Boris very bouncy, and selling it well. Agree with his views or not, his mojo has returned
It is the end of a long and winding road as someone once said but the problem is we are on a new road and the destination is far from clear.
Since 1957, Europe has been at the forefront of our economic, trading, political and cultural policy-making. It was the answer to Suez which revealed our limitations as a global imperial power.
Now, while still hopefully maintaining an amicable relationship with the EU, the UK has left the political embrace (or vice-like grip if you prefer). Some will claim the TPP is the new answer moving the focus of our politics and trade to new areas of the globe. We've heard the old nonsense about CANZUK or Empire 2.0.
For me, it's about answering the tough question of what is the UK's place in the world. If it's not to be part of Europe (and we can't ignore Europe geographically much though some might like to), then what? We've a lot to offer and remain a powerful part of the most successful military alliance in modern history.
Yet economics transcends that - China, whether we like it or not, is a global economic superpower. India is coming up fast - Latin America is also moving forward. To build successful economic relationships with those powers and others looks the way forward.
For me it's CANZUK. These nations, all under the crown, all speaking English, generally united in foreign policy (as they are so often aligned in other ways) should start a move towards political and military alliance. I’d happily make them a total federacy but that probably won’t fly. Yet.
But CANZUK would be a real force. A vast and mighty alliance. THE vital wingman for the USA. And another foe for China. And within that, introduce freedom of study between CANZUK nations, maybe leading, one day, to Freedom of Movement.
Mr. HYUFD, if the choices are Deal or No Deal, I'm surprised the euro-loving Lib Dems prefer No Deal.
Davey is clearly aiming for diehard Remainers who might be put off Labour by Starmer not opposing the Deal, it is a tactical LD decision I expect. Davey is pushing for EEA
I suppose that makes sense. Continuity Remain is all the LDs have and all they're for. Whether or not that will deliver them enough voters to keep functioning as any kind of political force is debatable.
The world moves on in two years there will be new agendas and situations that open up opportunities for political development, the stagnation will hopefully be over.
You have delivered on your manifesto. You have implemented the will of a people who had become increasingly jaded that they had any real role in democracy any longer. And all in the teeth of a howling gale of outrage from those utterly unused to not getting their own way.
Now - put in some very hard yards in coming years to make the most of our new and hard won commercial freedoms. Because that howling gale of outrage is not going to diminish until you can show them incontrovertible prove of the benefits of the leap the British people have decided to take.
Those who supported our continuing membership of the EU and those who believe the current Deal will not be in the nation's interests have a right to express their views, whether described as a "howling gale of outrage" or not.
Some might also argue triumphalism is also misplaced at this time.
Yes, it now has to be shown we have got something positive out of the last four and a half years of agony. That won't be apparent on Day 1 or even Year 1 but it's entirely proper for questions to be asked, scrutiny to be sought and Ministers to be held to account for what has been decided.
However one feels about Johnson's aptitude, acumen and political positions, it must be hard not to admire his skill at the game of politics, especially around Brexit. He used it to become Tory leader, to win a stonking majority, and he's now managed to engineer what will surely be a big boost to his popularity with the last minute deal.
Mr. HYUFD, if the choices are Deal or No Deal, I'm surprised the euro-loving Lib Dems prefer No Deal.
Davey is clearly aiming for diehard Remainers who might be put off Labour by Starmer not opposing the Deal, it is a tactical LD decision I expect. Davey is pushing for EEA
I suppose that makes sense. Continuity Remain is all the LDs have and all they're for. Whether or not that will deliver them enough voters to keep functioning as any kind of political force is debatable.
They got 11% last time as Continuity Remain
The Brexit process hadn't been concluded last time. We'd left, but the nature of the future relationship was obviously still up in the air.
It's over now. Only the real die-hard obsessives will want to keep banging on and on and on about it, and they are probably very few in number amongst the general population.
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Most of the network operators have said no changes to roaming charges already, so it isn't really an issue. I don't get roaming charges in countries far beyond the EU - they're on the wrong tariff, clearly.
Von Der Leyen says UK now a third country but we share the same interests and the UK and EU will stand shoulder to shoulder to deliver common goals
I have no reason to believe that shorn of the creeping impinging on UK sovereignty and expecting us to shoulder a huge proportion of the wasteful bureaucracy, the UK and the EU will now very often work in lockstep over coming decades. Having the ability to plough our own furrow is essential to the British character. Doesn't mean we will always use that ability.
