater again next year.
Why not just be clear and admit that the people of Scotland have no right to their own thoughts and must stay under the yoke of England. Because thats what you are saying.
Rubbish, 55% of Scottish voters did not vote SNP at the 2019 general election, what the SNP think is not what most Scots think.
You are an embarrassment to the party and to democracy.
The SNP were duly elected.
No, unlike non Tory Nat appeasers like you I stick to the party line that 2014 was a 'once in a generation' vote.
You also had no problem pushing for No Deal despite no polling evidence to support it and the 2019 Tory manifesto commitment to a deal, thankfully Boris thought otherwise but some democrat you are
Except you don't stick to the once in a generation line you go beyond it with Franco denials of democracy that are your own stark bonkers ravings and not the party line. Saying that the SNP only got 45% of the vote isn't the party line. The Tory party respects First Past the Post.
I never pushed for No Deal, I always said I wanted a deal so long as it met our red lines which were in the manifesto. I was prepared to accept No Deal if no deal was agreeable that met the terms of the manifesto, but thankfully that isn't necessary.
You are nothing more than a Nat appeaser, a mere tool for Sturgeon
I am a democrat. It is for the Scottish voters to determine how they vote.
If respecting the will of democracy makes me an appraiser then call me an appeaser. I'm not offended. I'm proud to believe in democracy.
You have no respect for the democratic once in a generation 2014 No to independence vote.
You were quite happy to impose No Deal without any democratic mandate for it from the winning 2019 Tory manifesto
Wrong on both counts.
The 2016 vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave would have satisfied the democratic element of that vote.
The 2014 vote made no mention of whether or not it was a 'once in a generation' vote. That was just a political tactic to try and win the vote for one side or another. Just as with manifestos it had not legal or democratic standing.
It is you who are showing scorn for democracy.
Even Salmond and Sturgeon said 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
The Tories won a majority last year to deliver Brexit with a Deal, we remain a parliamentary democracy not a direct democracy however much a non Tory libertarian like you might wish that
Now this is insane. We are supposed to respect a referendum vote on principle because we are a parliamentary democracy, several elections later?!
Precisely!
HYUFD wants to prioritise a nearly a decade old direct democracy vote over the Parliamentary election next year. Madness.
It's more a question of refusing to allow someone to keep rolling a dice to settle a bet until it comes up with the outcome they want, when the last time they rolled it they claimed prior to losing that the result would be definitive, especially when in choosing to make that claim they tried to put a bit of added bias on the dice.
A generation is 33 years, the average age of a mother when giving birth.
The public are entitled to roll the dice every five years at Parliamentary elections.
If the public don't want a referendum they shouldn't vote for one. We don't restrict democracy just because there was something decides in the past - no Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the SNP lose a referendum and want a do over without a General Election inbetween then that would be objectionable. That isn't the case here. There have since 2014 by 2021 been two further Scottish General Elections and three further British ones.
But that chap doesn;t include NI in his figures. NI wasn't in the EU during the last potato season. Very selective.
NI is 2%. From the same stats.
Still, hard chese on the NI farmers, as they said very loudly. And those Scottish farmers who serve them.
And it's quite a contrast. SNP being the pro business party. Tories being the **** business party.
Giving up 48% of your business to protect 7% is "pro-business"?
Only if you make further assumptions, such as that there will be no EU-UK trade. Which is rather the point aqt issue more generally today.
But then the 7% isn't given up so no worries?
The assumption is that E&W would stop importing seed potatoes from Scotland. Which would put their potato farmers in the same position, say, as NIrish potato farmers, etc. No seed, no ware to eat.
Seed potatoes can't just be grown anywhere. It's a climatic issue in large part - pests and so on. (And accumulated specialist experience.)
Sure, but you're making the assumption that the current 7% in the EU will also stop purchasing from Scotland and they won't just deal with whatever additional steps are necessary. Until we see the deal text it's not clear that this is a huge issue.
As I said earlier, this is a nice wedge issue for the EU to get people to focus on because they've granted the UK third country status without dynamic alignment for agricultural standards. It does seem as though their "look, a squirrel" strategy is working so well done to them.
Does he wonder what would have happened if he had actually negotiated with the EU instead of thinking it was 'too much of a faff' ?
He should feel ashamed.
Deep, deep, lifelong embarrassment I should think.
The EU just never believed he would walk away. Failure of Negotiating 1.01
And then May, Hammond and Robbins repeated that mistake.
Some here may belittle Boris as a clown but cometh the hour, cometh the man and he was exactly the kind of unpredictable leader that was needed.
I think it was @Casino_Royale that made the point on the aggressive fishing waters stance in no deal concentrating minds in the EU.
Those tough stances have ensured the EU compromised and did a deal realising the UK would force the no deal to mean no deal on both sides of it. They knew with May and Robbins they'd still get preferential access to the UK without needing to give anything in return in the no deal scenario.
"The EU caved on big points because we made them truly fear No Deal" -
This will be a key part of the Johnson spin on the deal over the next few days and weeks. Let's see how it holds up.
It looks as though third country status for agriculture has made it into the deal. That's a massive climbdown, the EU were absolutely adamant that the UK would have to sign up to dynamic alignment for agricultural standards for that, we haven't done the latter but we have the former.
The EU has in many areas made concessions, and I'm sure in many areas the UK has too. I think this could be the start of a much healthier UK/EU relationship. We don't hold up their integration project and they don't impose stupid laws and regulations on us.
Keep going you will soon have convinced yourself England is a world power again.
England/the UK is a world power.
We will remain so even if just England.
A world power would not have had to kowtow to the EU's terms. We have managed to secure a trade deal with worse terms than we previously had. Hurray!
I think kinabalu in particular has kept a cool head on likely outcomes. Accidental no deal I do think was possible, but time and again people allowed hatred of Boris to mean he wanted no deal, when it looks like he really didn't. The difficulties in agreeing come down to competence and calculation.
Thanks, kle4.
The wild overestimation of the chances of No Deal came imo from 2 things which are in a sense the same thing. Remainers misread Johnson as being crazy enough to do it. Leavers misread him as being brave enough to do it.
He was brave enough to do so, which is why he does not need to. Which is what many of us said during the dark days of May and Robbins.
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.
Okay. Ydoethur is correct and you are completely wrong. Judgement made. Happy now?
That has to be correct. The EU is about much more than trade. Whether the EU will ever go so far as to create a single state is open to question, but political integration goes hand in hand with economic integration. If one does not wish to be part of this process of political integration, it's fairly immaterial to be told that GDP in twenty years time will be a bit smaller than would otherwise have been the case.
