I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
You were consistent throughout when all around were no dealing
- I was the Rudyard Kipling of PB in this regard, wasn't I, BigG? The Rudyard Kipling.
If we'd been part of the EU scheme, but also bought our own supply, surely we'd again be net contributors to an EU scheme. Will the same be true for Deutschland?
The big question is: has France bought its own supply?
DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting
The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.
What a combination
Not sure all of Labour will
And maybe not all the Tories.
Possibly but the indications are the ERG will vote for
I'll be interested to see the size of the Con vote against. I've heard 10 but I'll be surprised if it's that many. Even Farage is on board and that says a lot even if it turns out it's for a peerage or something. Johnson has pulled this off, I think, as regards the politics of it. He's da man right now. Best enjoy it because I sense the pandemic is about to get very nasty indeed.
To be honest I am not enjoying any of this either Brexit or covid
I am content that a deal has been agreed and seemingly our relationship with the EU has not been fractured as would have been the case in a no deal
The country needs to move on and improve the deal and of course the spotlight must now move to vaccinating the country as soon as possible
Yep. A sound and sensible take.
I have, though, gleaned from a few of your more animated posts of recent days that you are possibly working your way back to Boris, albeit perhaps not yet with a burning love inside?
I continue with my criticism of him on covid but on Brexit he is indisputably a winner
With the Oxford vaccine on the cusp of approval he does deserve great credit, even if it was a huge gamble
For Brexit and the vaccine he has earned his continuing tenure in no 10
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
I confess to being a tad skeptical that he has a resolute determination to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
But let's not quibble. I agree your main point. He's here for a while. My bet at 1.85 that he's still PM on 1st July 2021 is my current absolute favourite bet.
That’s a great bet to be holding now, assuming it pays out on 1st July.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
If anyone told him it was somehow “offensive”, he’d get quite rightly upset.
They should change “(E)mpire” to “(E)xcellence”, but only because the Empire no longer actually exists.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
How much do you actually earn as Crown Steward and Bailiff for the Chiltern Hundreds? Because the whole point is that you lose your right to be an MP as you are now the owner of an office of profit from the Crown.
The honours system is utterly wonderful. The fact that József Szájer - the Hungarian politician who was recently forced to flee a 25-man orgy in Brussels via a drainpipe while wearing nothing but a backpack full of drugs - could introduce himself to the arresting officers as a Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George makes the whole thing worthwhile.
This obsession with the EU’s vaccine rollout is like someone stalking their ex on Facebook.
The other day I saw one Brexiteer getting all excited about the EU being 400 million doses short of what they needed, not realising the Pfizer one needed two doses but others did not.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
If anyone told him it was somehow “offensive”, he’d get quite rightly upset.
They should change “(E)mpire” to “(E)xcellence”, but only because the Empire no longer actually exists.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
No charge. This one is flea.
Not more lousy punning?
It really seems to bug you, doesn’t it?
It's OK in limited doses, but I wish people wouldn't give themselves so much lice-nce.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I wonder about the optics thing. That may have been someone's intention at some point, and the Christmas Eve spin operation was a sight to behold. But there's another way of looking at it all.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
Ah no, I agree. 3 benefits. Relief of No Deal averted. Optics of battling to the wire for Britain. And this one you highlight, slip it in quick with the lights off (sorry).
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
If anyone told him it was somehow “offensive”, he’d get quite rightly upset.
They should change “(E)mpire” to “(E)xcellence”, but only because the Empire no longer actually exists.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
No charge. This one is flea.
Not more lousy punning?
It really seems to bug you, doesn’t it?
It's OK in limited doses, but I wish people wouldn't give themselves so much lice-nce.
How much do you actually earn as Crown Steward and Bailiff for the Chiltern Hundreds? Because the whole point is that you lose your right to be an MP as you are now the owner of an office of profit from the Crown.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
She absolutely has been faking it. Number of videos showing her doing it and a load of articles that all seem to report similar takes on false facts and have her giving answers to questions in interviews that somebody who wasn't claiming this would have them saying why are you asking me this.