I am particularly upbeat about the future right now. Assuming the Bastard Bug doesn't kill us all first.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
You have delivered on your manifesto. You have implemented the will of a people who had become increasingly jaded that they had any real role in democracy any longer. And all in the teeth of a howling gale of outrage from those utterly unused to not getting their own way.
Now - put in some very hard yards in coming years to make the most of our new and hard won commercial freedoms. Because that howling gale of outrage is not going to diminish until you can show them incontrovertible prove of the benefits of the leap the British people have decided to take.
Boris very bouncy, and selling it well. Agree with his views or not, his mojo has returned
It is the end of a long and winding road as someone once said but the problem is we are on a new road and the destination is far from clear.
Since 1957, Europe has been at the forefront of our economic, trading, political and cultural policy-making. It was the answer to Suez which revealed our limitations as a global imperial power.
Now, while still hopefully maintaining an amicable relationship with the EU, the UK has left the political embrace (or vice-like grip if you prefer). Some will claim the TPP is the new answer moving the focus of our politics and trade to new areas of the globe. We've heard the old nonsense about CANZUK or Empire 2.0.
For me, it's about answering the tough question of what is the UK's place in the world. If it's not to be part of Europe (and we can't ignore Europe geographically much though some might like to), then what? We've a lot to offer and remain a powerful part of the most successful military alliance in modern history.
Yet economics transcends that - China, whether we like it or not, is a global economic superpower. India is coming up fast - Latin America is also moving forward. To build successful economic relationships with those powers and others looks the way forward.
For me it's CANZUK. These nations, all under the crown, all speaking English, generally united in foreign policy (as they are so often aligned in other ways) should start a move towards political and military alliance. I’d happily make them a total federacy but that probably won’t fly. Yet.
But CANZUK would be a real force. A vast and mighty alliance. THE vital wingman for the USA. And another foe for China. And within that, introduce freedom of study between CANZUK nations, maybe leading, one day, to Freedom of Movement.
Wingman for the USA? You make it sound like vast Blairite empire.
However one feels about Johnson's aptitude, acumen and political positions, it must be hard not to admire his skill at the game of politics, especially around Brexit. He used it to become Tory leader, to win a stonking majority, and he's now managed to engineer what will surely be a big boost to his popularity with the last minute deal.
Of course, it could yet ruin him.
I should note that, however else I felt about him (rarely positive), I did admire Blair's political skill.
Sending our kids to be educated in wokeism...disgraceful ;-)
I wondered what on Earth you were talking about until felix replied. It didn't occur to me that people think "gay icon" rather than "computer genius" when Turing's name is mentioned.
Are you suggesting that being gay and a genius are incompatible? How very dare you?
Boris very bouncy, and selling it well. Agree with his views or not, his mojo has returned
It is the end of a long and winding road as someone once said but the problem is we are on a new road and the destination is far from clear.
Since 1957, Europe has been at the forefront of our economic, trading, political and cultural policy-making. It was the answer to Suez which revealed our limitations as a global imperial power.
Now, while still hopefully maintaining an amicable relationship with the EU, the UK has left the political embrace (or vice-like grip if you prefer). Some will claim the TPP is the new answer moving the focus of our politics and trade to new areas of the globe. We've heard the old nonsense about CANZUK or Empire 2.0.
For me, it's about answering the tough question of what is the UK's place in the world. If it's not to be part of Europe (and we can't ignore Europe geographically much though some might like to), then what? We've a lot to offer and remain a powerful part of the most successful military alliance in modern history.
Yet economics transcends that - China, whether we like it or not, is a global economic superpower. India is coming up fast - Latin America is also moving forward. To build successful economic relationships with those powers and others looks the way forward.
For me it's CANZUK. These nations, all under the crown, all speaking English, generally united in foreign policy (as they are so often aligned in other ways) should start a move towards political and military alliance. I’d happily make them a total federacy but that probably won’t fly. Yet.
But CANZUK would be a real force. A vast and mighty alliance. THE vital wingman for the USA. And another foe for China. And within that, introduce freedom of study between CANZUK nations, maybe leading, one day, to Freedom of Movement.
Hannanism released into the wild, as I live and breathe!
I think leaving Erasmus is a real shame and something a lot of young people will really find very bemusing about why it's gone.
We all need to go ahead together and that means moving past Brexit but I can't help but feel as usual with the Tories anyone young just gets ignored in whatever they do.
Agreed, that is a particularly sad casualty. I don't think Brexit has done the Torys any favours with younger voters. But maybe the sad truth is they don't need them, and don't need to give a shit, especially now Labour is done for in Scotland.
Are we definitely leaving Erasmus? I heard they were still discussing that?
