I think the photograph posted on here this morning of Boris with a used nappy by his feet is a real low point for this site.
I think it's meant to be takeaway chips, but the point stands.
Some people just want a fight on Boxing Day...
Yeah, CR is always looking for a grievance to get on his high horse about.
You need to get over your obsession with me. And possibly do some work too since, for a highly specialised and "busy" NHS consultant, you seem to always be on here.
Merry Christmas x
Lots of people have a lot of time on their hands in the absence of ability to pursue their usual leisure activities.
Casino on for another meltdown, imagining a box of french fries was a soiled nappy and now insulting one of the politest posters on the site for no reason.
I'm prepared to move on from Brexit and have but this is an utterly crap, nasty, decision.
That very few people will have heard of never mind care about. As the detail emerges there will be plenty of utterly crap, nasty decisions to attack them on.
My starter for 10: subsidies. A lot of people directly or indirectly benefited from a lot of European subsidies - regions and farmers. I did enjoy seeing Vote Leave signs on roads paid for by the EU when touring the Outer Hebrides for example. Lewis residents may be OK in that the Scottish government will chuck money at them. In England? Too bad - the Tories will not be stumping up the cash you have just lost. They are suggesting they will find a replacement for regions and farmers but in practice very sorry but Covid, so we're replacing your previous Pound with 10p. What do you mean that isn't enough? Bloody peasants.
There is no such thing as European subsidies.
We paid the EU to give a tiny fraction of our own money back to us. If we want to pay for those roads we can do so directly - and Scotland has its own government that is free to do so.
Sigh. It was money we paid into a pot. Which it then chose to invest into poor places like the UK. We *could* invest in these things directly but we won't because Tories.
Then that is democracy.
If you want a different priority then how about winning an election?
I'm a LibDem. We aren't in it to win it.
Address the point. Our government will not be replacing the money invested into regions and sectors like farming. Your democratic vote bit would be fine were it not for people like HYUFD who wants to crush the Scots and anyone who isn't a White Anglican life-long Tory like he is.
What I am saying is that having voted to leave the EU people in regions will now witness the cash sucking out of their areas, scratch their heads and wonder what happened to the benefits they were promised. I don't think they will vote for Keith and his Labour Party. I don't think they will vote for the Tories who have massively led them down the garden path. I worry that they will look for more extreme solutions such as that offered by the Nigel is his Sink the Migrants Party.
I despise HYUFD and everything he represents. If the Tory Party was genuinely what HYUFD stands for I would join the Liberal Democrats immediately.
But HYUFD is HYUFD not the Party.
If cash is sucked out of the region's then I am glad we have First Past the Post - the region's should elect MPs to stand up for their region.
Under FPTP regions do elect MPs who stand up for their region. HYUFD then tells them to bugger off.
As he puts it, the only way paupers in the regions can have any cash is to elect a Tory MP.
HYUFD isn't an MP let alone 326 of then.
Whom each constituency elects matters more than a single Blue Corbynite from Epping Forest
Blue Corbynite is simply not an accurate description. HYUFD does tend to be extreme - in his loyalty to whomever happens to be ascendant in the Tory party. That doesn’t sound much like a Corbynite to me.
He claims loyalty to whoever is ascendant but projects his own beliefs onto them and tells other people, even members of his own party they aren't real supporters and should eff off and join another party.
I'm prepared to move on from Brexit and have but this is an utterly crap, nasty, decision.
That very few people will have heard of never mind care about. As the detail emerges there will be plenty of utterly crap, nasty decisions to attack them on.
My starter for 10: subsidies. A lot of people directly or indirectly benefited from a lot of European subsidies - regions and farmers. I did enjoy seeing Vote Leave signs on roads paid for by the EU when touring the Outer Hebrides for example. Lewis residents may be OK in that the Scottish government will chuck money at them. In England? Too bad - the Tories will not be stumping up the cash you have just lost. They are suggesting they will find a replacement for regions and farmers but in practice very sorry but Covid, so we're replacing your previous Pound with 10p. What do you mean that isn't enough? Bloody peasants.
There is no such thing as European subsidies.
We paid the EU to give a tiny fraction of our own money back to us. If we want to pay for those roads we can do so directly - and Scotland has its own government that is free to do so.
Sigh. It was money we paid into a pot. Which it then chose to invest into poor places like the UK. We *could* invest in these things directly but we won't because Tories.
Then that is democracy.
If you want a different priority then how about winning an election?
I'm a LibDem. We aren't in it to win it.
Address the point. Our government will not be replacing the money invested into regions and sectors like farming. Your democratic vote bit would be fine were it not for people like HYUFD who wants to crush the Scots and anyone who isn't a White Anglican life-long Tory like he is.
What I am saying is that having voted to leave the EU people in regions will now witness the cash sucking out of their areas, scratch their heads and wonder what happened to the benefits they were promised. I don't think they will vote for Keith and his Labour Party. I don't think they will vote for the Tories who have massively led them down the garden path. I worry that they will look for more extreme solutions such as that offered by the Nigel is his Sink the Migrants Party.
I despise HYUFD and everything he represents. If the Tory Party was genuinely what HYUFD stands for I would join the Liberal Democrats immediately.
But HYUFD is HYUFD not the Party.
If cash is sucked out of the region's then I am glad we have First Past the Post - the region's should elect MPs to stand up for their region.
That is because you are a liberal and are not and never will be a Tory.
In fact even Sir Keir Starmer who is a monarchist, opposes indyref2 for the foreseeable future and is reaching out to Christians is more of a Tory than you are
Yes that is all true.
But the true Tory party died in the 19th century and the Conservatives have been a mix of liberals and Tories since the 19th century so go cry me a river.
The Tory Party remains a pro monarchy party that opposes Scottish independence, I would even vote for Starmer over you.
In fact apart from being centre right on economics and pro Brexit you have more in common with the SNP and Corbynites than the Tories on most other issues
"Apart from being centre right" in common with Corbynites?
What kind of madness is this? Being centre right is the antithesis of Corbynism.
You are the Blue Corbynite not me. I don't tell you or anyone else to "fuck off and join another party" like you do. You are the intolerant blue Corbynite who values party purity over all else.
You are a republican who wants to break up the Union and an atheist, you are far closer to Corbynites and the SNP on those issues than you are even to Starmer Labour let alone the Tories
Yes I am and proud of it. What are you going to do about it?
Thankfully the party I belong to, unlike you, believes in diversity of thought, winning elections and having the biggest tent possible.
You are nothing other than a blue Corbynite who values purity over winning elections. I want to see centre right economics and liberalism implemented in practice so I will vote and campaign for whichever party can best offer that.
Except in most current polls there is more support for the monarchy and the Union than centre right economic policies like controlling government spending and cutting taxes for the rich and the privatisation of the railways, I support the latter too but I do not pretend they are great election winners at the moment
Which is why I pick my battles.
I would like to see the end of the monarchy but it is frankly not a priority. Especially while HMQ is alive.
If Charles becomes King though then the opportunity may arise for other discussions. But I'm not holding my breath.
If we ever got a referendum on the subject I know how I'd vote. But I'm not expecting one any time soon. It's not something I prioritise at election time either.
And we have governance by elections. Not opinion polls.
I for one will be joining Republic once Queenie departs. No point doing anything before that.
So our Christmas truce has passed and we're all back to arguing about Brexit.
What next? Scottish Independence?
The arguments about Brexit will go on ad infinitum amongst those who are really exercised by it, but the country at large can move on. Most of the general population neither knows nor cares about fishing rights or the Erasmus scheme. I anticipate teething problems at the border in the New Year, but once they're sorted out the issue will fade into the background.
Scottish independence is a different matter. That pantomime will keep playing on a continuous loop until the nationalists win one of their future referendums and get away. Victory in the second one is a strong possibility for them, but even if they lose again they're so well dug in that the argument will never go away. If indyref 2 goes down then the campaign for indyref 3 starts the following morning.
No it doesn't, Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in the second Quebec referendum in 1995 and 25 years later there has still not been a third as devomax for Quebec resolved the issue.
The SNP are going nowhere, and unless they're badly weakened (and, having taken over as the dominant centre-left party, there's no sign of that happening) then they'll be in Government, either continuously or at regular intervals, until the year dot. This is the product of a very large and entrenched fraction of the electorate that has made up its mind that it wants independence, and a fragmented collection of weak, unpopular and useless opposition parties.
This isn't going to be like Quebec (besides anything else, "devomax" - whatever that turns out to be - isn't on offer, and even that wouldn't stop the loud, continuous complaints of being hard done by.) The only way anyone on either side of the border is going to get any peace is when they go.
It is very much like Quebec, from 1976 to 1998 the nationalist Parti Quebecois never got less than 39% in Quebec provincial elections and reached a high of 49% in 1981. That is over a 22 year period, we are now only 13 years since the SNP became largest party in Scotland in 2007.
Indeed at the 1993 Canadian general election the Bloq Quebecois got 49% of the vote in Quebec and won 54 MPs and became the largest opposition party in Canada in the House of Commons. Even in 2019 the BQ still won 32 MPs in Quebec, only just behind the Liberals on 35.
Starmer is already moving towards devomax for Scotland and a Federal UK if he becomes PM
So our Christmas truce has passed and we're all back to arguing about Brexit.
What next? Scottish Independence?
The arguments about Brexit will go on ad infinitum amongst those who are really exercised by it, but the country at large can move on. Most of the general population neither knows nor cares about fishing rights or the Erasmus scheme. I anticipate teething problems at the border in the New Year, but once they're sorted out the issue will fade into the background.
Scottish independence is a different matter. That pantomime will keep playing on a continuous loop until the nationalists win one of their future referendums and get away. Victory in the second one is a strong possibility for them, but even if they lose again they're so well dug in that the argument will never go away. If indyref 2 goes down then the campaign for indyref 3 starts the following morning.
I'd have hoped the government would have got on the front foot - reform of house of lords, more devolution across England (there was some sense in what Starmer proposed - although the speech was at totally the wrong point)
I can't see it happening from Johnson's Tories..
Nobody's interested in Lords reform: it's a largely toothless assembly and the Government won't want to spend thousands of hours arguing the toss over all the competing models. Some decentralization of power *might* happen (though I'm not holding my breath either,) but if it does it'll be direct to local authorities. Quite why anybody would want the madness of an entire collection of fractious, malcontent parliaments for (mostly artificial) English regions is quite beyond me.
I think the photograph posted on here this morning of Boris with a used nappy by his feet is a real low point for this site.
I think it's meant to be takeaway chips, but the point stands.
Some people just want a fight on Boxing Day...
Yeah, CR is always looking for a grievance to get on his high horse about.