Incredible that took so long for it to come out.
I've never heard of half the people involved in these scandals. Is it too late to become a high court judge?
Isn’t the high court judge thing a misunderstanding? I think Ian Hislop explained that they do the whole not knowing thing to get the details on 5he official court record, not because they don’t know who the person is.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting
The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.
What a combination
Not sure all of Labour will
And maybe not all the Tories.
Possibly but the indications are the ERG will vote for
I'll be interested to see the size of the Con vote against. I've heard 10 but I'll be surprised if it's that many. Even Farage is on board and that says a lot even if it turns out it's for a peerage or something. Johnson has pulled this off, I think, as regards the politics of it. He's da man right now. Best enjoy it because I sense the pandemic is about to get very nasty indeed.
To be honest I am not enjoying any of this either Brexit or covid
I am content that a deal has been agreed and seemingly our relationship with the EU has not been fractured as would have been the case in a no deal
The country needs to move on and improve the deal and of course the spotlight must now move to vaccinating the country as soon as possible
Yep. A sound and sensible take.
I have, though, gleaned from a few of your more animated posts of recent days that you are possibly working your way back to Boris, albeit perhaps not yet with a burning love inside?
I continue with my criticism of him on covid but on Brexit he is indisputably a winner
With the Oxford vaccine on the cusp of approval he does deserve great credit, even if it was a huge gamble
For Brexit and the vaccine he has earned his continuing tenure in no 10
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
I confess to being a tad skeptical that he has a resolute determination to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
But let's not quibble. I agree your main point. He's here for a while. My bet at 1.85 that he's still PM on 1st July 2021 is my current absolute favourite bet.
That’s a great bet to be holding now, assuming it pays out on 1st July.
Ha. I know! But I'm giving Betfair the benefit of assuming they won't go rogue again.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I wonder about the optics thing. That may have been someone's intention at some point, and the Christmas Eve spin operation was a sight to behold. But there's another way of looking at it all.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
Ah no, I agree. 3 benefits. Relief of No Deal averted. Optics of battling to the wire for Britain. And this one you highlight, slip it in quick with the lights off (sorry).
And we all know how keen Boris is to slip it in...
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
And of course it's still discrimination if it's based on where one lives. It might not be discrimination on a protected characteristic but it's still, vey clearly, anti-English discrimination.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I agree with that, that the deal could only be signed when the time ran out, whenever that was.
Though the No Deal hyping was positioning for negotiations rather than for a domestic audience. It was very much a Plan B for the UK but there was always likely a room for agreement which would make Plan B unnecessary.
I think No Deal hyping was for both.
Johnson needed to persuade the EU (which I think he broadly did) that he was willing to No Deal.
He also needed to persuade soft Eurosceptic MPs that he did literally everything he could to extract concessions out of the EU. Even if they'd offered exactly what was agreed three weeks ago, he probably couldn't have welcomed it, because he needed to show he went down to the wire.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
Though its odd that the Scottish Government chooses to not charge EU citizens their fees, but does charge English ones . . . when if a Scottish student goes to the EU then the arrangement is not reciprocal. Scottish students studying abroad can definitely face tuition fees.
So post-Brexit why should the Scottish Government continue to pay for the education of Europeans - given that Scots going to the continent face fees?
I could understand if the arrangement was based on reciprocity. Students from countries not charging Scottish students fees won't face fees - while those from countries that do charge fees have to pay up like the English.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
If anyone told him it was somehow “offensive”, he’d get quite rightly upset.
They should change “(E)mpire” to “(E)xcellence”, but only because the Empire no longer actually exists.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
How much do you actually earn as Crown Steward and Bailiff for the Chiltern Hundreds? Because the whole point is that you lose your right to be an MP as you are now the owner of an office of profit from the Crown.
Nothing
"The Chiltern Hundreds (of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham), and the Manor of Northstead, are nominally paid offices of the Crown. They do not carry any duties and no salary or other benefits attach to them."