Whatever the deal, it now gives grown-ups the chance to opt back in to various schemes like Erasmus. It should be a no-brainer.
We wanted to. The EU said no, you’re leaving, despite the fact that plenty of non EU members are part of the scheme
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Most of the network operators have said no changes to roaming charges already, so it isn't really an issue. I don't get roaming charges in countries far beyond the EU - they're on the wrong tariff, clearly.
Yup. Three give me free roaming in the EU and many other countries including the USA. On other countries I just buy a SIM and stick it in. Last time I topped up my Ukrainian SIM it cost me less than £2.
Mr. HYUFD, if the choices are Deal or No Deal, I'm surprised the euro-loving Lib Dems prefer No Deal.
Davey is clearly aiming for diehard Remainers who might be put off Labour by Starmer not opposing the Deal, it is a tactical LD decision I expect. Davey is pushing for EEA
I suppose that makes sense. Continuity Remain is all the LDs have and all they're for. Whether or not that will deliver them enough voters to keep functioning as any kind of political force is debatable.
They got 11% last time as Continuity Remain
The Brexit process hadn't been concluded last time. We'd left, but the nature of the future relationship was obviously still up in the air.
It's over now. Only the real die-hard obsessives will want to keep banging on and on and on about it, and they are probably very few in number amongst the general population.
They are however over-represented on some political blogs..I bet.
Sending our kids to be educated in wokeism...disgraceful ;-)
I wondered what on Earth you were talking about until felix replied. It didn't occur to me that people think "gay icon" rather than "computer genius" when Turing's name is mentioned.
Are you suggesting that being gay and a genius are incompatible? How very dare you?
No, of course not. I'm suggesting that being gay is of much less significance than being a computer genius, and I'm surprised that people's first thought is of the former rather than the latter quality when Turing's name is mentioned.
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Most of the network operators have said no changes to roaming charges already, so it isn't really an issue. I don't get roaming charges in countries far beyond the EU - they're on the wrong tariff, clearly.
Yup. Three give me free roaming 'n the EU and many other countries including the USA. On other countries I just buy a SIM and stick it in. Last time I topped up my Ukrainian SIM it cost me less than £2.
Also who makes normal phone calls and texts these days? Everybody uses iMessage, WhatsApp etc, so being tied to a unique phone number isn't really are requirement and means switching SIM / using WiFi isn't the hinderance it used to be.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Its not ideal, but most people taking extent of this perk is during their 2 weeks holiday in Magaluf. Regular business travellers are already well used to either having a particular plan or a second SIM.
I think all the main UK carriers have said they are keeping EEA roaming. It's not required, but there's no particularly reason to think they are going to drop it and annoy people.
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Most of the network operators have said no changes to roaming charges already, so it isn't really an issue. I don't get roaming charges in countries far beyond the EU - they're on the wrong tariff, clearly.
Yup. Three give me free roaming in the EU and many other countries including the USA. On other countries I just buy a SIM and stick it in. Last time I topped up my Ukrainian SIM it cost me less than £2.
I always get the feeling that the Ultras on both sides don't really travel widely.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
Also who makes normal phone calls and texts these days? Everybody uses iMessage, WhatsApp etc, so being tied to a unique phone number isn't really are requirement and means switching SIM / using WiFi isn't the hinderance it used to be.
Exactly. Your phone number barely matters when most people use OTT apps for communicating. Worst case stick a cheap local SIM in your phone, and you'll probably get faster data as well.
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Most of the network operators have said no changes to roaming charges already, so it isn't really an issue. I don't get roaming charges in countries far beyond the EU - they're on the wrong tariff, clearly.
Yup. Three give me free roaming 'n the EU and many other countries including the USA. On other countries I just buy a SIM and stick it in. Last time I topped up my Ukrainian SIM it cost me less than £2.
Also who makes normal phone calls and texts these days? Everybody uses iMessage, WhatsApp etc, so being tied to a unique phone number isn't really are requirement and means switching SIM / using WiFi isn't the hinderance it used to be.
Quite. If you want to speak to someone you can simply Skype or WhatsApp them from a hotel or restaurant wifi, if you need to.
I think leaving Erasmus is a real shame and something a lot of young people will really find very bemusing about why it's gone.
We all need to go ahead together and that means moving past Brexit but I can't help but feel as usual with the Tories anyone young just gets ignored in whatever they do.
Agreed, that is a particularly sad casualty. I don't think Brexit has done the Torys any favours with younger voters. But maybe the sad truth is they don't need them, and don't need to give a shit, especially now Labour is done for in Scotland.
Are we definitely leaving Erasmus? I heard they were still discussing that?