You need to get over your obsession with me. And possibly do some work too since, for a highly specialised and "busy" NHS consultant, you seem to always be on here.
Merry Christmas x
Nah, I worked Christmas last year, so off this year. Its the way we work it in my dept.
You mean your department do the work, and you have the time off?
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
I think BJ being a lying Cnut is more the issue, though I agree more and more people take that as read.
Is that language really necessary to make your point? And really, that may have been his position before the EU demands to continue membership were known.
I'm prepared to move on from Brexit and have but this is an utterly crap, nasty, decision.
That very few people will have heard of never mind care about. As the detail emerges there will be plenty of utterly crap, nasty decisions to attack them on.
My starter for 10: subsidies. A lot of people directly or indirectly benefited from a lot of European subsidies - regions and farmers. I did enjoy seeing Vote Leave signs on roads paid for by the EU when touring the Outer Hebrides for example. Lewis residents may be OK in that the Scottish government will chuck money at them. In England? Too bad - the Tories will not be stumping up the cash you have just lost. They are suggesting they will find a replacement for regions and farmers but in practice very sorry but Covid, so we're replacing your previous Pound with 10p. What do you mean that isn't enough? Bloody peasants.
There is no such thing as European subsidies.
We paid the EU to give a tiny fraction of our own money back to us. If we want to pay for those roads we can do so directly - and Scotland has its own government that is free to do so.
Sigh. It was money we paid into a pot. Which it then chose to invest into poor places like the UK. We *could* invest in these things directly but we won't because Tories.
Then that is democracy.
If you want a different priority then how about winning an election?
I'm a LibDem. We aren't in it to win it.
Address the point. Our government will not be replacing the money invested into regions and sectors like farming. Your democratic vote bit would be fine were it not for people like HYUFD who wants to crush the Scots and anyone who isn't a White Anglican life-long Tory like he is.
What I am saying is that having voted to leave the EU people in regions will now witness the cash sucking out of their areas, scratch their heads and wonder what happened to the benefits they were promised. I don't think they will vote for Keith and his Labour Party. I don't think they will vote for the Tories who have massively led them down the garden path. I worry that they will look for more extreme solutions such as that offered by the Nigel is his Sink the Migrants Party.
I despise HYUFD and everything he represents. If the Tory Party was genuinely what HYUFD stands for I would join the Liberal Democrats immediately.
But HYUFD is HYUFD not the Party.
If cash is sucked out of the region's then I am glad we have First Past the Post - the region's should elect MPs to stand up for their region.
That is because you are a liberal and are not and never will be a Tory.
In fact even Sir Keir Starmer who is a monarchist, opposes indyref2 for the foreseeable future and is reaching out to Christians is more of a Tory than you are
Yes that is all true.
But the true Tory party died in the 19th century and the Conservatives have been a mix of liberals and Tories since the 19th century so go cry me a river.
The Tory Party remains a pro monarchy party that opposes Scottish independence, I would even vote for Starmer over you.
In fact apart from being centre right on economics and pro Brexit you have more in common with the SNP and Corbynites than the Tories on most other issues
"Apart from being centre right" in common with Corbynites?
What kind of madness is this? Being centre right is the antithesis of Corbynism.
You are the Blue Corbynite not me. I don't tell you or anyone else to "fuck off and join another party" like you do. You are the intolerant blue Corbynite who values party purity over all else.
You are a republican who wants to break up the Union and an atheist, you are far closer to Corbynites and the SNP on those issues than you are even to Starmer Labour let alone the Tories
Yes I am and proud of it. What are you going to do about it?
Thankfully the party I belong to, unlike you, believes in diversity of thought, winning elections and having the biggest tent possible.
You are nothing other than a blue Corbynite who values purity over winning elections. I want to see centre right economics and liberalism implemented in practice so I will vote and campaign for whichever party can best offer that.
Except in most current polls there is more support for the monarchy and the Union than centre right economic policies like controlling government spending and cutting taxes for the rich and the privatisation of the railways, I support the latter too but I do not pretend they are great election winners at the moment
Which is why I pick my battles.
I would like to see the end of the monarchy but it is frankly not a priority. Especially while HMQ is alive.
If Charles becomes King though then the opportunity may arise for other discussions. But I'm not holding my breath.
If we ever got a referendum on the subject I know how I'd vote. But I'm not expecting one any time soon. It's not something I prioritise at election time either.
And we have governance by elections. Not opinion polls.
I see the Christmas Truce is over.
It occurs to me that it is profoundly un-Conservative and utterly disrespectful of the United Kingdom constitution (whatever that is) for someone to demand governance by plebiscites, sometimes dodgy and with a very limited shelf life, rather than democratically elected parliaments. IANAL, however, and would not want to speculate whether this qualified as "subversion" or even "treason".
Judging by the twitter debates amongst the SNP loyals we're in for a divisive couple of years.
I feel sorry for those pro union voters in Scotland, who'll presumably have to keep their head down..
If Sturgeon does not win an SNP landslide at Holyrood next year and hold indyref2 with or without Westminster consent then Salmond loyalists and the nationalist hardcore will be out to topple her that is certain
I cannot see the situation changing between now and May - i.e SNP landslide
The SNP got 46.5% in 2016, 45% last year, so even if it repeated its voteshare at the 2019 GE the SNP would likely lose seats at Holyrood compared to 2016
I think the photograph posted on here this morning of Boris with a used nappy by his feet is a real low point for this site.
I think it's meant to be takeaway chips, but the point stands.
Some people just want a fight on Boxing Day...
Yeah, CR is always looking for a grievance to get on his high horse about.
You need to get over your obsession with me. And possibly do some work too since, for a highly specialised and "busy" NHS consultant, you seem to always be on here.
Merry Christmas x
Nah, I worked Christmas last year, so off this year. Its the way we work it in my dept.
You mean your department do the work, and you have the time off?
Stay as classy as you can Casino, you are sounding pretty pathetic and juvenile.
So our Christmas truce has passed and we're all back to arguing about Brexit.
What next? Scottish Independence?
The arguments about Brexit will go on ad infinitum amongst those who are really exercised by it, but the country at large can move on. Most of the general population neither knows nor cares about fishing rights or the Erasmus scheme. I anticipate teething problems at the border in the New Year, but once they're sorted out the issue will fade into the background.
Scottish independence is a different matter. That pantomime will keep playing on a continuous loop until the nationalists win one of their future referendums and get away. Victory in the second one is a strong possibility for them, but even if they lose again they're so well dug in that the argument will never go away. If indyref 2 goes down then the campaign for indyref 3 starts the following morning.
No it doesn't, Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in the second Quebec referendum in 1995 and 25 years later there has still not been a third as devomax for Quebec resolved the issue.
The SNP are going nowhere, and unless they're badly weakened (and, having taken over as the dominant centre-left party, there's no sign of that happening) then they'll be in Government, either continuously or at regular intervals, until the year dot. This is the product of a very large and entrenched fraction of the electorate that has made up its mind that it wants independence, and a fragmented collection of weak, unpopular and useless opposition parties.
This isn't going to be like Quebec (besides anything else, "devomax" - whatever that turns out to be - isn't on offer, and even that wouldn't stop the loud, continuous complaints of being hard done by.) The only way anyone on either side of the border is going to get any peace is when they go.
Wait a moment. The Quebec National Assembly has been continuously controlled by nationalists since the demise of the Union Nationale.
All the parties in Quebec National Assembly (including the Liberal party) are various shades of nationalists. Apart from in the West Montreal suburbs, you just would not get many votes in Quebec if you weren't some shade of nationalist.
Quebec has far more power than Scotland, and has been allowed to go its own way in Canada with a much more generous hand by the loose central Government (which has often had a Quebecois at its helm).
So our Christmas truce has passed and we're all back to arguing about Brexit.
What next? Scottish Independence?
The arguments about Brexit will go on ad infinitum amongst those who are really exercised by it, but the country at large can move on. Most of the general population neither knows nor cares about fishing rights or the Erasmus scheme. I anticipate teething problems at the border in the New Year, but once they're sorted out the issue will fade into the background.
Scottish independence is a different matter. That pantomime will keep playing on a continuous loop until the nationalists win one of their future referendums and get away. Victory in the second one is a strong possibility for them, but even if they lose again they're so well dug in that the argument will never go away. If indyref 2 goes down then the campaign for indyref 3 starts the following morning.
I'd have hoped the government would have got on the front foot - reform of house of lords, more devolution across England (there was some sense in what Starmer proposed - although the speech was at totally the wrong point)
I can't see it happening from Johnson's Tories..
Nobody's interested in Lords reform: it's a largely toothless assembly and the Government won't want to spend thousands of hours arguing the toss over all the competing models. Some decentralization of power *might* happen (though I'm not holding my breath either,) but if it does it'll be direct to local authorities. Quite why anybody would want the madness of an entire collection of fractious, malcontent parliaments for (mostly artificial) English regions is quite beyond me.
Lords reform is, I agree, a topic for those who found Brexit too exciting, but a replacement body comprising a Parliament of the regions focused on federal issues may have some merit.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
It's like fishing. Something that means nothing to 99.9% of people but is made into a gigantic issue. Fishing got a lot of sympathy because the 0.1% or people effected are poorer working class communities, this will get none because it's wealthy middle class students doing a year abroad in Europe at the expense of the taxpayer.
My sister was saying this morning that exiting Erasmus will be a net gain for UK universities as the demand for the year abroad in the UK doesn't go away but now universities will be in charge of doing deals with other universities rather than being part of a scheme where the per student funding was too low.
She thinks the losers from this will be European universities who will now have to stump up a lot more cash to get their students a year in the UK at a respected institution.
The Swiss have already approached her university for a continuation of a scheme but they will get much more money per student than before.
I logged on this morning and to be honest it was like a remainer's wake but I do accept that this Christmas has seen an end to their dreams.
To be honest we just need to move on, some will never do so, but I suspect the vast majority will be pleased it has been brought to a deal conclusion
Of course in all deals there are wins and losses but I fully expect Boris to embrace a very pro climate change pro sustainable farming policy and through climate change strike up a relationship with Joe Biden impossible with Trump
As far as Eramus is concerned my granddaughter was due to study in Italy in 2023 but I have little doubt the Turing replacement will provide opportunities not only within Europe but world wide
And as far as Boris is concerned his detractors and enemies may have to get used to him being PM for quite a long time
You'll probably get your "moving on" wish fulfilled in most sections of the Clapham Omnibus but far less so in committed, high octane places such as here.