A classic example of this choice is Irish Independence. People favoured political independence even knowing that the a break from the UK would have economic consequences.
To equate Brexit with genuine national independence movements disrespects the latter. The comparison is false and rather precious. But the point that Brexit, like such movements, is about "heart over head", about identity not money, is a good one.
It was the latter point. Brexit and Irish Independence were indeed not the same thing. Interestingly, though, there is an argument for saying Ireland did not become truly independent until 1979 (when de facto currency union stopped).
"Independence" is indeed a highly subjective term. It is also value-laden. That's why the word should never feature in the wording of any referendum seeking a decision on political separation, and generally it has not [EDIT] featured in such referenda.
i.e. If a part of the UK, whose citizens are altready within a political system with a high degree of devolved political autonomy, decided to secede from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, would those citizens and their political system enjoy more independence or less? It is at the very least a matter of debate now that the UK is outside of the EU in a meaningful way.
Any Scottish referendum should be on the basis of the most recent - Remain vs Leave.
After all, "Leave" won the last vote.
Emigrants don't get a say in it, the Scottish people who live there will decide their future, not tax exiles welded to the London establishment whilst living in tax havens.
Yes, the wider issues of the LPF, governance and fish seem to all have been 50/50 or even 60/40 for the UK.
But, but, capitulation!
It was never going to be that for either side. The narrative of "capitulation" was and is completely poisonous to the debate. We've seen it on here for years with the usual suspects pushing that line and continuing to do so despite actual results being otherwise. Whatever helps them sleep at night I guess.
I noticed this comment from @Casino_Royale on a previous thread:
"You can reform the country in the direction you want to take it BUT the electorate *must* be convinced you love it first - and that means its history, its people (all of them), its mission and the potential for its future."
As a general point it is fine.
But.
Have the Tories always really loved "the people (all of them)"?
Not much love shown for working-class communities who saw many of them destroyed during the 1980's, not much love for the sense of place and solidarity and the bonds of family that meant so much to people living there. Not much love for the Irish, many of whom moved here and built much of Britain's infrastructure and were condescended to - and worse - by a party more intent on protecting those who were intent on mistreating Irish Catholics in their own country. Not much love shown for the Windrush generation and those who came after from all corners of the Empire they claim to love.
My objection to to those who claim the Tories are somehow inherently more patriotic than Labour is that too many have a somewhat limited view of how far that patriotism goes, too limited an understanding of the history of this country, too ungenerous a view of the many peoples who have made up Britain and its history.
And so the claim to "patriotism" does not come across as a genuine love for country and all its people in all its many aspects but a rather narrower partial and often ignorant view based on a cartoonish understanding of Britain and its history.
I often feel that my Irish-Italian family have a much better understanding of and admiration for the best of Britain but also a better understanding of the complexity of Britain's history than some of the shouty so-called "patriots" with their reductive view of Britain and xenophobic approach to anyone not sharing their views.
I do not include @Casino_Royale in this latter category, btw.
Anyway, it is a beautiful crisp sunny day here so I am off out.
I only note that the sheep are back surrounding my barn again and several of them have been using my car as a scratching post.
Later, no doubt, I will be able to watch "my" flocks by night.
I agree entirely. There are too many "patriots" who despise too many of their own countrymen. Just look at the sneering at metropolitans, vegans, CNDers, trade unionists, etc. There are far more types of Briton than union flag waving Tories would like, and very little love expressed for them.
One of my Facebook friends (who was once an actual friend) is an ardent Brexiteer who really couldn't care less about the economic consequences of Brexit. His main motivations for voting Brexit were for a laugh and to wind up liberals. He is one of those people who regularly denounces Remainers as traitors, yet, on the face of it, his motivation - dislike of his fellow citizens - smacks more of treachery than those he accuses.
Mr. Starry, you're a former No voter who thinks the SNP should've had an influence on the negotiations?
Foreign policy isn't and cannot be devolved.
Doesn't matter the Party in charge. If a country's government is completely excluded and it's voice unheard, despite an overwhelming vote from its electorate, then the political union cannot stand.
Scotland's sovereign government is Westminster and has been since 1707 as confirmed in the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Holyrood correctly is purely for domestic matters within Scotland
If you remember, the SNP manifesto said a once in a generation vote unless there is a material change in circumstances, which explicitly states Scotland being taken out of the EU against the wishes of her people. The people then elected the SNP both to the Scottish and UK Parliament on this manifesto. Denying the stated will of the people will not subdue the desire for independence, but only increase the demand.
You are clearly a diehard Remainer for whom the only validity in the Union is within the EU.
Tough, even last year after the Brexit vote 55% of Scots still did not vote SNP. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation.
If it rained tomorrow the SNP would say that was a mandate for independence, I could not care less what the SNP think or their latest whinge
Because you have no interest in democracy. "What the SNP think" is what the Scottish people think. There was a majority vote for independence parties in the last Holyrood elections and it will be greater again next year.
Why not just be clear and admit that the people of Scotland have no right to their own thoughts and must stay under the yoke of England. Because thats what you are saying.
Rubbish, 55% of Scottish voters did not vote SNP at the 2019 general election, what the SNP think is not what most Scots think.
You are an embarrassment to the party and to democracy.
The SNP were duly elected.
No, unlike non Tory Nat appeasers like you I stick to the party line that 2014 was a 'once in a generation' vote.
You also had no problem pushing for No Deal despite no polling evidence to support it and the 2019 Tory manifesto commitment to a deal, thankfully Boris thought otherwise but some democrat you are
Except you don't stick to the once in a generation line you go beyond it with Franco denials of democracy that are your own stark bonkers ravings and not the party line. Saying that the SNP only got 45% of the vote isn't the party line. The Tory party respects First Past the Post.
I never pushed for No Deal, I always said I wanted a deal so long as it met our red lines which were in the manifesto. I was prepared to accept No Deal if no deal was agreeable that met the terms of the manifesto, but thankfully that isn't necessary.
You are nothing more than a Nat appeaser, a mere tool for Sturgeon
I am a democrat. It is for the Scottish voters to determine how they vote.
If respecting the will of democracy makes me an appraiser then call me an appeaser. I'm not offended. I'm proud to believe in democracy.
You have no respect for the democratic once in a generation 2014 No to independence vote.
You were quite happy to impose No Deal without any democratic mandate for it from the winning 2019 Tory manifesto
Wrong on both counts.
The 2016 vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave would have satisfied the democratic element of that vote.