Whatever the deal, it now gives grown-ups the chance to opt back in to various schemes like Erasmus. It should be a no-brainer.
We wanted to. The EU said no, you’re leaving, despite the fact that plenty of non EU members are part of the scheme
Well, others are saying they wanted too much money to stay in.
My main interest would be in preserving the UK’s global strength in higher education exports. Perhaps “Turing” does that, I don’t know.
Boris very bouncy, and selling it well. Agree with his views or not, his mojo has returned
It is the end of a long and winding road as someone once said but the problem is we are on a new road and the destination is far from clear.
Since 1957, Europe has been at the forefront of our economic, trading, political and cultural policy-making. It was the answer to Suez which revealed our limitations as a global imperial power.
Now, while still hopefully maintaining an amicable relationship with the EU, the UK has left the political embrace (or vice-like grip if you prefer). Some will claim the TPP is the new answer moving the focus of our politics and trade to new areas of the globe. We've heard the old nonsense about CANZUK or Empire 2.0.
For me, it's about answering the tough question of what is the UK's place in the world. If it's not to be part of Europe (and we can't ignore Europe geographically much though some might like to), then what? We've a lot to offer and remain a powerful part of the most successful military alliance in modern history.
Yet economics transcends that - China, whether we like it or not, is a global economic superpower. India is coming up fast - Latin America is also moving forward. To build successful economic relationships with those powers and others looks the way forward.
For me it's CANZUK. These nations, all under the crown, all speaking English, generally united in foreign policy (as they are so often aligned in other ways) should start a move towards political and military alliance. I’d happily make them a total federacy but that probably won’t fly. Yet.
But CANZUK would be a real force. A vast and mighty alliance. THE vital wingman for the USA. And another foe for China. And within that, introduce freedom of study between CANZUK nations, maybe leading, one day, to Freedom of Movement.
Hannanism released into the wild, as I live and breathe!
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Its not ideal, but most people taking extent of this perk is during their 2 weeks holiday in Magaluf. Regular business travellers are already well used to either having a particular plan or a second SIM.
I think all the main UK carriers have said they are keeping EEA roaming. It's not required, but there's no particularly reason to think they are going to drop it and annoy people.
The thing is pre the EU strong arming them it was a way of generating extra income by claiming such and such a network was charging them loads. Nowadays most of the mobile companies are pan-European, and the much easier ways of making their money e.g. the way they structure their multi-year deals such that many don't realise the true cost, they just see their new shiny iPhone. They can simply just make small adjustments to those and nobody will notice they are getting charged £10-15 more.
Boris very bouncy, and selling it well. Agree with his views or not, his mojo has returned
It is the end of a long and winding road as someone once said but the problem is we are on a new road and the destination is far from clear.
Since 1957, Europe has been at the forefront of our economic, trading, political and cultural policy-making. It was the answer to Suez which revealed our limitations as a global imperial power.
Now, while still hopefully maintaining an amicable relationship with the EU, the UK has left the political embrace (or vice-like grip if you prefer). Some will claim the TPP is the new answer moving the focus of our politics and trade to new areas of the globe. We've heard the old nonsense about CANZUK or Empire 2.0.
For me, it's about answering the tough question of what is the UK's place in the world. If it's not to be part of Europe (and we can't ignore Europe geographically much though some might like to), then what? We've a lot to offer and remain a powerful part of the most successful military alliance in modern history.
Yet economics transcends that - China, whether we like it or not, is a global economic superpower. India is coming up fast - Latin America is also moving forward. To build successful economic relationships with those powers and others looks the way forward.
For me it's CANZUK. These nations, all under the crown, all speaking English, generally united in foreign policy (as they are so often aligned in other ways) should start a move towards political and military alliance. I’d happily make them a total federacy but that probably won’t fly. Yet.
But CANZUK would be a real force. A vast and mighty alliance. THE vital wingman for the USA. And another foe for China. And within that, introduce freedom of study between CANZUK nations, maybe leading, one day, to Freedom of Movement.
Hannanism released into the wild, as I live and breathe!
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Its not ideal, but most people taking extent of this perk is during their 2 weeks holiday in Magaluf. Regular business travellers are already well used to either having a particular plan or a second SIM.
I think all the main UK carriers have said they are keeping EEA roaming. It's not required, but there's no particularly reason to think they are going to drop it and annoy people.
The thing is pre the EU strong arming them it was a way of generating extra income by claiming such and such a network was charging them loads. Nowadays most of the mobile companies are pan-European, and the much easier ways of making their money e.g. the way they structure their multi-year deals such that many don't realise the true cost, they just see their new shiny iPhone. They can simply just make small adjustments to those and nobody will notice they are getting charged £10-15 more.