Re your last sentence, 100% agree. Boris "80 seat" Johnson is going precisely nowhere. My biggest current political bet is on him still being PM on 1st July 2022. I'm on at an average 1.85 and I'm treating it mentally like money in the bank. You can get 1.72 or something now and I simply cannot recommend that bet enough. It's outstanding value. If you don't want to wait 18 months for the full return it will be layable back at 1.4 or less by Easter.
I agree and of course there will always be an element of those who cannot comprehend us being outside the EU but the vast majority will move on and some like myself breath a sigh of relief we have turned the page
As for Boris he has never been stronger in his party and he does seem to be rediscovering his mojo.
The climate conference is a huge world event here in Glasgow and he is the host, so I cannot imagine he will move on before that and indeed it is even possible he may contest the 2024 election
If he had been responsible for a no deal I believe he would not have lasted long into 2021
Well "moving on" from the wild and regular overestimation of the never more than 5% probability of a No Deal is something I do very much welcome. I need a new bugbear now though.
Has anyone properly congratulated on you for being right all along?
Hello, Alex. Thanks for mention. Yes, I think I've accrued as much kudos as I could reasonably have hoped. I'm happy.
Will put a bit of it back on the table now with a prediction that the Dems, contrary to what the odds are saying, will pull off the Georgia double.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you were wrong and I was right.
You were claiming that No Deal wasn't happening because the UK couldn't let it happen and so would sign EU terms and could have done so months ago.
I said if the UK stood firm then the EU wouldn't want No Deal because we hold the Aces.
On any impartial reading of the compromises the deal is far more what the UK was asking for months ago than what the EU was. So standing firm worked and you my friend were completely and utterly wrong.
There isn't a chance on earth this compromise could have been reached months ago.
I wouldn't normally do this to you, Philip, and apologies in advance, but on this occasion it simply has to be a rather contemptuous lol.
Here's my key bit of advice and I offer it in a benign and constructive spirit. You need to replace your "card game" mental image for the negotiation with one that is not so easy to visualize but has the benefit of being accurate.
Try to picture the following - "Two sets of macro political and economic interests coming together to arrive at broadly the inevitable outcome at pretty much the inevitable time given their genuine red lines and the known modus operandi of the EU and in particular this UK Prime Minister".
I suggested the "bucket draining through 2 holes into 2 bottles" one - which I still quite like - but I'm sure it can be improved upon.
Before the inevitable long discussion the two of you may want to consider the latest odds from noneoftheabovebet.
PT convinces K that he is wrong 100/1 K convinces PT that he is wrong 100/1
Neither side can be proved right or wrong. People are very predictably simply believing what they want to believe and there will be no changing views so it really doesn't matter. What will matter is how Brexit is perceived in general over the next few years. I fear and expect that Covid will give enough cover that the Brexit impact is not understood by much of the country, especially those emotionally invested in its success.
Can we just agree that it’s a daft argument.
If anyone has that much surplus energy, why not go closely read the thousand or so pages of the agreement, and write a thread header telling all why it’s great/crap ?
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
I think BJ being a lying Cnut is more the issue, though I agree more and more people take that as read.
Is that language really necessary to make your point? And really, that may have been his position before the EU demands to continue membership were known.
I can think of a term that’s more justified and ‘necessary’. Cnut is me playing nice for you and any virginal spinsters looking in.
I logged on this morning and to be honest it was like a remainer's wake but I do accept that this Christmas has seen an end to their dreams.
To be honest we just need to move on, some will never do so, but I suspect the vast majority will be pleased it has been brought to a deal conclusion
Of course in all deals there are wins and losses but I fully expect Boris to embrace a very pro climate change pro sustainable farming policy and through climate change strike up a relationship with Joe Biden impossible with Trump
As far as Eramus is concerned my granddaughter was due to study in Italy in 2023 but I have little doubt the Turing replacement will provide opportunities not only within Europe but world wide
And as far as Boris is concerned his detractors and enemies may have to get used to him being PM for quite a long time
You'll probably get your "moving on" wish fulfilled in most sections of the Clapham Omnibus but far less so in committed, high octane places such as here.
Re your last sentence, 100% agree. Boris "80 seat" Johnson is going precisely nowhere. My biggest current political bet is on him still being PM on 1st July 2022. I'm on at an average 1.85 and I'm treating it mentally like money in the bank. You can get 1.72 or something now and I simply cannot recommend that bet enough. It's outstanding value. If you don't want to wait 18 months for the full return it will be layable back at 1.4 or less by Easter.
I agree and of course there will always be an element of those who cannot comprehend us being outside the EU but the vast majority will move on and some like myself breath a sigh of relief we have turned the page
As for Boris he has never been stronger in his party and he does seem to be rediscovering his mojo.
The climate conference is a huge world event here in Glasgow and he is the host, so I cannot imagine he will move on before that and indeed it is even possible he may contest the 2024 election
If he had been responsible for a no deal I believe he would not have lasted long into 2021
Well "moving on" from the wild and regular overestimation of the never more than 5% probability of a No Deal is something I do very much welcome. I need a new bugbear now though.
Has anyone properly congratulated on you for being right all along?
Hello, Alex. Thanks for mention. Yes, I think I've accrued as much kudos as I could reasonably have hoped. I'm happy.
Will put a bit of it back on the table now with a prediction that the Dems, contrary to what the odds are saying, will pull off the Georgia double.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you were wrong and I was right.
You were claiming that No Deal wasn't happening because the UK couldn't let it happen and so would sign EU terms and could have done so months ago.
I said if the UK stood firm then the EU wouldn't want No Deal because we hold the Aces.
On any impartial reading of the compromises the deal is far more what the UK was asking for months ago than what the EU was. So standing firm worked and you my friend were completely and utterly wrong.
There isn't a chance on earth this compromise could have been reached months ago.
It's one interpretation. Another is that the EU are quite content with the final outcome and always knew what they were prepared to give way on. But needed to be sure that the UK actually wanted a deal in order to do so (and didn't just get overconfident and start pushing for more beyond where the EU would go). It appears that the last few months, with the constant threats to walk away, setting deadlines and then ditching them rapidly, convinced them that there would be a deal and they just had to be careful to ensure their end state was secured.
And that is not in any way to say that they "won". Maybe the deal genuinely gives both sides what they wanted/are content with. Maybe they were just very good at keeping their real red lines secret, leaving what they were ok to give way on for public consumption.
Spot on. They didn't win or lose and nor did we. It resolved. The "card game" thing is a nonsense. So is stuff like "buying a house" or "corporate deal". People only think and speak of it like this because they've played card games and bought houses, or been involved in private business transactions, but have not done a great deal of big ticket macro geopolitics. Or at least not recently.
In any case my (almost) USP was specifically the insight - which it blooming well it was! - that No Deal was a Plan Z for the EU and just not an option at all for the UK under any PM bar a true Britnat headbanger. And both sides knew this. The No Deal hyping was for domestic consumption.
What surprised me what the extent it was swallowed by the betting (going No Deal 75% at one point) and on the Remain side of the commentariat. Leavers can be quite gullible, we know this, but bettors and Remainers are meant to be a bit more detached and rational.
I think there was a touch of "Boris Derangement Syndrome" going on with some of the Remainers. Conversely on the Leave side, believing that big bad Boris was "facing the EU down", there was the opposite. It was "Borisophilia" mixed up with inappropriate card game mental imagery.
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
I think BJ being a lying Cnut is more the issue, though I agree more and more people take that as read.
Is that language really necessary to make your point? And really, that may have been his position before the EU demands to continue membership were known.
For me he was too nice to him , I would have added at least several more apt and truthful words
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
FFS, there is stupid, there is Ian Blackford and then, some way down the track, there is Richard Leonard. Corbyn wanted him around so he wasn't always the stupidest man in the room.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
No, fishing is an annual negotiation. The treaty itself isn't re-negotiated every five years, and doesn't need to be re-negotiated for the fishing quotas to be agreed.
Judging by the twitter debates amongst the SNP loyals we're in for a divisive couple of years.
I feel sorry for those pro union voters in Scotland, who'll presumably have to keep their head down..
If Sturgeon does not win an SNP landslide at Holyrood next year and hold indyref2 with or without Westminster consent then Salmond loyalists and the nationalist hardcore will be out to topple her that is certain
I cannot see the situation changing between now and May - i.e SNP landslide
The SNP got 46.5% in 2016, 45% last year, so even if it repeated its voteshare at the 2019 GE the SNP would likely lose seats at Holyrood compared to 2016
On Topic: Boris Johnson is a known serial liar. Why would anyone believe anything he says? He is a disingenuous duplicitous piece of shit! Quite simply, the worst PM this country has ever had.
TLDR if you don't include something to indicate a joke ( or ellipsis are my favourites) then it can be impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm and genuinely held views.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
Perfectly timed for the 2024 election as predicted.
On Topic: Boris Johnson is a known serial liar. Why would anyone believe anything he says? He is a disingenuous duplicitous piece of shit! Quite simply, the worst PM this country has ever had.
TLDR if you don't include something to indicate a joke ( or ellipsis are my favourites) then it can be impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm and genuinely held views.
That's fair enough but I thought the "mmm" was probably enough in of itself!
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
I mean this could actually happen, further water down other areas and give them fish for a few more years.
Amazing that so many were saying the UK would win on fish and nothing else, when it's the exact opposite. We've done well on everything except fish.
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
I think BJ being a lying Cnut is more the issue, though I agree more and more people take that as read.
Is that language really necessary to make your point? And really, that may have been his position before the EU demands to continue membership were known.
Cut it out Rob. As you know Johnson cannot be trusted. Turn your guns on the Tory leader you fool, not the gentle folk on here.
So our Christmas truce has passed and we're all back to arguing about Brexit.
What next? Scottish Independence?
The arguments about Brexit will go on ad infinitum amongst those who are really exercised by it, but the country at large can move on. Most of the general population neither knows nor cares about fishing rights or the Erasmus scheme. I anticipate teething problems at the border in the New Year, but once they're sorted out the issue will fade into the background.
Scottish independence is a different matter. That pantomime will keep playing on a continuous loop until the nationalists win one of their future referendums and get away. Victory in the second one is a strong possibility for them, but even if they lose again they're so well dug in that the argument will never go away. If indyref 2 goes down then the campaign for indyref 3 starts the following morning.
No it doesn't, Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in the second Quebec referendum in 1995 and 25 years later there has still not been a third as devomax for Quebec resolved the issue.
The SNP are going nowhere, and unless they're badly weakened (and, having taken over as the dominant centre-left party, there's no sign of that happening) then they'll be in Government, either continuously or at regular intervals, until the year dot. This is the product of a very large and entrenched fraction of the electorate that has made up its mind that it wants independence, and a fragmented collection of weak, unpopular and useless opposition parties.