The 2014 vote made no mention of whether or not it was a 'once in a generation' vote. That was just a political tactic to try and win the vote for one side or another. Just as with manifestos it had not legal or democratic standing.
It is you who are showing scorn for democracy.
Even Salmond and Sturgeon said 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
The Tories won a majority last year to deliver Brexit with a Deal, we remain a parliamentary democracy not a direct democracy however much a non Tory libertarian like you might wish that
Same old Johnsonian lies. Lying tories never change. Johnson's legacy shall be the destruction of the Union.
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.
Okay. Ydoethur is correct and you are completely wrong. Judgement made. Happy now?
That has to be correct. The EU is about much more than trade. Whether the EU will ever go so far as to create a single state is open to question, but political integration goes hand in hand with economic integration. If one does not wish to be part of this process of political integration, it's fairly immaterial to be told that GDP in twenty years time will be a bit smaller than would otherwise have been the case.
A classic example of this choice is Irish Independence. People favoured political independence even knowing that the a break from the UK would have economic consequences.
To equate Brexit with genuine national independence movements disrespects the latter. The comparison is false and rather precious. But the point that Brexit, like such movements, is about "heart over head", about identity not money, is a good one.
It was the latter point. Brexit and Irish Independence were indeed not the same thing. Interestingly, though, there is an argument for saying Ireland did not become truly independent until 1979 (when de facto currency union stopped).
"Independence" is indeed a highly subjective term. It is also value-laden. That's why the word should never feature in the wording of any referendum seeking a decision on political separation, and generally it has not [EDIT] featured in such referenda.
i.e. If a part of the UK, whose citizens are altready within a political system with a high degree of devolved political autonomy, decided to secede from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, would those citizens and their political system enjoy more independence or less? It is at the very least a matter of debate now that the UK is outside of the EU in a meaningful way.
Any Scottish referendum should be on the basis of the most recent - Remain vs Leave.
After all, "Leave" won the last vote.
Emigrants don't get a say in it, the Scottish people who live there will decide their future, not tax exiles welded to the London establishment whilst living in tax havens.
Malc's surely not frightened of "Remain vs Leave"?
You think people wouldn't vote to Leave the United Kingdom, the single market, the common travel area, the fiscal and monetary union?
Edinburgh Coronavirus growth is deeply concerning.
I'd imagine the mutant strain is in Edinburgh and Glasgow by now and the rest of Europe too. It's going to be a tough few months.
The contrast between Glasgow and Edinburgh couldn't be starker
Edinburgh
Glasgow
In terms of absolute number Glasgow is worse but direction of travel is always the thing.
Total anecdotage, but did a few last minute bits and pieces in Glasgow city centre today and it would have been quiet for a standard Thursday, driving through Edinburgh yesterday otoh was a fecking nightmare (ie more of nightmare than it usually is).
Yes, the wider issues of the LPF, governance and fish seem to all have been 50/50 or even 60/40 for the UK.
But, but, capitulation!
It was never going to be that for either side. The narrative of "capitulation" was and is completely poisonous to the debate. We've seen it on here for years with the usual suspects pushing that line and continuing to do so despite actual results being otherwise. Whatever helps them sleep at night I guess.
Brexiteers in 2016 insisted we hold all the cards, holding them to that standard is the right thing to do. I am sure you would do the same for any politician.
Mr. Starry, you're a former No voter who thinks the SNP should've had an influence on the negotiations?
Foreign policy isn't and cannot be devolved.
Doesn't matter the Party in charge. If a country's government is completely excluded and it's voice unheard, despite an overwhelming vote from its electorate, then the political union cannot stand.
Scotland's sovereign government is Westminster and has been since 1707 as confirmed in the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Holyrood correctly is purely for domestic matters within Scotland
If you remember, the SNP manifesto said a once in a generation vote unless there is a material change in circumstances, which explicitly states Scotland being taken out of the EU against the wishes of her people. The people then elected the SNP both to the Scottish and UK Parliament on this manifesto. Denying the stated will of the people will not subdue the desire for independence, but only increase the demand.
You are clearly a diehard Remainer for whom the only validity in the Union is within the EU.
Tough, even last year after the Brexit vote 55% of Scots still did not vote SNP. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation.
If it rained tomorrow the SNP would say that was a mandate for independence, I could not care less what the SNP think or their latest whinge
Because you have no interest in democracy. "What the SNP think" is what the Scottish people think. There was a majority vote for independence parties in the last Holyrood elections and it will be greater again next year.
Why not just be clear and admit that the people of Scotland have no right to their own thoughts and must stay under the yoke of England. Because thats what you are saying.
Rubbish, 55% of Scottish voters did not vote SNP at the 2019 general election, what the SNP think is not what most Scots think.
You are an embarrassment to the party and to democracy.
The SNP were duly elected.
No, unlike non Tory Nat appeasers like you I stick to the party line that 2014 was a 'once in a generation' vote.
You also had no problem pushing for No Deal despite no polling evidence to support it and the 2019 Tory manifesto commitment to a deal, thankfully Boris thought otherwise but some democrat you are
Except you don't stick to the once in a generation line you go beyond it with Franco denials of democracy that are your own stark bonkers ravings and not the party line. Saying that the SNP only got 45% of the vote isn't the party line. The Tory party respects First Past the Post.
I never pushed for No Deal, I always said I wanted a deal so long as it met our red lines which were in the manifesto. I was prepared to accept No Deal if no deal was agreeable that met the terms of the manifesto, but thankfully that isn't necessary.
You are nothing more than a Nat appeaser, a mere tool for Sturgeon
I am a democrat. It is for the Scottish voters to determine how they vote.
If respecting the will of democracy makes me an appraiser then call me an appeaser. I'm not offended. I'm proud to believe in democracy.
You have no respect for the democratic once in a generation 2014 No to independence vote.
You were quite happy to impose No Deal without any democratic mandate for it from the winning 2019 Tory manifesto
Wrong on both counts.
The 2016 vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave would have satisfied the democratic element of that vote.
The 2014 vote made no mention of whether or not it was a 'once in a generation' vote. That was just a political tactic to try and win the vote for one side or another. Just as with manifestos it had not legal or democratic standing.
It is you who are showing scorn for democracy.
Even Salmond and Sturgeon said 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
The Tories won a majority last year to deliver Brexit with a Deal, we remain a parliamentary democracy not a direct democracy however much a non Tory libertarian like you might wish that
Now this is insane. We are supposed to respect a referendum vote on principle because we are a parliamentary democracy, several elections later?!