I think leaving Erasmus is a real shame and something a lot of young people will really find very bemusing about why it's gone.
We all need to go ahead together and that means moving past Brexit but I can't help but feel as usual with the Tories anyone young just gets ignored in whatever they do.
Agreed, that is a particularly sad casualty. I don't think Brexit has done the Torys any favours with younger voters. But maybe the sad truth is they don't need them, and don't need to give a shit, especially now Labour is done for in Scotland.
Are we definitely leaving Erasmus? I heard they were still discussing that?
Whatever the deal, it now gives grown-ups the chance to opt back in to various schemes like Erasmus. It should be a no-brainer.
We wanted to. The EU said no, you’re leaving, despite the fact that plenty of non EU members are part of the scheme
Just to clarify, you're actually claiming that the EU is forcing the UK to leave Erasmus rather than BJ deciding to of his own volition? Someone disagrees with you.
'Johnson says leaving Erasmus was "a tough decision" but that the programme was "extremely expensive".'
People simply happy that a deal has been signed, any deal, are in a somewhat stronger position to comment quickly, than those seekign to pull it apart, so long as they praise achieving it, rather than assessing its merits, which they won't have read yet.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Boris very bouncy, and selling it well. Agree with his views or not, his mojo has returned
It is the end of a long and winding road as someone once said but the problem is we are on a new road and the destination is far from clear.
Since 1957, Europe has been at the forefront of our economic, trading, political and cultural policy-making. It was the answer to Suez which revealed our limitations as a global imperial power.
Now, while still hopefully maintaining an amicable relationship with the EU, the UK has left the political embrace (or vice-like grip if you prefer). Some will claim the TPP is the new answer moving the focus of our politics and trade to new areas of the globe. We've heard the old nonsense about CANZUK or Empire 2.0.
For me, it's about answering the tough question of what is the UK's place in the world. If it's not to be part of Europe (and we can't ignore Europe geographically much though some might like to), then what? We've a lot to offer and remain a powerful part of the most successful military alliance in modern history.
Yet economics transcends that - China, whether we like it or not, is a global economic superpower. India is coming up fast - Latin America is also moving forward. To build successful economic relationships with those powers and others looks the way forward.
For me it's CANZUK. These nations, all under the crown, all speaking English, generally united in foreign policy (as they are so often aligned in other ways) should start a move towards political and military alliance. I’d happily make them a total federacy but that probably won’t fly. Yet.
But CANZUK would be a real force. A vast and mighty alliance. THE vital wingman for the USA. And another foe for China. And within that, introduce freedom of study between CANZUK nations, maybe leading, one day, to Freedom of Movement.
Hannanism released into the wild, as I live and breathe!
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Would we have had to stay in the CFP, or have had the same negotiations about fishing, if we weren't heading for no deal?
I think leaving Erasmus is a real shame and something a lot of young people will really find very bemusing about why it's gone.
We all need to go ahead together and that means moving past Brexit but I can't help but feel as usual with the Tories anyone young just gets ignored in whatever they do.
Agreed, that is a particularly sad casualty. I don't think Brexit has done the Torys any favours with younger voters. But maybe the sad truth is they don't need them, and don't need to give a shit, especially now Labour is done for in Scotland.
Are we definitely leaving Erasmus? I heard they were still discussing that?
Whatever the deal, it now gives grown-ups the chance to opt back in to various schemes like Erasmus. It should be a no-brainer.
We wanted to. The EU said no, you’re leaving, despite the fact that plenty of non EU members are part of the scheme
Of course the referendum result had to be respected. Of course a deal, any deal, is probably better than a 'No Deal'. But without making any party political point whatsoever - I am saddened that the UK has left the EU.
Despite past squabbles, serious disagreements, and even prolonged antagonism between the United Kingdom and the European Union - today still feels to me like the break up of a family. And that is always sad.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Also, you might have forgotten but Macron did kick off over fishing at the time. It was framed as him threatening to keep the UK in the backstop unless we agreed to a deal on fishing.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Would we have had to stay in the CFP, or have had the same negotiations about fishing, if we weren't heading for no deal?
Of course everything would have been part of the negotiation on the long term trade deal, but we would have had a stronger default position and been completely out of the CFP. It would have largely neutered the threat of no deal.
The thing is pre the EU strong arming them it was a way of generating extra income by claiming such and such a network was charging them loads. Nowadays most of the mobile companies are pan-European, and the much easier ways of making their money e.g. the way they structure their multi-year deals such that many don't realise the true cost, they just see their new shiny iPhone. They can simply just make small adjustments to those and nobody will notice they are getting charged £10-15 more.