This isn't going to be like Quebec (besides anything else, "devomax" - whatever that turns out to be - isn't on offer, and even that wouldn't stop the loud, continuous complaints of being hard done by.) The only way anyone on either side of the border is going to get any peace is when they go.
It is very much like Quebec, from 1976 to 1998 the nationalist Parti Quebecois never got less than 39% in Quebec provincial elections and reached a high of 49% in 1981. That is over a 22 year period, we are now only 13 years since the SNP became largest party in Scotland in 2007.
Indeed at the 1993 Canadian general election the Bloq Quebecois got 49% of the vote in Quebec and won 54 MPs and became the largest opposition party in Canada in the House of Commons. Even in 2019 the BQ still won 32 MPs in Quebec, only just behind the Liberals on 35.
Starmer is already moving towards devomax for Scotland and a Federal UK if he becomes PM
You halfwitted cretin, labour will devolve nothing , they never did when they were in power and only wheel it out when they are desperate and hoping for some votes. I know I should not reply to your puerile posts but it is hard to read such shit constantly and not burst a gasket now and again. FFS find an original thought to post rather than the same shit every day.
I'm prepared to move on from Brexit and have but this is an utterly crap, nasty, decision.
That very few people will have heard of never mind care about. As the detail emerges there will be plenty of utterly crap, nasty decisions to attack them on.
My starter for 10: subsidies. A lot of people directly or indirectly benefited from a lot of European subsidies - regions and farmers. I did enjoy seeing Vote Leave signs on roads paid for by the EU when touring the Outer Hebrides for example. Lewis residents may be OK in that the Scottish government will chuck money at them. In England? Too bad - the Tories will not be stumping up the cash you have just lost. They are suggesting they will find a replacement for regions and farmers but in practice very sorry but Covid, so we're replacing your previous Pound with 10p. What do you mean that isn't enough? Bloody peasants.
There is no such thing as European subsidies.
We paid the EU to give a tiny fraction of our own money back to us. If we want to pay for those roads we can do so directly - and Scotland has its own government that is free to do so.
Sigh. It was money we paid into a pot. Which it then chose to invest into poor places like the UK. We *could* invest in these things directly but we won't because Tories.
Then that is democracy.
If you want a different priority then how about winning an election?
I'm a LibDem. We aren't in it to win it.
Address the point. Our government will not be replacing the money invested into regions and sectors like farming. Your democratic vote bit would be fine were it not for people like HYUFD who wants to crush the Scots and anyone who isn't a White Anglican life-long Tory like he is.
What I am saying is that having voted to leave the EU people in regions will now witness the cash sucking out of their areas, scratch their heads and wonder what happened to the benefits they were promised. I don't think they will vote for Keith and his Labour Party. I don't think they will vote for the Tories who have massively led them down the garden path. I worry that they will look for more extreme solutions such as that offered by the Nigel is his Sink the Migrants Party.
I despise HYUFD and everything he represents. If the Tory Party was genuinely what HYUFD stands for I would join the Liberal Democrats immediately.
But HYUFD is HYUFD not the Party.
If cash is sucked out of the region's then I am glad we have First Past the Post - the region's should elect MPs to stand up for their region.
Under FPTP regions do elect MPs who stand up for their region. HYUFD then tells them to bugger off.
As he puts it, the only way paupers in the regions can have any cash is to elect a Tory MP.
HYUFD isn't an MP let alone 326 of then.
Whom each constituency elects matters more than a single Blue Corbynite from Epping Forest
Blue Corbynite is simply not an accurate description. HYUFD does tend to be extreme - in his loyalty to whomever happens to be ascendant in the Tory party. That doesn’t sound much like a Corbynite to me.
He claims loyalty to whoever is ascendant but projects his own beliefs onto them and tells other people, even members of his own party they aren't real supporters and should eff off and join another party.
Who does behaviour like that remind you of?
Again, just following his leader who kicked our a number of MPs for disagreeing with him.
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
I think BJ being a lying Cnut is more the issue, though I agree more and more people take that as read.
Is that language really necessary to make your point? And really, that may have been his position before the EU demands to continue membership were known.
Cut it out Rob. As you know Johnson cannot be trusted. Turn your guns on the Tory leader you fool, not the gentle folk on here.
Whatever. You've lost any ability for a moral high ground when calling other posters on here, and I quote, thick ugly motherfuckers.
TLDR if you don't include something to indicate a joke ( or ellipsis are my favourites) then it can be impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm and genuinely held views.
That's fair enough but I thought the "mmm" was probably enough in of itself!
That would count, yes.
I'm probably more used than most to having my jokes taken a serious statements, but most people on here (with some notable exceptions) probably don't deal with quite as many teenagers as I do...
Mistake for Lab to bang on about Erasmus I suspect. Not relevant to most people's lives.
Nor is fishing.
But the Tories have been banging on about little else for months.
Difference is that people feel an affinity with the fishing industry, based on not much more than seeing the boats during childhood seaside holidays, and having fish and chips now and again. That the fish in fish and chips mostly comes from Norway or Iceland or the EU passes most people by.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
I mean this could actually happen, further water down other areas and give them fish for a few more years.
Amazing that so many were saying the UK would win on fish and nothing else, when it's the exact opposite. We've done well on everything except fish.
Delusion does not begin to describe that absolute bollox
So our Christmas truce has passed and we're all back to arguing about Brexit.
What next? Scottish Independence?
The arguments about Brexit will go on ad infinitum amongst those who are really exercised by it, but the country at large can move on. Most of the general population neither knows nor cares about fishing rights or the Erasmus scheme. I anticipate teething problems at the border in the New Year, but once they're sorted out the issue will fade into the background.
Scottish independence is a different matter. That pantomime will keep playing on a continuous loop until the nationalists win one of their future referendums and get away. Victory in the second one is a strong possibility for them, but even if they lose again they're so well dug in that the argument will never go away. If indyref 2 goes down then the campaign for indyref 3 starts the following morning.
No it doesn't, Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in the second Quebec referendum in 1995 and 25 years later there has still not been a third as devomax for Quebec resolved the issue.
The SNP are going nowhere, and unless they're badly weakened (and, having taken over as the dominant centre-left party, there's no sign of that happening) then they'll be in Government, either continuously or at regular intervals, until the year dot. This is the product of a very large and entrenched fraction of the electorate that has made up its mind that it wants independence, and a fragmented collection of weak, unpopular and useless opposition parties.
This isn't going to be like Quebec (besides anything else, "devomax" - whatever that turns out to be - isn't on offer, and even that wouldn't stop the loud, continuous complaints of being hard done by.) The only way anyone on either side of the border is going to get any peace is when they go.
It is very much like Quebec, from 1976 to 1998 the nationalist Parti Quebecois never got less than 39% in Quebec provincial elections and reached a high of 49% in 1981. That is over a 22 year period, we are now only 13 years since the SNP became largest party in Scotland in 2007.
Indeed at the 1993 Canadian general election the Bloq Quebecois got 49% of the vote in Quebec and won 54 MPs and became the largest opposition party in Canada in the House of Commons. Even in 2019 the BQ still won 32 MPs in Quebec, only just behind the Liberals on 35.
Starmer is already moving towards devomax for Scotland and a Federal UK if he becomes PM
You halfwitted cretin, labour will devolve nothing , they never did when they were in power and only wheel it out when they are desperate and hoping for some votes. I know I should not reply to your puerile posts but it is hard to read such shit constantly and not burst a gasket now and again. FFS find an original thought to post rather than the same shit every day.
As opposed to your original thoughts of 'independence, Westminster is crap' rinse and repeat
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
No, fishing is an annual negotiation. The treaty itself isn't re-negotiated every five years, and doesn't need to be re-negotiated for the fishing quotas to be agreed.
The deal is reviewed every five years so if there's a review in December 2025 the EU may ask for a fish transition continuation and the UK can demand changes elsewhere in return for not moving to an annual negotiation for another years. It's actually quite eye opening as to just how much the EU has given away to get Macron and Barnier their victory on fish.
TLDR if you don't include something to indicate a joke ( or ellipsis are my favourites) then it can be impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm and genuinely held views.
I disagree with this actually. I think it's almost always possible to work out when people are being sarcastic (or at least have a strong, probably correct, suspicion of it). Certainly with established posters (you can't account for trolls/bots). Trouble is of course that a lot of people are really bad at it, so if you want your irony/sarcasm to be detected you have to go through the annoying unnecessary step of adding an emoticon. Unless you want to wind someone up who you know won't 'get' it.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
No, fishing is an annual negotiation. The treaty itself isn't re-negotiated every five years, and doesn't need to be re-negotiated for the fishing quotas to be agreed.
The deal is reviewed every five years so if there's a review in December 2025 the EU may ask for a fish transition continuation and the UK can demand changes elsewhere in return for not moving to an annual negotiation for another years. It's actually quite eye opening as to just how much the EU has given away to get Macron and Barnier their victory on fish.
That is a good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
I think BJ being a lying Cnut is more the issue, though I agree more and more people take that as read.
Is that language really necessary to make your point? And really, that may have been his position before the EU demands to continue membership were known.
Cut it out Rob. As you know Johnson cannot be trusted. Turn your guns on the Tory leader you fool, not the gentle folk on here.
Boris sets Rob's heart fluttering , he could never say anything non gushing about him.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
I mean this could actually happen, further water down other areas and give them fish for a few more years.
Amazing that so many were saying the UK would win on fish and nothing else, when it's the exact opposite. We've done well on everything except fish.
I get the feeling we've effectively sold quota to get a favourable deal on LPF. Which is probably fair enough.
TLDR if you don't include something to indicate a joke ( or ellipsis are my favourites) then it can be impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm and genuinely held views.
I disagree with this actually. I think it's almost always possible to work out when people are being sarcastic (or at least have a strong, probably correct, suspicion of it). Certainly with established posters (you can't account for trolls/bots). Trouble is of course that a lot of people are really bad at it, so if you want your irony/sarcasm to be detected you have to go through the annoying unnecessary step of adding an emoticon. Unless you want to wind someone up who you know won't 'get' it.
So do you really think that, or are you just trolling?
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
I mean this could actually happen, further water down other areas and give them fish for a few more years.
Amazing that so many were saying the UK would win on fish and nothing else, when it's the exact opposite. We've done well on everything except fish.
Delusion does not begin to describe that absolute bollox
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
I think BJ being a lying Cnut is more the issue, though I agree more and more people take that as read.
Is that language really necessary to make your point? And really, that may have been his position before the EU demands to continue membership were known.
Cut it out Rob. As you know Johnson cannot be trusted. Turn your guns on the Tory leader you fool, not the gentle folk on here.
Boris sets Rob's heart fluttering , he could never say anything non gushing about him.