Precisely!
HYUFD wants to prioritise a nearly a decade old direct democracy vote over the Parliamentary election next year. Madness.
It's more a question of refusing to allow someone to keep rolling a dice to settle a bet until it comes up with the outcome they want, when the last time they rolled it they claimed prior to losing that the result would be definitive, especially when in choosing to make that claim they tried to put a bit of added bias on the dice.
A generation is 33 years, the average age of a mother when giving birth.
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.
Okay. Ydoethur is correct and you are completely wrong. Judgement made. Happy now?
That has to be correct. The EU is about much more than trade. Whether the EU will ever go so far as to create a single state is open to question, but political integration goes hand in hand with economic integration. If one does not wish to be part of this process of political integration, it's fairly immaterial to be told that GDP in twenty years time will be a bit smaller than would otherwise have been the case.
A classic example of this choice is Irish Independence. People favoured political independence even knowing that the a break from the UK would have economic consequences.
To equate Brexit with genuine national independence movements disrespects the latter. The comparison is false and rather precious. But the point that Brexit, like such movements, is about "heart over head", about identity not money, is a good one.
It was the latter point. Brexit and Irish Independence were indeed not the same thing. Interestingly, though, there is an argument for saying Ireland did not become truly independent until 1979 (when de facto currency union stopped).
"Independence" is indeed a highly subjective term. It is also value-laden. That's why the word should never feature in the wording of any referendum seeking a decision on political separation, and generally it has not [EDIT] featured in such referenda.
i.e. If a part of the UK, whose citizens are altready within a political system with a high degree of devolved political autonomy, decided to secede from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, would those citizens and their political system enjoy more independence or less? It is at the very least a matter of debate now that the UK is outside of the EU in a meaningful way.
Any Scottish referendum should be on the basis of the most recent - Remain vs Leave.
After all, "Leave" won the last vote.
'Should'?
Nice that the migrants feel that the still have a bit of control over the auld sod.
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.
Okay. Ydoethur is correct and you are completely wrong. Judgement made. Happy now?
That has to be correct. The EU is about much more than trade. Whether the EU will ever go so far as to create a single state is open to question, but political integration goes hand in hand with economic integration. If one does not wish to be part of this process of political integration, it's fairly immaterial to be told that GDP in twenty years time will be a bit smaller than would otherwise have been the case.
A classic example of this choice is Irish Independence. People favoured political independence even knowing that the a break from the UK would have economic consequences.
To equate Brexit with genuine national independence movements disrespects the latter. The comparison is false and rather precious. But the point that Brexit, like such movements, is about "heart over head", about identity not money, is a good one.
It was the latter point. Brexit and Irish Independence were indeed not the same thing. Interestingly, though, there is an argument for saying Ireland did not become truly independent until 1979 (when de facto currency union stopped).
"Independence" is indeed a highly subjective term. It is also value-laden. That's why the word should never feature in the wording of any referendum seeking a decision on political separation, and generally it has not [EDIT] featured in such referenda.
i.e. If a part of the UK, whose citizens are altready within a political system with a high degree of devolved political autonomy, decided to secede from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, would those citizens and their political system enjoy more independence or less? It is at the very least a matter of debate now that the UK is outside of the EU in a meaningful way.
Any Scottish referendum should be on the basis of the most recent - Remain vs Leave.
After all, "Leave" won the last vote.
Emigrants don't get a say in it, the Scottish people who live there will decide their future, not tax exiles welded to the London establishment whilst living in tax havens.
Malc's surely not frightened of "Remain vs Leave"?
You think people wouldn't vote to Leave the United Kingdom, the single market, the common travel area, the fiscal and monetary union?
Why ever not?
The UK isn’t a membership organisation so it makes no sense to use the terms leave and remain.
Yes, the wider issues of the LPF, governance and fish seem to all have been 50/50 or even 60/40 for the UK.
But, but, capitulation!
It was never going to be that for either side. The narrative of "capitulation" was and is completely poisonous to the debate. We've seen it on here for years with the usual suspects pushing that line and continuing to do so despite actual results being otherwise. Whatever helps them sleep at night I guess.
Brexiteers in 2016 insisted we hold all the cards, holding them to that standard is the right thing to do. I am sure you would do the same for any politician.
Must be off, have a lovely afternoon.
Wasn't Gove's comment about the UK's choice about what to do post referendum, rather than anything to do with negotiation?
Does he wonder what would have happened if he had actually negotiated with the EU instead of thinking it was 'too much of a faff' ?
He should feel ashamed.
Deep, deep, lifelong embarrassment I should think.
The EU just never believed he would walk away. Failure of Negotiating 1.01
And then May, Hammond and Robbins repeated that mistake.
Some here may belittle Boris as a clown but cometh the hour, cometh the man and he was exactly the kind of unpredictable leader that was needed.
I think it was @Casino_Royale that made the point on the aggressive fishing waters stance in no deal concentrating minds in the EU.
Those tough stances have ensured the EU compromised and did a deal realising the UK would force the no deal to mean no deal on both sides of it. They knew with May and Robbins they'd still get preferential access to the UK without needing to give anything in return in the no deal scenario.
"The EU caved on big points because we made them truly fear No Deal" -
This will be a key part of the Johnson spin on the deal over the next few days and weeks. Let's see how it holds up.
It looks as though third country status for agriculture has made it into the deal. That's a massive climbdown, the EU were absolutely adamant that the UK would have to sign up to dynamic alignment for agricultural standards for that, we haven't done the latter but we have the former.
The EU has in many areas made concessions, and I'm sure in many areas the UK has too. I think this could be the start of a much healthier UK/EU relationship. We don't hold up their integration project and they don't impose stupid laws and regulations on us.
Keep going you will soon have convinced yourself England is a world power again.
England/the UK is a world power.
We will remain so even if just England.
A world power would not have had to kowtow to the EU's terms. We have managed to secure a trade deal with worse terms than we previously had. Hurray!
We haven't kowtowed, we have negotiated. We now have better terms than we had before. Hooray! 🎊
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.
Okay. Ydoethur is correct and you are completely wrong. Judgement made. Happy now?
That has to be correct. The EU is about much more than trade. Whether the EU will ever go so far as to create a single state is open to question, but political integration goes hand in hand with economic integration. If one does not wish to be part of this process of political integration, it's fairly immaterial to be told that GDP in twenty years time will be a bit smaller than would otherwise have been the case.
A classic example of this choice is Irish Independence. People favoured political independence even knowing that the a break from the UK would have economic consequences.