The whole concept of charging and accounting for calls, texts, and even the data used has changed. I would guess most people rarely incur a cost outside of their allowance. The carriers are really just steering people towards different tariff tiers, and their main focus is customer retention to avoid churn. Could they drop EEA roaming? Yes. Would the saving or extra revenue for charges offset the loss of customers? I suspect not.
“So it's a deal, but it's a thin deal, a deal that we were promised would be better but this deal is better than no deal at all.” - Drakeford
I keep hearing this "thin deal"...this is the new "hard Brexit".
"Thin Deal" because it introduces significant barriers to trade that didn't exist before.
Strictly speaking, Brexit reintroduces those barriers to trade and the deal doesn't remove them. The term, "Free Trade Agreement", is a misnomer because they don't deliver free trade. They are about selectively managing barriers to trade. Preferential Trade Agreement is a more accurate term. The only real free trade areas are the European Union and Cross-Tasman between Australia and New Zealand.
The Fat Crofter on BBC "A disaster for Scotland" The only solution is independence....
I'm surprised!
All these people commenting on a deal nobody has read....I have zero idea if it is good, bad, indifferent. I think it will take a long time to cut through all the spin from every side and for people to actually work out what are the real world impacts of the change in relationship. All the screaming about changes to phone contracts and student exchange programmes are really irrelevant in the grand schemes of things.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Also, you might have forgotten but Macron did kick off over fishing at the time. It was framed as him threatening to keep the UK in the backstop unless we agreed to a deal on fishing.
The only thing we can know for certain is that nostalgia for the EU will grow and very few are going to thank Johnson when all the dust settles. All he has created is a vapid void that has benefited no one and seriously pissed off 17 million. Come on Scotland. get on with it.
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Also, you might have forgotten but Macron did kick off over fishing at the time. It was framed as him threatening to keep the UK in the backstop unless we agreed to a deal on fishing.
Mr. HYUFD, if the choices are Deal or No Deal, I'm surprised the euro-loving Lib Dems prefer No Deal.
Davey is clearly aiming for diehard Remainers who might be put off Labour by Starmer not opposing the Deal, it is a tactical LD decision I expect. Davey is pushing for EEA
I suppose that makes sense. Continuity Remain is all the LDs have and all they're for. Whether or not that will deliver them enough voters to keep functioning as any kind of political force is debatable.
I think the LibDem strategy - if Lab and Con are in agreement - must always be to oppose.
Think of the Iraq war, by having a different opinion to Lab and Con, they got themselves some airtime, and when it didn't work out so well, they got themselves some votes. (If Iraq had been a success story, it wouldn't have looked so smart, of course.)
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Also, you might have forgotten but Macron did kick off over fishing at the time. It was framed as him threatening to keep the UK in the backstop unless we agreed to a deal on fishing.
So to actually leave the EU, we would have had the same discussions as now over fishing. Or no deal. Which is what I thought.
What do you mean "to actually leave the EU"? We would have been out of the EU with no trade deal, but guaranteed tariff free trade and full control of our waters.
Of course the referendum result had to be respected. Of course a deal, any deal, is probably better than a 'No Deal'. But without making any party political point whatsoever - I am saddened that the UK has left the EU.
Despite past squabbles, serious disagreements, and even prolonged antagonism between the United Kingdom and the European Union - today still feels to me like the break up of a family. And that is always sad.
Sometimes when couples divorce - provided the divorce is amicable, they get on better afterwards.
I think Brexit was a mistake - but nowhere near as big a mistake as getting round a democratic vote - it was the least worst option. So now its up to us - and getting on well with our immediate neighbours is a great start.
The new battle front of the outrage bus on tw@tter is that free cellphone data roaming isn't a given when you go to the EU....neither is it in the US, but lots of people's plan do include it and if not you can get dead cheap SIM cards with masses of data.
Its not ideal, but most people taking extent of this perk is during their 2 weeks holiday in Magaluf. Regular business travellers are already well used to either having a particular plan or a second SIM.
I think all the main UK carriers have said they are keeping EEA roaming. It's not required, but there's no particularly reason to think they are going to drop it and annoy people.
The thing is pre the EU strong arming them it was a way of generating extra income by claiming such and such a network was charging them loads. Nowadays most of the mobile companies are pan-European, and the much easier ways of making their money e.g. the way they structure their multi-year deals such that many don't realise the true cost, they just see their new shiny iPhone. They can simply just make small adjustments to those and nobody will notice they are getting charged £10-15 more.