Not true, and now we are playing the man not the ball.
Erasmus must be the biggest non-issue ever. Quite why it has garnered this much attention when it is being replaced by a similar scheme is beyond me.
I think BJ being a lying Cnut is more the issue, though I agree more and more people take that as read.
Is that language really necessary to make your point? And really, that may have been his position before the EU demands to continue membership were known.
Cut it out Rob. As you know Johnson cannot be trusted. Turn your guns on the Tory leader you fool, not the gentle folk on here.
Whatever. You've lost any ability for a moral high ground when calling other posters on here, and I quote, thick ugly motherfuckers.
He said something as polite as that?! Looks like someone got etiquette lessons for Christmas...
I logged on this morning and to be honest it was like a remainer's wake but I do accept that this Christmas has seen an end to their dreams.
To be honest we just need to move on, some will never do so, but I suspect the vast majority will be pleased it has been brought to a deal conclusion
Of course in all deals there are wins and losses but I fully expect Boris to embrace a very pro climate change pro sustainable farming policy and through climate change strike up a relationship with Joe Biden impossible with Trump
As far as Eramus is concerned my granddaughter was due to study in Italy in 2023 but I have little doubt the Turing replacement will provide opportunities not only within Europe but world wide
And as far as Boris is concerned his detractors and enemies may have to get used to him being PM for quite a long time
You'll probably get your "moving on" wish fulfilled in most sections of the Clapham Omnibus but far less so in committed, high octane places such as here.
Re your last sentence, 100% agree. Boris "80 seat" Johnson is going precisely nowhere. My biggest current political bet is on him still being PM on 1st July 2022. I'm on at an average 1.85 and I'm treating it mentally like money in the bank. You can get 1.72 or something now and I simply cannot recommend that bet enough. It's outstanding value. If you don't want to wait 18 months for the full return it will be layable back at 1.4 or less by Easter.
I agree and of course there will always be an element of those who cannot comprehend us being outside the EU but the vast majority will move on and some like myself breath a sigh of relief we have turned the page
As for Boris he has never been stronger in his party and he does seem to be rediscovering his mojo.
The climate conference is a huge world event here in Glasgow and he is the host, so I cannot imagine he will move on before that and indeed it is even possible he may contest the 2024 election
If he had been responsible for a no deal I believe he would not have lasted long into 2021
Well "moving on" from the wild and regular overestimation of the never more than 5% probability of a No Deal is something I do very much welcome. I need a new bugbear now though.
Has anyone properly congratulated on you for being right all along?
Hello, Alex. Thanks for mention. Yes, I think I've accrued as much kudos as I could reasonably have hoped. I'm happy.
Will put a bit of it back on the table now with a prediction that the Dems, contrary to what the odds are saying, will pull off the Georgia double.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you were wrong and I was right.
You were claiming that No Deal wasn't happening because the UK couldn't let it happen and so would sign EU terms and could have done so months ago.
I said if the UK stood firm then the EU wouldn't want No Deal because we hold the Aces.
On any impartial reading of the compromises the deal is far more what the UK was asking for months ago than what the EU was. So standing firm worked and you my friend were completely and utterly wrong.
There isn't a chance on earth this compromise could have been reached months ago.
It's one interpretation. Another is that the EU are quite content with the final outcome and always knew what they were prepared to give way on. But needed to be sure that the UK actually wanted a deal in order to do so (and didn't just get overconfident and start pushing for more beyond where the EU would go). It appears that the last few months, with the constant threats to walk away, setting deadlines and then ditching them rapidly, convinced them that there would be a deal and they just had to be careful to ensure their end state was secured.
And that is not in any way to say that they "won". Maybe the deal genuinely gives both sides what they wanted/are content with. Maybe they were just very good at keeping their real red lines secret, leaving what they were ok to give way on for public consumption.
Spot on. They didn't win or lose and nor did we. It resolved. The "card game" thing is a nonsense. So is stuff like "buying a house" or "corporate deal". People only think and speak of it like this because they've played card games and bought houses, or been involved in private business transactions, but have not done a great deal of big ticket macro geopolitics. Or at least not recently.
In any case my (almost) USP was specifically the insight - which it blooming well it was! - that No Deal was a Plan Z for the EU and just not an option at all for the UK under any PM bar a true Britnat headbanger. And both sides knew this. The No Deal hyping was for domestic consumption.
What surprised me what the extent it was swallowed by the betting (going No Deal 75% at one point) and on the Remain side of the commentariat. Leavers can be quite gullible, we know this, but bettors and Remainers are meant to be a bit more detached and rational.
I think there was a touch of "Boris Derangement Syndrome" going on with some of the Remainers. Conversely on the Leave side, believing that big bad Boris was "facing the EU down", there was the opposite. It was "Borisophilia" mixed up with inappropriate card game mental imagery.
Except you were wrong. 🤦🏻♂️
There is a reason that it was UvDL rather than Johnson that blinked and moved considerably more. Which wasn't possible under your hypothesis.
If you're struggling to understand my points as to why there's been excellent contributions from Mark, Max, David and CR explaining this well on this thread. Apologies if I forgot others.
On Topic: Boris Johnson is a known serial liar. Why would anyone believe anything he says? He is a disingenuous duplicitous piece of shit! Quite simply, the worst PM this country has ever had.
Alternatively, he is this morning master of all he surveys. A very respectable deal with the EU, the first country in the world to approve and distribute a vaccine, an 80 seat majority and a very dull if worthy opponent who he is increasingly running rings around.
No doubt 2021 will bring new challenges and the efficiency of the vaccine distribution remains a very difficult challenge, but right now he looks like our most dominant PM since Blair was in his pomp wittering about the Peoples' Princess or some such junk.
So our Christmas truce has passed and we're all back to arguing about Brexit.
What next? Scottish Independence?
The arguments about Brexit will go on ad infinitum amongst those who are really exercised by it, but the country at large can move on. Most of the general population neither knows nor cares about fishing rights or the Erasmus scheme. I anticipate teething problems at the border in the New Year, but once they're sorted out the issue will fade into the background.
Scottish independence is a different matter. That pantomime will keep playing on a continuous loop until the nationalists win one of their future referendums and get away. Victory in the second one is a strong possibility for them, but even if they lose again they're so well dug in that the argument will never go away. If indyref 2 goes down then the campaign for indyref 3 starts the following morning.
No it doesn't, Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in the second Quebec referendum in 1995 and 25 years later there has still not been a third as devomax for Quebec resolved the issue.
The SNP are going nowhere, and unless they're badly weakened (and, having taken over as the dominant centre-left party, there's no sign of that happening) then they'll be in Government, either continuously or at regular intervals, until the year dot. This is the product of a very large and entrenched fraction of the electorate that has made up its mind that it wants independence, and a fragmented collection of weak, unpopular and useless opposition parties.
This isn't going to be like Quebec (besides anything else, "devomax" - whatever that turns out to be - isn't on offer, and even that wouldn't stop the loud, continuous complaints of being hard done by.) The only way anyone on either side of the border is going to get any peace is when they go.
It is very much like Quebec, from 1976 to 1998 the nationalist Parti Quebecois never got less than 39% in Quebec provincial elections and reached a high of 49% in 1981. That is over a 22 year period, we are now only 13 years since the SNP became largest party in Scotland in 2007.
Indeed at the 1993 Canadian general election the Bloq Quebecois got 49% of the vote in Quebec and won 54 MPs and became the largest opposition party in Canada in the House of Commons. Even in 2019 the BQ still won 32 MPs in Quebec, only just behind the Liberals on 35.
Starmer is already moving towards devomax for Scotland and a Federal UK if he becomes PM
You halfwitted cretin, labour will devolve nothing , they never did when they were in power and only wheel it out when they are desperate and hoping for some votes. I know I should not reply to your puerile posts but it is hard to read such shit constantly and not burst a gasket now and again. FFS find an original thought to post rather than the same shit every day.
As opposed to your original thoughts of 'independence, Westminster is crap' rinse and repeat
I rarely repeat myself and post on other topics , nice to see my point hit home though.
Now we have the freedom to Do As We Please As A Sovereign Nation (subject to terms and conditions), lots of people will be arguing for the radical changes they wanted all along. Because otherwise this whole thing has been tragically pointless, hasn't it?
I'm reminded of the Anglo-Soviet alliance of World War 2. How well did that last in peacetime?
Yes, exactly. And perhaps I'm wrong in thinking we'll just chug along and thus prove Brexit to have been a waste of time. Perhaps now that radical avenues of left and right are, as you say, open to us they will gain traction and our politics will get rather radical and exciting. Not for GE24, seems a bit too soon, but beyond that.
I logged on this morning and to be honest it was like a remainer's wake but I do accept that this Christmas has seen an end to their dreams.
To be honest we just need to move on, some will never do so, but I suspect the vast majority will be pleased it has been brought to a deal conclusion
Of course in all deals there are wins and losses but I fully expect Boris to embrace a very pro climate change pro sustainable farming policy and through climate change strike up a relationship with Joe Biden impossible with Trump
As far as Eramus is concerned my granddaughter was due to study in Italy in 2023 but I have little doubt the Turing replacement will provide opportunities not only within Europe but world wide
And as far as Boris is concerned his detractors and enemies may have to get used to him being PM for quite a long time
You'll probably get your "moving on" wish fulfilled in most sections of the Clapham Omnibus but far less so in committed, high octane places such as here.
Re your last sentence, 100% agree. Boris "80 seat" Johnson is going precisely nowhere. My biggest current political bet is on him still being PM on 1st July 2022. I'm on at an average 1.85 and I'm treating it mentally like money in the bank. You can get 1.72 or something now and I simply cannot recommend that bet enough. It's outstanding value. If you don't want to wait 18 months for the full return it will be layable back at 1.4 or less by Easter.
I agree and of course there will always be an element of those who cannot comprehend us being outside the EU but the vast majority will move on and some like myself breath a sigh of relief we have turned the page
As for Boris he has never been stronger in his party and he does seem to be rediscovering his mojo.
The climate conference is a huge world event here in Glasgow and he is the host, so I cannot imagine he will move on before that and indeed it is even possible he may contest the 2024 election
If he had been responsible for a no deal I believe he would not have lasted long into 2021
Well "moving on" from the wild and regular overestimation of the never more than 5% probability of a No Deal is something I do very much welcome. I need a new bugbear now though.
Has anyone properly congratulated on you for being right all along?
Hello, Alex. Thanks for mention. Yes, I think I've accrued as much kudos as I could reasonably have hoped. I'm happy.
Will put a bit of it back on the table now with a prediction that the Dems, contrary to what the odds are saying, will pull off the Georgia double.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you were wrong and I was right.