To equate Brexit with genuine national independence movements disrespects the latter. The comparison is false and rather precious. But the point that Brexit, like such movements, is about "heart over head", about identity not money, is a good one.
It was the latter point. Brexit and Irish Independence were indeed not the same thing. Interestingly, though, there is an argument for saying Ireland did not become truly independent until 1979 (when de facto currency union stopped).
"Independence" is indeed a highly subjective term. It is also value-laden. That's why the word should never feature in the wording of any referendum seeking a decision on political separation, and generally it has not [EDIT] featured in such referenda.
i.e. If a part of the UK, whose citizens are altready within a political system with a high degree of devolved political autonomy, decided to secede from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, would those citizens and their political system enjoy more independence or less? It is at the very least a matter of debate now that the UK is outside of the EU in a meaningful way.
Any Scottish referendum should be on the basis of the most recent - Remain vs Leave.
After all, "Leave" won the last vote.
Emigrants don't get a say in it, the Scottish people who live there will decide their future, not tax exiles welded to the London establishment whilst living in tax havens.
Malc's surely not frightened of "Remain vs Leave"?
You think people wouldn't vote to Leave the United Kingdom, the single market, the common travel area, the fiscal and monetary union?
Why ever not?
I don't give a toss what the question is , I will be on the option that frees Scotland from serfdom. PS: as will the majority unless they try to count the dead as against again
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.
Okay. Ydoethur is correct and you are completely wrong. Judgement made. Happy now?
That has to be correct. The EU is about much more than trade. Whether the EU will ever go so far as to create a single state is open to question, but political integration goes hand in hand with economic integration. If one does not wish to be part of this process of political integration, it's fairly immaterial to be told that GDP in twenty years time will be a bit smaller than would otherwise have been the case.
A classic example of this choice is Irish Independence. People favoured political independence even knowing that the a break from the UK would have economic consequences.
To equate Brexit with genuine national independence movements disrespects the latter. The comparison is false and rather precious. But the point that Brexit, like such movements, is about "heart over head", about identity not money, is a good one.
It was the latter point. Brexit and Irish Independence were indeed not the same thing. Interestingly, though, there is an argument for saying Ireland did not become truly independent until 1979 (when de facto currency union stopped).
"Independence" is indeed a highly subjective term. It is also value-laden. That's why the word should never feature in the wording of any referendum seeking a decision on political separation, and generally it has not [EDIT] featured in such referenda.
i.e. If a part of the UK, whose citizens are altready within a political system with a high degree of devolved political autonomy, decided to secede from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, would those citizens and their political system enjoy more independence or less? It is at the very least a matter of debate now that the UK is outside of the EU in a meaningful way.
Any Scottish referendum should be on the basis of the most recent - Remain vs Leave.
After all, "Leave" won the last vote.
Emigrants don't get a say in it, the Scottish people who live there will decide their future, not tax exiles welded to the London establishment whilst living in tax havens.
Malc's surely not frightened of "Remain vs Leave"?
You think people wouldn't vote to Leave the United Kingdom, the single market, the common travel area, the fiscal and monetary union?
Why ever not?
The UK isn’t a membership organisation so it makes no sense to use the terms leave and remain.
Indeed. It's an utter conflict with Johnsonian and Tory doctrine.
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
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.
Okay. Ydoethur is correct and you are completely wrong. Judgement made. Happy now?
That has to be correct. The EU is about much more than trade. Whether the EU will ever go so far as to create a single state is open to question, but political integration goes hand in hand with economic integration. If one does not wish to be part of this process of political integration, it's fairly immaterial to be told that GDP in twenty years time will be a bit smaller than would otherwise have been the case.
A classic example of this choice is Irish Independence. People favoured political independence even knowing that the a break from the UK would have economic consequences.
To equate Brexit with genuine national independence movements disrespects the latter. The comparison is false and rather precious. But the point that Brexit, like such movements, is about "heart over head", about identity not money, is a good one.
It was the latter point. Brexit and Irish Independence were indeed not the same thing. Interestingly, though, there is an argument for saying Ireland did not become truly independent until 1979 (when de facto currency union stopped).
"Independence" is indeed a highly subjective term. It is also value-laden. That's why the word should never feature in the wording of any referendum seeking a decision on political separation, and generally it has not [EDIT] featured in such referenda.
i.e. If a part of the UK, whose citizens are altready within a political system with a high degree of devolved political autonomy, decided to secede from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, would those citizens and their political system enjoy more independence or less? It is at the very least a matter of debate now that the UK is outside of the EU in a meaningful way.
Any Scottish referendum should be on the basis of the most recent - Remain vs Leave.
After all, "Leave" won the last vote.
'Should'?
Nice that the migrants feel that the still have a bit of control over the auld sod.
I think kinabalu in particular has kept a cool head on likely outcomes. Accidental no deal I do think was possible, but time and again people allowed hatred of Boris to mean he wanted no deal, when it looks like he really didn't. The difficulties in agreeing come down to competence and calculation.
Thanks, kle4.
The wild overestimation of the chances of No Deal came imo from 2 things which are in a sense the same thing. Remainers misread Johnson as being crazy enough to do it. Leavers misread him as being brave enough to do it.
He was brave enough to do so, which is why he does not need to. Which is what many of us said during the dark days of May and Robbins.
Si vis pacem, para bellum applies.
Give it up, Philip. Choose dignity.
I do. He has followed the process I advocated for five years, through the darkest days of May's tenure. And it has worked.
I've been ridiculed on this site for years for advocating being prepared to walk away and meaning it. I've been ridiculed for years for saying we needed to take this to the wire.
I'm entitled to an I told you so. I was right. Rejecting May and Robbins, rejecting her WA, being prepared to walk away looks like it has gotten everything I wanted barring any last minute surprises. I'm entitled to feel smug and happy about that.
Anyway my summary of the Trade Deal, subject to caveats that I don't know exactly what it contains and it hasn't even been signed yet.
Both the UK government and the EU will be happy with it.
The UK government gets a zero quota zero tariff deal with the EU that meets its redlines, which are expressed negatively, except for fishing. It gets no ECJ, no long term commitments. It also gets one win: a chunk of the rEU fish quota is repatriated.
The big EU asks came in the Withdrawal Agreement. This deal keeps those on track. The EU also retains a lot of leverage that it will use later on.
The loser is the UK national interest. A better deal was possible with a different government and different negotiating priorities. Nevertheless, getting the deal and not in the end going rogue are better than the alternative.