Ultra Pro EU Twitter must be on Pay As You Go.
I'm on PAYG because I don't walk around like a zombie but even my PAYG contract has no roaming charges...
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Also, you might have forgotten but Macron did kick off over fishing at the time. It was framed as him threatening to keep the UK in the backstop unless we agreed to a deal on fishing.
So to actually leave the EU, we would have had the same discussions as now over fishing. Or no deal. Which is what I thought.
What do you mean "to actually leave the EU"? We would have been out of the EU with no trade deal, but guaranteed tariff free trade and full control of our waters.
How many days would that have lasted after we banned the EU fishermen from our waters?
I've seen it mentioned a few times that we would have been able to leave the CFP under May's deal. I presume that would still have meant the same negotiations over fishing as we've had anyway. Surely we wouldn't have been in a place where we could have just, eg, banned the French from our waters?
Yes, under May's deal we could have banned the French from our waters. We would have been completely out of the CFP with no commitment to replace it with anything in particular.
Could we have done anything about French fishermen blockading Calais? Can we do anything about it now?
And really? We could have just banned them under May's deal? Without consequence? Why didn't Macron completely kick off?
Because May's deal was just a backstop, not the final trade deal. It would have given the UK more leverage in trade negotiations because in the worst case we could have kept tariff-free trade but taken full control of our waters. May used Northern Ireland to get the EU to agree to something on the backstop they didn't want to do, but Boris Johnson went back essentially to the EU's original proposal.
However you say it, I just can't believe that there was any way other than no deal that would have led to us being able to ban EU fishermen from our waters.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
We're talking about a scenario where we had ratified May's WA followed by No Deal at the end of transition, so the backstop would have applied from next month. In that case we would have tariff-free trade plus full control of our waters.
Also, you might have forgotten but Macron did kick off over fishing at the time. It was framed as him threatening to keep the UK in the backstop unless we agreed to a deal on fishing.
So to actually leave the EU, we would have had the same discussions as now over fishing. Or no deal. Which is what I thought.
What do you mean "to actually leave the EU"? We would have been out of the EU with no trade deal, but guaranteed tariff free trade and full control of our waters.
How many days would that have lasted after we banned the EU fishermen from our waters?
They couldn't have done anything about it without putting a hard border in Ireland and breaking a treaty.
Marcus Rashford to fight for permanent rise in universal credit
The footballer and food poverty campaigner Marcus Rashford is to turn his focus to the social security safety net and will hold talks with the welfare secretary to discuss a £6bn-a-year boost to universal credit payments, the Guardian has learned.
Mr. HYUFD, if the choices are Deal or No Deal, I'm surprised the euro-loving Lib Dems prefer No Deal.
Davey is clearly aiming for diehard Remainers who might be put off Labour by Starmer not opposing the Deal, it is a tactical LD decision I expect. Davey is pushing for EEA
I suppose that makes sense. Continuity Remain is all the LDs have and all they're for. Whether or not that will deliver them enough voters to keep functioning as any kind of political force is debatable.
I think the LibDem strategy - if Lab and Con are in agreement - must always be to oppose.
Think of the Iraq war, by having a different opinion to Lab and Con, they got themselves some airtime, and when it didn't work out so well, they got themselves some votes. (If Iraq had been a success story, it wouldn't have looked so smart, of course.)
I think you're being a bit unfair on the LDs (not something I'm usually bothered about), I don't think their opposition was particularly calculating and they/Kennedy got quite a beasting from the press at the time. Of course seeing a tumescent IDS and the vast majority of the Conservative party gungho for it may have caused an instinctive reaction..
It may be hindsight and the relentless disaster that has been the middle east since, but I literally can't envisage what Iraq being a success story would have looked like.
The only thing we can know for certain is that nostalgia for the EU will grow and very few are going to thank Johnson when all the dust settles. .
Congratulations on selecting as a certainty something we very much cannot be certain about. There's certainly a chance of that, particularly as active identification with the EU has markedly increased in the lsat few years since the vote, but is definitely it not a certainty.
I don't think someone who thinks leaving the EU means leaving civilisation has much chance of rationally assessing whether or not nostalgia will grow or not, as your own fanaticism means you have zero chance of making any such assessment. It could happen, but there are no certainties here.
Arguing over exact fish numbers, that I think will be with us for many years to come, with claims and counter-claims of just how many were actually caught.
I read that as clams and counter-clams. Which would also have worked.
Mr. HYUFD, if the choices are Deal or No Deal, I'm surprised the euro-loving Lib Dems prefer No Deal.