You were claiming that No Deal wasn't happening because the UK couldn't let it happen and so would sign EU terms and could have done so months ago.
I said if the UK stood firm then the EU wouldn't want No Deal because we hold the Aces.
On any impartial reading of the compromises the deal is far more what the UK was asking for months ago than what the EU was. So standing firm worked and you my friend were completely and utterly wrong.
There isn't a chance on earth this compromise could have been reached months ago.
It's one interpretation. Another is that the EU are quite content with the final outcome and always knew what they were prepared to give way on. But needed to be sure that the UK actually wanted a deal in order to do so (and didn't just get overconfident and start pushing for more beyond where the EU would go). It appears that the last few months, with the constant threats to walk away, setting deadlines and then ditching them rapidly, convinced them that there would be a deal and they just had to be careful to ensure their end state was secured.
And that is not in any way to say that they "won". Maybe the deal genuinely gives both sides what they wanted/are content with. Maybe they were just very good at keeping their real red lines secret, leaving what they were ok to give way on for public consumption.
Spot on. They didn't win or lose and nor did we. It resolved. The "card game" thing is a nonsense. So is stuff like "buying a house" or "corporate deal". People only think and speak of it like this because they've played card games and bought houses, or been involved in private business transactions, but have not done a great deal of big ticket macro geopolitics. Or at least not recently.
In any case my (almost) USP was specifically the insight - which it blooming well it was! - that No Deal was a Plan Z for the EU and just not an option at all for the UK under any PM bar a true Britnat headbanger. And both sides knew this. The No Deal hyping was for domestic consumption.
What surprised me what the extent it was swallowed by the betting (going No Deal 75% at one point) and on the Remain side of the commentariat. Leavers can be quite gullible, we know this, but bettors and Remainers are meant to be a bit more detached and rational.
I think there was a touch of "Boris Derangement Syndrome" going on with some of the Remainers. Conversely on the Leave side, believing that big bad Boris was "facing the EU down", there was the opposite. It was "Borisophilia" mixed up with inappropriate card game mental imagery.
Except you were wrong. 🤦🏻♂️
There is a reason that it was UvDL rather than Johnson that blinked and moved considerably more. Which wasn't possible under your hypothesis.
If you're struggling to understand my points as to why there's been excellent contributions from Mark, Max, David and CR explaining this well on this thread. Apologies if I forgot others.
The UK, apparently, compromised over its red line on fish. The EU, apparently, compromised over its red line on LPF. How do you know these red lines were actually red lines, and both hadn't always been prepared for this? And the final agreement is what both had been envisaging all along? Why do you assume that one or the other REALLY "gave way", and one or other REALLY "won"?
As opposed to an agreement that ultimately both were content with, but public pronouncements were for domestic audiences and negotiating stances.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
I mean this could actually happen, further water down other areas and give them fish for a few more years.
Amazing that so many were saying the UK would win on fish and nothing else, when it's the exact opposite. We've done well on everything except fish.
I get the feeling we've effectively sold quota to get a favourable deal on LPF. Which is probably fair enough.
Yes, we've (for 5.5 years) traded fish for freedom to diverge and post action arbitration. It's legitimately the opposite of expectations from some of the more prominent remainers who insisted the EU would give us all the fish and ensure we stayed under ECJ jurisdiction and they retained unilateral right to suspend the trade deal. It's a favourable compromise for the UK and I fear that this is going to be noticed in EU capitals in the coming days and the deal may get a lot of push back meaning Ursula will need to stand very firm.
On Topic: Boris Johnson is a known serial liar. Why would anyone believe anything he says? He is a disingenuous duplicitous piece of shit! Quite simply, the worst PM this country has ever had.
Alternatively, he is this morning master of all he surveys. A very respectable deal with the EU, the first country in the world to approve and distribute a vaccine, an 80 seat majority and a very dull if worthy opponent who he is increasingly running rings around.
No doubt 2021 will bring new challenges and the efficiency of the vaccine distribution remains a very difficult challenge, but right now he looks like our most dominant PM since Blair was in his pomp wittering about the Peoples' Princess or some such junk.
Yes only 5 postwar PMs have won as big a majority as Boris has now, Attlee from 1945-1950, Macmillan after the 1959, Wilson from 1966 to 1970, Thatcher after 1983 and 1987 and Blair after 1997 and 2001
Philip in the left hand corner and HYUFD on the right!
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
I am not sure how you get Philip in the left corner? Perhaps you could use colours, Philip in the red corner...no that won't work either. Philip in the blue corner, HYUFD in the very, very blue corner.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
So in five years time, we get six months of the UK pretending to care about fish in return for other changes? And then extend the "fish transition" for another 5.5 years?
I mean this could actually happen, further water down other areas and give them fish for a few more years.
Amazing that so many were saying the UK would win on fish and nothing else, when it's the exact opposite. We've done well on everything except fish.
Delusion does not begin to describe that absolute bollox
Philip in the left hand corner and HYUFD on the right!
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
I am not sure how you get Philip in the left corner? Perhaps you could use colours, Philip in the red corner...no that won't work either. Philip in the blue corner, HYUFD in the very, very blue corner.
Well Philip is a Corbynite right? So he belongs in the left corner
I think the photograph posted on here this morning of Boris with a used nappy by his feet is a real low point for this site.
I think it's meant to be takeaway chips, but the point stands.
Some people just want a fight on Boxing Day...
Yeah, CR is always looking for a grievance to get on his high horse about.
You need to get over your obsession with me. And possibly do some work too since, for a highly specialised and "busy" NHS consultant, you seem to always be on here.
Merry Christmas x
Nah, I worked Christmas last year, so off this year. Its the way we work it in my dept.
You mean your department do the work, and you have the time off?
Stay as classy as you can Casino, you are sounding pretty pathetic and juvenile.
Says the man who posted a used nappy next to a man with his trousers round his ankles.
You need to boil another turnip for your boxing day dinner.
The experience of UK participants in Erasmus is said to have been extremely disappointing over recent years, and of course there is - as with free movement - an imbalance between EU speakers of English (many) and UK speakers of EU languages (some, but rarely more than one).
A global scheme (which does not exclude the EU, but simply is not limited to it) makes sense from both a practical perspective, and in terms of the cultural ideology of Brexit.
Philip in the left hand corner and HYUFD on the right!
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
I am not sure how you get Philip in the left corner? Perhaps you could use colours, Philip in the red corner...no that won't work either. Philip in the blue corner, HYUFD in the very, very blue corner.
Well Philip is a Corbynite right? So he belongs in the left corner
Fair point, if you are using HYUFD'S profiling data.
Erasmus? Pah, I can't believe it. I hope you had a great Christmas CHB. The fightback starts here, sadly I have lost the will!
Good to see how the deal is uniting this community., outside they are eating their leftovers getting pissed and wondering what to watch on Telly. Then they have to work out how to get the dozen illegal relatives out without the neighbors seeing them. The time for evaluation will come and as yet we don’t even know what defines success or failure.
It's as boring and dry as fuck. Legalese with lots of cross-references and dry technocratise.
No big surprises so far. It basically makes it illegal under international law for either the UK or EU to apply any customs duties, tarriffs or taxes to each other's products, which is pretty clear, and allows for spot checks on customs. I think once traders have adjusted to this we should be fine - it'll all be pretty free flowing.
I think short term visits by business travellers up to seven days (conferences, meetings etc) are fine too except for one or two member states. Annex in the back.
I might just skip to the governance and disputes section.
Part 7 - Final Provisions
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU. 180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such agreement. 181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
Yes, I know. I posted that on here from the executive summary HMQ published on Christmas Eve.
Philip in the left hand corner and HYUFD on the right!
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
I am not sure how you get Philip in the left corner? Perhaps you could use colours, Philip in the red corner...no that won't work either. Philip in the blue corner, HYUFD in the very, very blue corner.
Well Philip is a Corbynite right? So he belongs in the left corner
Fair point to if you are using HYUFD'S profiling data.
Erasmus? Pah, I can't believe it. I hope you had a great Christmas CHB. The fightback starts here, sadly I have lost the will!
It was good thank you Sir, hope the same for you.
I'm a Brexiteer now! Time to move onto other issues, the Tories have many flaws that need to be exposed before 2024. Let's concentrate on getting them out now
I'm honestly quite surprised by how well Frost and his team have done. The whole team deserve a lot of praise for what they've achieved. Getting Boris to speak to Ursula at the end to sideline Barnier for the final three issues was surely the best bit of politicking of the whole process.
This is hilarious
You do realise that "side-lining Barnier" also meant side-lining Frost, right?
That's not rain guys, BoZo really is pissing on you...
I'm honestly quite surprised by how well Frost and his team have done. The whole team deserve a lot of praise for what they've achieved. Getting Boris to speak to Ursula at the end to sideline Barnier for the final three issues was surely the best bit of politicking of the whole process.
This is hilarious
You do realise that "side-lining Barnier" also meant side-lining Frost, right?
That's not rain guys, BoZo really is pissing on you...
Perhaps a willing participant in the side-lining? After all, they are on the same negotiating team.
On Topic: Boris Johnson is a known serial liar. Why would anyone believe anything he says? He is a disingenuous duplicitous piece of shit! Quite simply, the worst PM this country has ever had.
Alternatively, he is this morning master of all he surveys. A very respectable deal with the EU, the first country in the world to approve and distribute a vaccine, an 80 seat majority and a very dull if worthy opponent who he is increasingly running rings around.
No doubt 2021 will bring new challenges and the efficiency of the vaccine distribution remains a very difficult challenge, but right now he looks like our most dominant PM since Blair was in his pomp wittering about the Peoples' Princess or some such junk.
Yes only 5 postwar PMs have won as big a majority as Boris has now, Attlee from 1945-1950, Macmillan after the 1959, Wilson from 1966 to 1970, Thatcher after 1983 and 1987 and Blair after 1997 and 2001
So a majority on a par with Eden. Of course that went well.
I think what seals this as a pretty good deal is how little remainer crowing there is about how Boris has capitulated or how the EU has smashed the UK or how the UK will never really be free etc...
That all the remainers can talk about is Erasmus and fish is quite telling as to the quality of this deal for the UK.
It's basically exactly what I envisioned a good deal would be a year ago after the election and talks started. I didn't think we'd get there because Barnier was still in charge, but to Frost's credit he clearly recognised where the deal needed to end up and what the roadblock was so created the conditions to get there by getting Barnier out of the room.
On Topic: Boris Johnson is a known serial liar. Why would anyone believe anything he says? He is a disingenuous duplicitous piece of shit! Quite simply, the worst PM this country has ever had.