Johnson could have got this very deal back in June. It's pretty much what I and other more qualified commentators thought was possible, given the respective red lines. In that case, people and businesses could have had time to prepare for the upcoming dislocation. I suspect that the deal is happening over Christmas and is subject to little scrutiny is entirely intentional.
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
Yes , not over confident but it certainly looks to be heading our way. Just need SNP to get on with it and make the election a vote on it.
Yes, the wider issues of the LPF, governance and fish seem to all have been 50/50 or even 60/40 for the UK.
But, but, capitulation!
It was never going to be that for either side. The narrative of "capitulation" was and is completely poisonous to the debate. We've seen it on here for years with the usual suspects pushing that line and continuing to do so despite actual results being otherwise. Whatever helps them sleep at night I guess.
Brexiteers in 2016 insisted we hold all the cards, holding them to that standard is the right thing to do. I am sure you would do the same for any politician.
Must be off, have a lovely afternoon.
I've said that all along mate. Both sides came into the negotiation with strength in different areas. No one "held all the cards" it was always going to end up as a 50/50 style negotiation and it really does look like that's where it ended up. Ultimately the UK is a $2.8tn economy, it is large in its own right and countries want to trade with us because we're a huge and homogeneous consumer market. That fact won't have been lost on the EU and whatever compromises they have made with ECJ jurisdiction etc... is deemed worth it for EU based companies to be able to sell their goods to us on the same terms as domestic, Canadian or Japanese companies.
Does he wonder what would have happened if he had actually negotiated with the EU instead of thinking it was 'too much of a faff' ?
He should feel ashamed.
Deep, deep, lifelong embarrassment I should think.
The EU just never believed he would walk away. Failure of Negotiating 1.01
And then May, Hammond and Robbins repeated that mistake.
Some here may belittle Boris as a clown but cometh the hour, cometh the man and he was exactly the kind of unpredictable leader that was needed.
I think it was @Casino_Royale that made the point on the aggressive fishing waters stance in no deal concentrating minds in the EU.
Those tough stances have ensured the EU compromised and did a deal realising the UK would force the no deal to mean no deal on both sides of it. They knew with May and Robbins they'd still get preferential access to the UK without needing to give anything in return in the no deal scenario.
"The EU caved on big points because we made them truly fear No Deal" -
This will be a key part of the Johnson spin on the deal over the next few days and weeks. Let's see how it holds up.
It looks as though third country status for agriculture has made it into the deal. That's a massive climbdown, the EU were absolutely adamant that the UK would have to sign up to dynamic alignment for agricultural standards for that, we haven't done the latter but we have the former.
The EU has in many areas made concessions, and I'm sure in many areas the UK has too. I think this could be the start of a much healthier UK/EU relationship. We don't hold up their integration project and they don't impose stupid laws and regulations on us.
Keep going you will soon have convinced yourself England is a world power again.
England/the UK is a world power.
We will remain so even if just England.
A world power would not have had to kowtow to the EU's terms. We have managed to secure a trade deal with worse terms than we previously had. Hurray!
We haven't kowtowed, we have negotiated. We now have better terms than we had before. Hooray! 🎊
Be yourself for once Philip , you don't need to always follow your party script to the letter.
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
TBH I think some of the more extreme Nats (not necessarily these gentlemen) would have preferred "No Deal" - as it is see the fuss being made over 5-7% of their seed potato exports....
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
I tend to be a bit of a gradualist, I would have seriously considered Devo Max if it had been a boiler plated, guaranteed option around 2012, however the subsequent 2 years and after opened my eyes on just what the the UK would permit and the promises that they'd honour. From a gradualist pov, I feel if one side's only strategy is to keep delaying a vote until something that they're unable to define turns up, it's only going one way.
Yes, the wider issues of the LPF, governance and fish seem to all have been 50/50 or even 60/40 for the UK.
But, but, capitulation!
It was never going to be that for either side. The narrative of "capitulation" was and is completely poisonous to the debate. We've seen it on here for years with the usual suspects pushing that line and continuing to do so despite actual results being otherwise. Whatever helps them sleep at night I guess.
Brexiteers in 2016 insisted we hold all the cards, holding them to that standard is the right thing to do. I am sure you would do the same for any politician.
Must be off, have a lovely afternoon.
Absolutely. And we appear to have successfully achieved all of our red lines. I haven't seen anyone yet say otherwise.
Barring any last minute shocks it seems we have a deal achieving every one of our red lines. If so, that is a great success considering we were told for years those red lines were cherrypicking and unachievable.
Does he wonder what would have happened if he had actually negotiated with the EU instead of thinking it was 'too much of a faff' ?
He should feel ashamed.
Deep, deep, lifelong embarrassment I should think.
The EU just never believed he would walk away. Failure of Negotiating 1.01
And then May, Hammond and Robbins repeated that mistake.
Some here may belittle Boris as a clown but cometh the hour, cometh the man and he was exactly the kind of unpredictable leader that was needed.
I think it was @Casino_Royale that made the point on the aggressive fishing waters stance in no deal concentrating minds in the EU.
Those tough stances have ensured the EU compromised and did a deal realising the UK would force the no deal to mean no deal on both sides of it. They knew with May and Robbins they'd still get preferential access to the UK without needing to give anything in return in the no deal scenario.
"The EU caved on big points because we made them truly fear No Deal" -
This will be a key part of the Johnson spin on the deal over the next few days and weeks. Let's see how it holds up.
It looks as though third country status for agriculture has made it into the deal. That's a massive climbdown, the EU were absolutely adamant that the UK would have to sign up to dynamic alignment for agricultural standards for that, we haven't done the latter but we have the former.
The EU has in many areas made concessions, and I'm sure in many areas the UK has too. I think this could be the start of a much healthier UK/EU relationship. We don't hold up their integration project and they don't impose stupid laws and regulations on us.
Keep going you will soon have convinced yourself England is a world power again.
England/the UK is a world power.
We will remain so even if just England.
A world power would not have had to kowtow to the EU's terms. We have managed to secure a trade deal with worse terms than we previously had. Hurray!
We haven't kowtowed, we have negotiated. We now have better terms than we had before. Hooray! 🎊
No we haven't. We have made trade and travel more difficult and introduced lots of red tape. How do we have better terms?
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
TBH I think some of the more extreme Nats (not necessarily these gentlemen) would have preferred "No Deal" - as it is see the fuss being made over 5-7% of their seed potato exports....
Waiting to see what the medium term impact of Brexit is, even with this deal, in the light of this sort of thing and what @RochdalePioneers has been educating us on.