Davey is clearly aiming for diehard Remainers who might be put off Labour by Starmer not opposing the Deal, it is a tactical LD decision I expect. Davey is pushing for EEA
I suppose that makes sense. Continuity Remain is all the LDs have and all they're for. Whether or not that will deliver them enough voters to keep functioning as any kind of political force is debatable.
I think the LibDem strategy - if Lab and Con are in agreement - must always be to oppose.
Think of the Iraq war, by having a different opinion to Lab and Con, they got themselves some airtime, and when it didn't work out so well, they got themselves some votes. (If Iraq had been a success story, it wouldn't have looked so smart, of course.)
Opposition for the sake of it doesn't guarantee success. Given that the Tories and Labour both appear enthusiastic about getting folk vaccinated against Covid, should the Lib Dems indulge the crackpot conspiracists?
Actually, with that 5G thing in Bath, I suppose they've already started. I wonder if anyone's offering odds on David Icke as their next leader?
The DUP and Farage accepting the Deal? It really must be Christmas.
They key to getting deals accepted - make sure people have watched Muppet's CHristmas Carol beforehand? (It has to be that version, studies have shown other versions don't have the same effect)
Comments
But CANZUK would be a real force. A vast and mighty alliance. THE vital wingman for the USA. And another foe for China. And within that, introduce freedom of study between CANZUK nations, maybe leading, one day, to Freedom of Movement.
Some might also argue triumphalism is also misplaced at this time.
Yes, it now has to be shown we have got something positive out of the last four and a half years of agony. That won't be apparent on Day 1 or even Year 1 but it's entirely proper for questions to be asked, scrutiny to be sought and Ministers to be held to account for what has been decided.
Of course, it could yet ruin him.
I.e. Losing routes/slots that we now can't get back.
It's over now. Only the real die-hard obsessives will want to keep banging on and on and on about it, and they are probably very few in number amongst the general population.
I am particularly upbeat about the future right now. Assuming the Bastard Bug doesn't kill us all first.
Watch this space, and do not jump to conclusions, you unthinking Tories.
I keep hearing this "thin deal"...this is the new "hard Brexit".
My main interest would be in preserving the UK’s global strength in higher education exports. Perhaps “Turing” does that, I don’t know.
At least it isn't a thick deal.
But still fun to see you talk up May's WA.
'Johnson says leaving Erasmus was "a tough decision" but that the programme was "extremely expensive".'
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1342142181793017859?s=20
Let's hope I've got over this bout of nausea by tomorrow.
https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1342127658541395970?s=20
Despite past squabbles, serious disagreements, and even prolonged antagonism between the United Kingdom and the European Union - today still feels to me like the break up of a family. And that is always sad.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/26/downing-street-hits-back-at-macron-threat-over-brexit-fishing-deal-backstop
I'm surprised!
Strictly speaking, Brexit reintroduces those barriers to trade and the deal doesn't remove them. The term, "Free Trade Agreement", is a misnomer because they don't deliver free trade. They are about selectively managing barriers to trade. Preferential Trade Agreement is a more accurate term. The only real free trade areas are the European Union and Cross-Tasman between Australia and New Zealand.
The only thing we can know for certain is that nostalgia for the EU will grow and very few are going to thank Johnson when all the dust settles. All he has created is a vapid void that has benefited no one and seriously pissed off 17 million. Come on Scotland. get on with it.
Think of the Iraq war, by having a different opinion to Lab and Con, they got themselves some airtime, and when it didn't work out so well, they got themselves some votes. (If Iraq had been a success story, it wouldn't have looked so smart, of course.)
https://twitter.com/PasteMagazine/status/1341794917828468737?s=20
I think Brexit was a mistake - but nowhere near as big a mistake as getting round a democratic vote - it was the least worst option. So now its up to us - and getting on well with our immediate neighbours is a great start.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2531
It may be hindsight and the relentless disaster that has been the middle east since, but I literally can't envisage what Iraq being a success story would have looked like.
I don't think someone who thinks leaving the EU means leaving civilisation has much chance of rationally assessing whether or not nostalgia will grow or not, as your own fanaticism means you have zero chance of making any such assessment. It could happen, but there are no certainties here.
Actually, with that 5G thing in Bath, I suppose they've already started. I wonder if anyone's offering odds on David Icke as their next leader?
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1342150857232531456
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948093/TCA_SUMMARY_PDF.pdf
'Surrender'.
🤭.
Anyway it's pleasing to see The Deal welcomed up here in Scotland with all the enthusiasm one could hope for.