Alternatively, he is this morning master of all he surveys. A very respectable deal with the EU, the first country in the world to approve and distribute a vaccine, an 80 seat majority and a very dull if worthy opponent who he is increasingly running rings around.
No doubt 2021 will bring new challenges and the efficiency of the vaccine distribution remains a very difficult challenge, but right now he looks like our most dominant PM since Blair was in his pomp wittering about the Peoples' Princess or some such junk.
Yes only 5 postwar PMs have won as big a majority as Boris has now, Attlee from 1945-1950, Macmillan after the 1959, Wilson from 1966 to 1970, Thatcher after 1983 and 1987 and Blair after 1997 and 2001
Still, that's 5/14, so hardly a huge achievement just on that metric.
What makes it better for Boris I think is the fragmentation of the UK political scene since the 90s, with nationalism in Scotland, Farage to his right and (don't laugh) a slightly more credible Liberal Party than say Macmillan had to deal with.
On the other hand, Gaitskell was more credible than Corbyn.
I logged on this morning and to be honest it was like a remainer's wake but I do accept that this Christmas has seen an end to their dreams.
To be honest we just need to move on, some will never do so, but I suspect the vast majority will be pleased it has been brought to a deal conclusion
Of course in all deals there are wins and losses but I fully expect Boris to embrace a very pro climate change pro sustainable farming policy and through climate change strike up a relationship with Joe Biden impossible with Trump
As far as Eramus is concerned my granddaughter was due to study in Italy in 2023 but I have little doubt the Turing replacement will provide opportunities not only within Europe but world wide
And as far as Boris is concerned his detractors and enemies may have to get used to him being PM for quite a long time
You'll probably get your "moving on" wish fulfilled in most sections of the Clapham Omnibus but far less so in committed, high octane places such as here.
Re your last sentence, 100% agree. Boris "80 seat" Johnson is going precisely nowhere. My biggest current political bet is on him still being PM on 1st July 2022. I'm on at an average 1.85 and I'm treating it mentally like money in the bank. You can get 1.72 or something now and I simply cannot recommend that bet enough. It's outstanding value. If you don't want to wait 18 months for the full return it will be layable back at 1.4 or less by Easter.
I agree and of course there will always be an element of those who cannot comprehend us being outside the EU but the vast majority will move on and some like myself breath a sigh of relief we have turned the page
As for Boris he has never been stronger in his party and he does seem to be rediscovering his mojo.
The climate conference is a huge world event here in Glasgow and he is the host, so I cannot imagine he will move on before that and indeed it is even possible he may contest the 2024 election
If he had been responsible for a no deal I believe he would not have lasted long into 2021
Well "moving on" from the wild and regular overestimation of the never more than 5% probability of a No Deal is something I do very much welcome. I need a new bugbear now though.
Has anyone properly congratulated on you for being right all along?
Hello, Alex. Thanks for mention. Yes, I think I've accrued as much kudos as I could reasonably have hoped. I'm happy.
Will put a bit of it back on the table now with a prediction that the Dems, contrary to what the odds are saying, will pull off the Georgia double.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you were wrong and I was right.
You were claiming that No Deal wasn't happening because the UK couldn't let it happen and so would sign EU terms and could have done so months ago.
I said if the UK stood firm then the EU wouldn't want No Deal because we hold the Aces.
On any impartial reading of the compromises the deal is far more what the UK was asking for months ago than what the EU was. So standing firm worked and you my friend were completely and utterly wrong.
There isn't a chance on earth this compromise could have been reached months ago.
I wouldn't normally do this to you, Philip, and apologies in advance, but on this occasion it simply has to be a rather contemptuous lol.
Here's my key bit of advice and I offer it in a benign and constructive spirit. You need to replace your "card game" mental image for the negotiation with one that is not so easy to visualize but has the benefit of being accurate.
Try to picture the following - "Two sets of macro political and economic interests coming together to arrive at broadly the inevitable outcome at pretty much the inevitable time given their genuine red lines and the known modus operandi of the EU and in particular this UK Prime Minister".
I suggested the "bucket draining through 2 holes into 2 bottles" one - which I still quite like - but I'm sure it can be improved upon.
Before the inevitable long discussion the two of you may want to consider the latest odds from noneoftheabovebet.
PT convinces K that he is wrong 100/1 K convinces PT that he is wrong 100/1
Neither side can be proved right or wrong. People are very predictably simply believing what they want to believe and there will be no changing views so it really doesn't matter. What will matter is how Brexit is perceived in general over the next few years. I fear and expect that Covid will give enough cover that the Brexit impact is not understood by much of the country, especially those emotionally invested in its success.
It won't be a long discussion, don't worry.
But no, there's a false equivalence here which I must firmly reject.
(a) "Boris" wrung a great deal out of the EU by playing hardball and going to the wire and making them truly believe he'd walk away to no deal and WTO terms.
(b) The deal was broadly as expected given the respective red lines. It went to the wire because these things tend to and the optics work domestically. No Deal was never realistically happening and both sides knew this.
One of the above views is "believing what one wants to believe".
The other one is as close to objective reality as something not 100% provable can be.
I'm prepared to move on from Brexit and have but this is an utterly crap, nasty, decision.
That very few people will have heard of never mind care about. As the detail emerges there will be plenty of utterly crap, nasty decisions to attack them on.
My starter for 10: subsidies. A lot of people directly or indirectly benefited from a lot of European subsidies - regions and farmers. I did enjoy seeing Vote Leave signs on roads paid for by the EU when touring the Outer Hebrides for example. Lewis residents may be OK in that the Scottish government will chuck money at them. In England? Too bad - the Tories will not be stumping up the cash you have just lost. They are suggesting they will find a replacement for regions and farmers but in practice very sorry but Covid, so we're replacing your previous Pound with 10p. What do you mean that isn't enough? Bloody peasants.
There is no such thing as European subsidies.
We paid the EU to give a tiny fraction of our own money back to us. If we want to pay for those roads we can do so directly - and Scotland has its own government that is free to do so.
Sigh. It was money we paid into a pot. Which it then chose to invest into poor places like the UK. We *could* invest in these things directly but we won't because Tories.
Then that is democracy.
If you want a different priority then how about winning an election?
I'm a LibDem. We aren't in it to win it.
Address the point. Our government will not be replacing the money invested into regions and sectors like farming. Your democratic vote bit would be fine were it not for people like HYUFD who wants to crush the Scots and anyone who isn't a White Anglican life-long Tory like he is.
What I am saying is that having voted to leave the EU people in regions will now witness the cash sucking out of their areas, scratch their heads and wonder what happened to the benefits they were promised. I don't think they will vote for Keith and his Labour Party. I don't think they will vote for the Tories who have massively led them down the garden path. I worry that they will look for more extreme solutions such as that offered by the Nigel is his Sink the Migrants Party.
I despise HYUFD and everything he represents. If the Tory Party was genuinely what HYUFD stands for I would join the Liberal Democrats immediately.
But HYUFD is HYUFD not the Party.
If cash is sucked out of the region's then I am glad we have First Past the Post - the region's should elect MPs to stand up for their region.
Under FPTP regions do elect MPs who stand up for their region. HYUFD then tells them to bugger off.
As he puts it, the only way paupers in the regions can have any cash is to elect a Tory MP.
HYUFD isn't an MP let alone 326 of then.
Whom each constituency matters more than a single Blue Corbynite from Epping Forest
HYUFD is a distraction. The reality is that if these poor places don't vote for a Tory MP then they will get Fuck All. And the poor places that DO vote for a Tory MP get thrown a much smaller amount of cash than required / previously had. Either way, the cash is gone.
The Tories have a real challenge - they need to cement themselves into Purple Wall seats and to deliver genuine long term benefits having left the EU. That will take an ocean of cash, they don't have an ocean of cash and even if they did they will give it to their mates rather than to regional proles.
Cash is a distraction too.
The reason the wall turned purple isn't throwing cash at it or even Brexit (it's been trending that way for a decade).
It is that Tory stewardship of the economy has helped the purple wall.
If you look at the share of people able to get their own home in the purple wall that has gone up over the past decade. After it went down under Labour.
If people are able to afford their own home they are more likely to vote for the Tory government. It is really as simple as that.
That doesn't require throwing cash at every problem. Just the right ones.
Nope, it's cash that is required - the fact is that while a lot of people own property round here that's because we can afford to buy - house prices for a good 3 bedroom house are £150,000 rather than the £300,000 elsewhere.
However we do need decent jobs and that requires infrastructure spending to bring in the investment which does mean a wall of money is required to make up for 30 years of underinvestment due to the biased tests favouring investment in London and the South rather than the midlands and the North.
Decent jobs are needed to pay for the £150k homes yes but the market is after a decade of Tory government providing more of them than it was when Labour lost power.
There's a reason home ownership has gone up under the Tories and went down under Labour and that is what is swinging constituencies like mine.
For the past decade houses have been constructed around here left, right and centre and that has kept a lid on house prices and seen people moving in and buying and settling down with their families. Which encourages Tory votes.
We don't need white elephants. We don't need surging house prices. We need the basics done right it is as simple as that. That is what is seeing the wall turn purple - the economy working better for the people who live here.
Hardly - the Tories cut things to the bone so an awful lot of Northern Councils are now Tory because the Tories won seats due to Labour councils being unable to offer any spending beyond the legally required minimum
Which was a great accidental gain for the Tories...
So our Christmas truce has passed and we're all back to arguing about Brexit.
What next? Scottish Independence?
The arguments about Brexit will go on ad infinitum amongst those who are really exercised by it, but the country at large can move on. Most of the general population neither knows nor cares about fishing rights or the Erasmus scheme. I anticipate teething problems at the border in the New Year, but once they're sorted out the issue will fade into the background.
Scottish independence is a different matter. That pantomime will keep playing on a continuous loop until the nationalists win one of their future referendums and get away. Victory in the second one is a strong possibility for them, but even if they lose again they're so well dug in that the argument will never go away. If indyref 2 goes down then the campaign for indyref 3 starts the following morning.
No it doesn't, Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in the second Quebec referendum in 1995 and 25 years later there has still not been a third as devomax for Quebec resolved the issue.
The SNP are going nowhere, and unless they're badly weakened (and, having taken over as the dominant centre-left party, there's no sign of that happening) then they'll be in Government, either continuously or at regular intervals, until the year dot. This is the product of a very large and entrenched fraction of the electorate that has made up its mind that it wants independence, and a fragmented collection of weak, unpopular and useless opposition parties.
This isn't going to be like Quebec (besides anything else, "devomax" - whatever that turns out to be - isn't on offer, and even that wouldn't stop the loud, continuous complaints of being hard done by.) The only way anyone on either side of the border is going to get any peace is when they go.