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
TBH I think some of the more extreme Nats (not necessarily these gentlemen) would have preferred "No Deal" - as it is see the fuss being made over 5-7% of their seed potato exports....
It is exactly as expected and bad for Scotland. The rest of the bad news will out over the next months and poison the union even further.
Does he wonder what would have happened if he had actually negotiated with the EU instead of thinking it was 'too much of a faff' ?
He should feel ashamed.
Deep, deep, lifelong embarrassment I should think.
The EU just never believed he would walk away. Failure of Negotiating 1.01
And then May, Hammond and Robbins repeated that mistake.
Some here may belittle Boris as a clown but cometh the hour, cometh the man and he was exactly the kind of unpredictable leader that was needed.
I think it was @Casino_Royale that made the point on the aggressive fishing waters stance in no deal concentrating minds in the EU.
Those tough stances have ensured the EU compromised and did a deal realising the UK would force the no deal to mean no deal on both sides of it. They knew with May and Robbins they'd still get preferential access to the UK without needing to give anything in return in the no deal scenario.
"The EU caved on big points because we made them truly fear No Deal" -
This will be a key part of the Johnson spin on the deal over the next few days and weeks. Let's see how it holds up.
It looks as though third country status for agriculture has made it into the deal. That's a massive climbdown, the EU were absolutely adamant that the UK would have to sign up to dynamic alignment for agricultural standards for that, we haven't done the latter but we have the former.
The EU has in many areas made concessions, and I'm sure in many areas the UK has too. I think this could be the start of a much healthier UK/EU relationship. We don't hold up their integration project and they don't impose stupid laws and regulations on us.
Keep going you will soon have convinced yourself England is a world power again.
England/the UK is a world power.
We will remain so even if just England.
A world power would not have had to kowtow to the EU's terms. We have managed to secure a trade deal with worse terms than we previously had. Hurray!
We haven't kowtowed, we have negotiated. We now have better terms than we had before. Hooray! 🎊
Be yourself for once Philip , you don't need to always follow your party script to the letter.
I have been consistent for what the UK should do for years. If we have a deal hitting all my red lines then I am happy.
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
TBH I think some of the more extreme Nats (not necessarily these gentlemen) would have preferred "No Deal" - as it is see the fuss being made over 5-7% of their seed potato exports....
No doubt. I'd say the never happening "No Deal" was being (either openly or secretly) rooted for by several constituencies. I sense a few of the hardest core Remainers, for example, would have liked it, as well as the Redwood type Leavers. And of course there are general "adrenaline addicts" such as our Eadric Construct.
If a loss of 2% is disastrous, what would independence do to them?
Strange piece. Very Guardian.
Keeps mentioning that the "sector" is worth £112m per year, but forgets to mention that the actual exports allegedly (*) under threat are actually £13m a year.
It's a matter of reestablishing equivalence - they are allowed in from Switzerland to EU. So a temporary blip is most likely.
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
I tend to be a bit of a gradualist, I would have seriously considered Devo Max if it had been a boiler plated, guaranteed option around 2012, however the subsequent 2 years and after opened my eyes on just what the the UK would permit and the promises that they'd honour. From a gradualist pov, I feel if one side's only strategy is to keep delaying a vote until something that they're unable to define turns up, it's only going one way.
Yes, I recall you saying that. I think it's a shame that ship sailed, but sailed it has, the new "vow" from Starmer notwithstanding. The issue looks binary and polarized now, which is in tune with the spirit of the age.
Mr. Starry, are you suggesting Scotland should've had a veto over the referendum result?
Absolutely not. But the opinion of the Scottish people had to be taken into account for what would have far-reaching consequences for all the countries of the British Isles. England will always have a bigger vote than Scotland. That doesn't mean Scotland always has to tug the forelock to whatever they decide. Without taking into account the views of Scotland in a meaningful, politically-sound manner, there is no union worth defending.
However with a bit of luck it'll mean the 'why leave the consultative UK where Scotland has real influence for the undemocratic EU' merchants will shut their pieholes for a while.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
You, Malcolm, Carnyx, Alistair et al must be feeling bullish on the Sindy front now. "Many a slip twixt cup and lip" but it's mainly a matter of not dropping the cup, I think.
Yes , not over confident but it certainly looks to be heading our way. Just need SNP to get on with it and make the election a vote on it.
Holyrood 21 is massive now. Once Georgia is done - Dem double please! - it's probably going to be the main event. I predict a bigger Westminster interest than usual in a Scottish election.
Yes, the wider issues of the LPF, governance and fish seem to all have been 50/50 or even 60/40 for the UK.
But, but, capitulation!
It was never going to be that for either side. The narrative of "capitulation" was and is completely poisonous to the debate. We've seen it on here for years with the usual suspects pushing that line and continuing to do so despite actual results being otherwise. Whatever helps them sleep at night I guess.
Brexiteers in 2016 insisted we hold all the cards, holding them to that standard is the right thing to do. I am sure you would do the same for any politician.
Must be off, have a lovely afternoon.
Absolutely. And we appear to have successfully achieved all of our red lines. I haven't seen anyone yet say otherwise.
Barring any last minute shocks it seems we have a deal achieving every one of our red lines. If so, that is a great success considering we were told for years those red lines were cherrypicking and unachievable.
Mr. Starry, you're a former No voter who thinks the SNP should've had an influence on the negotiations?
Foreign policy isn't and cannot be devolved.
Doesn't matter the Party in charge. If a country's government is completely excluded and it's voice unheard, despite an overwhelming vote from its electorate, then the political union cannot stand.
Scotland's sovereign government is Westminster and has been since 1707 as confirmed in the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Holyrood correctly is purely for domestic matters within Scotland
If you remember, the SNP manifesto said a once in a generation vote unless there is a material change in circumstances, which explicitly states Scotland being taken out of the EU against the wishes of her people. The people then elected the SNP both to the Scottish and UK Parliament on this manifesto. Denying the stated will of the people will not subdue the desire for independence, but only increase the demand.
You are clearly a diehard Remainer for whom the only validity in the Union is within the EU.
Tough, even last year after the Brexit vote 55% of Scots still did not vote SNP. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation.
If it rained tomorrow the SNP would say that was a mandate for independence, I could not care less what the SNP think or their latest whinge
Because you have no interest in democracy. "What the SNP think" is what the Scottish people think. There was a majority vote for independence parties in the last Holyrood elections and it will be greater again next year.
Why not just be clear and admit that the people of Scotland have no right to their own thoughts and must stay under the yoke of England. Because thats what you are saying.