Wait a moment. The Quebec National Assembly has been continuously controlled by nationalists since the demise of the Union Nationale.
All the parties in Quebec National Assembly (including the Liberal party) are various shades of nationalists. Apart from in the West Montreal suburbs, you just would not get many votes in Quebec if you weren't some shade of nationalist.
Quebec has far more power than Scotland, and has been allowed to go its own way in Canada with a much more generous hand by the loose central Government (which has often had a Quebecois at its helm).
I remain to be convinced that the English electorate - or, at any rate, a large enough fraction of it to make a big difference - will tolerate either a Government propped up by Scots Nats MPs, or a Prime Minister representing a Scottish seat, ever again. Certainly if there's any danger of the Conservatives losing their majority come the next General Election then the SNP will be used as a stick with which to beat Keir Starmer. But time will tell.
I'm honestly quite surprised by how well Frost and his team have done. The whole team deserve a lot of praise for what they've achieved. Getting Boris to speak to Ursula at the end to sideline Barnier for the final three issues was surely the best bit of politicking of the whole process.
This is hilarious
You do realise that "side-lining Barnier" also meant side-lining Frost, right?
That's not rain guys, BoZo really is pissing on you...
Scott, the Brexiteers have won the war. It's over. The fightback to rejoin, probably not in my lifetime starts here.
I am loving the rewriting of very recent history to confirm Johnson's triumph on here, it is laughable. Some of the comments are so monstrous, one could write them on the side of a bus.
The experience of UK participants in Erasmus is said to have been extremely disappointing over recent years, and of course there is - as with free movement - an imbalance between EU speakers of English (many) and UK speakers of EU languages (some, but rarely more than one).
A global scheme (which does not exclude the EU, but simply is not limited to it) makes sense from both a practical perspective, and in terms of the cultural ideology of Brexit.
That was certainly not my daughter's experience only 2 years ago. I think, based upon the experience of her and her friends, that a year of study abroad mixing with other nationalities, is a very positive contribution to someone's education opening up their perspectives and understanding in a way that many more parochial Universities frankly struggle to match (those with a large international component are in a different category). A year in Groningen did more for her maturity than 3 years in halls in Edinburgh.
So I am sad that we are no longer in Erasmus which, as I pointed out down thread, has participating Universities around the world, not just in Europe. I would hope that the EU would have second thoughts about demanding silly money to take part. Failing that, I hope that the Turing scheme can effectively replace it and give our young adults those same opportunities.
This idea housing is swinging anyone younger to the Tories seems faulty, the Tories are performing absolutely terribly with anyone under 35, the age I would want home ownership to increase hugely if I were PM. That would bring in a lot of voters, IMHO.
On Topic: Boris Johnson is a known serial liar. Why would anyone believe anything he says? He is a disingenuous duplicitous piece of shit! Quite simply, the worst PM this country has ever had.
Alternatively, he is this morning master of all he surveys. A very respectable deal with the EU, the first country in the world to approve and distribute a vaccine, an 80 seat majority and a very dull if worthy opponent who he is increasingly running rings around.
No doubt 2021 will bring new challenges and the efficiency of the vaccine distribution remains a very difficult challenge, but right now he looks like our most dominant PM since Blair was in his pomp wittering about the Peoples' Princess or some such junk.
I’ll be interested to see how that comment fares over the next year.
I'm honestly quite surprised by how well Frost and his team have done. The whole team deserve a lot of praise for what they've achieved. Getting Boris to speak to Ursula at the end to sideline Barnier for the final three issues was surely the best bit of politicking of the whole process.
This is hilarious
You do realise that "side-lining Barnier" also meant side-lining Frost, right?
That's not rain guys, BoZo really is pissing on you...
Scott, the Brexiteers have won the war. It's over. The fightback to rejoin, probably not in my lifetime starts here.
I am loving the rewriting of very recent history to confirm Johnson's triumph on here, it is laughable. Some of the comments are so monstrous, one could write them on the side of a bus.
Over and out!
There is no fight to rejoin, it's over. We're out, rejoin is going to have the support of at most 10% of the electorate, it's time to find new issues to talk about and to find consensus elsewhere. Labour has a new opportunity now to do that.
I think the photograph posted on here this morning of Boris with a used nappy by his feet is a real low point for this site.
I think it's meant to be takeaway chips, but the point stands.
Some people just want a fight on Boxing Day...
Yeah, CR is always looking for a grievance to get on his high horse about.
You need to get over your obsession with me. And possibly do some work too since, for a highly specialised and "busy" NHS consultant, you seem to always be on here.
Merry Christmas x
Nah, I worked Christmas last year, so off this year. Its the way we work it in my dept.
You mean your department do the work, and you have the time off?
Stay as classy as you can Casino, you are sounding pretty pathetic and juvenile.
Says the man who posted a used nappy next to a man with his trousers round his ankles.
You need to boil another turnip for your boxing day dinner.
I'm starting to get very bored of the Brexit discussion on Twitter and many of these people I would have once been in agreement with. We've got to move on
Comments
Who does behaviour like that remind you of?
Indeed at the 1993 Canadian general election the Bloq Quebecois got 49% of the vote in Quebec and won 54 MPs and became the largest opposition party in Canada in the House of Commons. Even in 2019 the BQ still won 32 MPs in Quebec, only just behind the Liberals on 35.
Starmer is already moving towards devomax for Scotland and a Federal UK if he becomes PM
It occurs to me that it is profoundly un-Conservative and utterly disrespectful of the United Kingdom constitution (whatever that is) for someone to demand governance by plebiscites, sometimes dodgy and with a very limited shelf life, rather than democratically elected parliaments. IANAL, however, and would not want to speculate whether this qualified as "subversion" or even "treason".
All the parties in Quebec National Assembly (including the Liberal party) are various shades of nationalists. Apart from in the West Montreal suburbs, you just would not get many votes in Quebec if you weren't some shade of nationalist.
Quebec has far more power than Scotland, and has been allowed to go its own way in Canada with a much more generous hand by the loose central Government (which has often had a Quebecois at its helm).
179. It provides for a review of the agreement between the EU and the UK every five years. It also provides for the procedure to be followed if a new country accedes to the EU.
180. This agreement applies without prejudice to any previous bilateral
agreement between the UK and the EU. Both parties reaffirm their obligations
to implement any such agreement.
181. Either the UK or EU may decide to terminate the Agreement with 12 months’ notice.
So a review every five years.
My sister was saying this morning that exiting Erasmus will be a net gain for UK universities as the demand for the year abroad in the UK doesn't go away but now universities will be in charge of doing deals with other universities rather than being part of a scheme where the per student funding was too low.
She thinks the losers from this will be European universities who will now have to stump up a lot more cash to get their students a year in the UK at a respected institution.
The Swiss have already approached her university for a continuation of a scheme but they will get much more money per student than before.
If anyone has that much surplus energy, why not go closely read the thousand or so pages of the agreement, and write a thread header telling all why it’s great/crap ?
In any case my (almost) USP was specifically the insight - which it blooming well it was! - that No Deal was a Plan Z for the EU and just not an option at all for the UK under any PM bar a true Britnat headbanger. And both sides knew this. The No Deal hyping was for domestic consumption.
What surprised me what the extent it was swallowed by the betting (going No Deal 75% at one point) and on the Remain side of the commentariat. Leavers can be quite gullible, we know this, but bettors and Remainers are meant to be a bit more detached and rational.
I think there was a touch of "Boris Derangement Syndrome" going on with some of the Remainers. Conversely on the Leave side, believing that big bad Boris was "facing the EU down", there was the opposite. It was "Borisophilia" mixed up with inappropriate card game mental imagery.
TLDR if you don't include something to indicate a joke (
Amazing that so many were saying the UK would win on fish and nothing else, when it's the exact opposite. We've done well on everything except fish.
I'm probably more used than most to having my jokes taken a serious statements, but most people on here (with some notable exceptions) probably don't deal with quite as many teenagers as I do...
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
There is a reason that it was UvDL rather than Johnson that blinked and moved considerably more. Which wasn't possible under your hypothesis.
If you're struggling to understand my points as to why there's been excellent contributions from Mark, Max, David and CR explaining this well on this thread. Apologies if I forgot others.
No doubt 2021 will bring new challenges and the efficiency of the vaccine distribution remains a very difficult challenge, but right now he looks like our most dominant PM since Blair was in his pomp wittering about the Peoples' Princess or some such junk.
Oh, edited to add:
As opposed to an agreement that ultimately both were content with, but public pronouncements were for domestic audiences and negotiating stances.
You need to boil another turnip for your boxing day dinner.
A global scheme (which does not exclude the EU, but simply is not limited to it) makes sense from both a practical perspective, and in terms of the cultural ideology of Brexit.
Erasmus? Pah, I can't believe it. I hope you had a great Christmas CHB. The fightback starts here, sadly I have lost the will!
I'm a Brexiteer now! Time to move onto other issues, the Tories have many flaws that need to be exposed before 2024. Let's concentrate on getting them out now
You do realise that "side-lining Barnier" also meant side-lining Frost, right?
That's not rain guys, BoZo really is pissing on you...
That all the remainers can talk about is Erasmus and fish is quite telling as to the quality of this deal for the UK.
It's basically exactly what I envisioned a good deal would be a year ago after the election and talks started. I didn't think we'd get there because Barnier was still in charge, but to Frost's credit he clearly recognised where the deal needed to end up and what the roadblock was so created the conditions to get there by getting Barnier out of the room.
Anyway, got turkey sandwiches to eat!
What makes it better for Boris I think is the fragmentation of the UK political scene since the 90s, with nationalism in Scotland, Farage to his right and (don't laugh) a slightly more credible Liberal Party than say Macmillan had to deal with.
On the other hand, Gaitskell was more credible than Corbyn.
But no, there's a false equivalence here which I must firmly reject.
(a) "Boris" wrung a great deal out of the EU by playing hardball and going to the wire and making them truly believe he'd walk away to no deal and WTO terms.
(b) The deal was broadly as expected given the respective red lines. It went to the wire because these things tend to and the optics work domestically. No Deal was never realistically happening and both sides knew this.
One of the above views is "believing what one wants to believe".
The other one is as close to objective reality as something not 100% provable can be.
Which was a great accidental gain for the Tories...
I am loving the rewriting of very recent history to confirm Johnson's triumph on here, it is laughable. Some of the comments are so monstrous, one could write them on the side of a bus.
Over and out!
So I am sad that we are no longer in Erasmus which, as I pointed out down thread, has participating Universities around the world, not just in Europe. I would hope that the EU would have second thoughts about demanding silly money to take part. Failing that, I hope that the Turing scheme can effectively replace it and give our young adults those same opportunities.