Rubbish, 55% of Scottish voters did not vote SNP at the 2019 general election, what the SNP think is not what most Scots think.
You are an embarrassment to the party and to democracy.
The SNP were duly elected.
No, unlike non Tory Nat appeasers like you I stick to the party line that 2014 was a 'once in a generation' vote.
You also had no problem pushing for No Deal despite no polling evidence to support it and the 2019 Tory manifesto commitment to a deal, thankfully Boris thought otherwise but some democrat you are
Except you don't stick to the once in a generation line you go beyond it with Franco denials of democracy that are your own stark bonkers ravings and not the party line. Saying that the SNP only got 45% of the vote isn't the party line. The Tory party respects First Past the Post.
I never pushed for No Deal, I always said I wanted a deal so long as it met our red lines which were in the manifesto. I was prepared to accept No Deal if no deal was agreeable that met the terms of the manifesto, but thankfully that isn't necessary.
You are nothing more than a Nat appeaser, a mere tool for Sturgeon
I am a democrat. It is for the Scottish voters to determine how they vote.
If respecting the will of democracy makes me an appraiser then call me an appeaser. I'm not offended. I'm proud to believe in democracy.
You have no respect for the democratic once in a generation 2014 No to independence vote.
You were quite happy to impose No Deal without any democratic mandate for it from the winning 2019 Tory manifesto
Wrong on both counts.
The 2016 vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave would have satisfied the democratic element of that vote.
The 2014 vote made no mention of whether or not it was a 'once in a generation' vote. That was just a political tactic to try and win the vote for one side or another. Just as with manifestos it had not legal or democratic standing.
It is you who are showing scorn for democracy.
Even Salmond and Sturgeon said 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
...unless there was a material change in circumstance, which was defined as Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of her people.
I think kinabalu in particular has kept a cool head on likely outcomes. Accidental no deal I do think was possible, but time and again people allowed hatred of Boris to mean he wanted no deal, when it looks like he really didn't. The difficulties in agreeing come down to competence and calculation.
Thanks, kle4.
The wild overestimation of the chances of No Deal came imo from 2 things which are in a sense the same thing. Remainers misread Johnson as being crazy enough to do it. Leavers misread him as being brave enough to do it.
He was brave enough to do so, which is why he does not need to. Which is what many of us said during the dark days of May and Robbins.
Si vis pacem, para bellum applies.
Give it up, Philip. Choose dignity.
I do. He has followed the process I advocated for five years, through the darkest days of May's tenure. And it has worked.
I've been ridiculed on this site for years for advocating being prepared to walk away and meaning it. I've been ridiculed for years for saying we needed to take this to the wire.
I'm entitled to an I told you so. I was right. Rejecting May and Robbins, rejecting her WA, being prepared to walk away looks like it has gotten everything I wanted barring any last minute surprises. I'm entitled to feel smug and happy about that.
Maximum nonsense here about how this deal was achieved - but it's Christmas so I'll give you a statement that is both true and you will like.
This deal is better from the point of view of a Leaver with your views than the outcome the May deal would probably have led to. So you should indeed be happy.
Comments
After all, "Leave" won the last vote.
Seed potatoes can't just be grown anywhere. It's a climatic issue in large part - pests and so on. (And accumulated specialist experience.)
Haggisontoast's argument appears to be that Scottish seed potato growers don't need to worry about the loss of a chunk of their business because they would lose more if the rUK also banned imports.
Si vis pacem, para bellum applies.
A generation is 33 years, the average age of a mother when giving birth.
As I said earlier, this is a nice wedge issue for the EU to get people to focus on because they've granted the UK third country status without dynamic alignment for agricultural standards. It does seem as though their "look, a squirrel" strategy is working so well done to them.
We will remain so even if just England.
I still believe in Father Christmas.
If the public don't want a referendum they shouldn't vote for one. We don't restrict democracy just because there was something decides in the past - no Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the SNP lose a referendum and want a do over without a General Election inbetween then that would be objectionable. That isn't the case here. There have since 2014 by 2021 been two further Scottish General Elections and three further British ones.
You think people wouldn't vote to Leave the United Kingdom, the single market, the common travel area, the fiscal and monetary union?
Why ever not?
Must be off, have a lovely afternoon.
Nice that the migrants feel that the still have a bit of control over the auld sod.
PS: as will the majority unless they try to count the dead as against again
70 per cent of the vaccines given out were given to over-80s
I've been ridiculed on this site for years for advocating being prepared to walk away and meaning it. I've been ridiculed for years for saying we needed to take this to the wire.
I'm entitled to an I told you so. I was right. Rejecting May and Robbins, rejecting her WA, being prepared to walk away looks like it has gotten everything I wanted barring any last minute surprises. I'm entitled to feel smug and happy about that.
Both the UK government and the EU will be happy with it.
The UK government gets a zero quota zero tariff deal with the EU that meets its redlines, which are expressed negatively, except for fishing. It gets no ECJ, no long term commitments. It also gets one win: a chunk of the rEU fish quota is repatriated.
The big EU asks came in the Withdrawal Agreement. This deal keeps those on track. The EU also retains a lot of leverage that it will use later on.
The loser is the UK national interest. A better deal was possible with a different government and different negotiating priorities. Nevertheless, getting the deal and not in the end going rogue are better than the alternative.
Johnson could have got this very deal back in June. It's pretty much what I and other more qualified commentators thought was possible, given the respective red lines. In that case, people and businesses could have had time to prepare for the upcoming dislocation. I suspect that the deal is happening over Christmas and is subject to little scrutiny is entirely intentional.
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1342082560432758784?s=20
Barring any last minute shocks it seems we have a deal achieving every one of our red lines. If so, that is a great success considering we were told for years those red lines were cherrypicking and unachievable.
NEW THREAD
Waiting to see what the medium term impact of Brexit is, even with this deal, in the light of this sort of thing and what @RochdalePioneers has been educating us on.
online, quantity 1 does not mean 1 bag of sprouts. It means 1 sprout. Thank you and good night
Keeps mentioning that the "sector" is worth £112m per year, but forgets to mention that the actual exports allegedly (*) under threat are actually £13m a year.
It's a matter of reestablishing equivalence - they are allowed in from Switzerland to EU. So a temporary blip is most likely.
This deal is better from the point of view of a Leaver with your views than the outcome the May deal would probably have led to. So you should indeed be happy.
There. What a big softy I am sometimes.
The Christmas Eve Agreement
or
Boris' Turkey