Third worst? Does that include the real figure from China?
According to the official Chinese figures, not a single person has died of Covid-19 for about 7 months, in a country with a population of 1.3 billion.
It sounds dodgy, but I will say that our Chinese branch colleagues (who I regard as reliable) report life back to normal, with the exception that when a single case is reported the entire district is immediately locked down with nobody allowed in or out. I gather that the policy is popular, partly because the first outbreak was so grim. I don't know if we're getting the turth from more obscure provinces, but the cities do seem OK at the moment.
We talk a lot about how we'd never put up with that sort of policy, but I suspect that we would, for a while.
Australia did similar. Total lockdowns of cities. No-one let out of their houses for months.
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
Actually tackling Covid19 or State Aid in operation? 🤔
The SNP's goals here aren't the same as Labour, what do they care if England and Wales don't have a deal. The endgame for the SNP is dissolution of the union, followed by Scotland joining the EU. They have the least incentive of all to vote for the deal, along with Plaid. The deal does create divisions betwixt NI and rUK that would theoretically not be there if there was 'No deal'. So I'd fully expect DUP to vote against. There are good arguments for the SDLP to vote both for and against the deal, of course Sinn Fein will be abstaining !
Wales voted Leave though unlike Scotland so Plaid cannot ignore that
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
Current polling is irrelevant. The vote has happened, there is no referendum due.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
The referendum is even less relevant to future elections and future issues than current polling.
No it is not.
When people go to future elections they expect past votes to have been honoured. They do not expect four year old opinion polls to be honoured.
The previous poster had asserted that a four year old referendum was a reliable guide to current thinking. It is not. It is not reliable as a guide to how people will vote. (Though, as you say, the presence of an old referendum may affect how people vote, in that other sense.)
The previous poster is a fool who is obsessed with the idea that history will repeat itself in the way that suits his own agenda best.
That’s not quite fair, his military plans for Scotland and Spain are entirely novel,
How much do you actually earn as Crown Steward and Bailiff for the Chiltern Hundreds? Because the whole point is that you lose your right to be an MP as you are now the owner of an office of profit from the Crown.
From memory it was something like a few shillings a month or year, as the amount hadn’t changed in several centuries. It would definitely be better if they were paid a derisory sum, and actually had to be formally paid the pennies for their time in office.
The SNP's goals here aren't the same as Labour, what do they care if England and Wales don't have a deal. The endgame for the SNP is dissolution of the union, followed by Scotland joining the EU. They have the least incentive of all to vote for the deal, along with Plaid. The deal does create divisions betwixt NI and rUK that would theoretically not be there if there was 'No deal'. So I'd fully expect DUP to vote against. There are good arguments for the SDLP to vote both for and against the deal, of course Sinn Fein will be abstaining !
Wales voted Leave though unlike Scotland so Plaid cannot ignore that
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
Current polling is irrelevant. The vote has happened, there is no referendum due.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
The referendum is even less relevant to future elections and future issues than current polling.
No it is not.
When people go to future elections they expect past votes to have been honoured. They do not expect four year old opinion polls to be honoured.
The previous poster had asserted that a four year old referendum was a reliable guide to current thinking. It is not. It is not reliable as a guide to how people will vote. (Though, as you say, the presence of an old referendum may affect how people vote, in that other sense.)
The previous poster is a fool who is obsessed with the idea that history will repeat itself in the way that suits his own agenda best.
That’s not quite fair, his military plans for Scotland and Spain are entirely novel,
Nuking Madrid certainly is.
Everything else seems to come from bastardisations of history like Braveheart except he's backing the fictionalised English villains.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
I don't believe they would be able to, because membership of ERASMUS is via treaty, and as a subnational entity*, Scotland is not capable of signing a treaty.
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
I'd love it if we found out there was only ever one good vaccine produced, and everybody else produced it under their own preferred brand to encourage take up.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I wonder about the optics thing. That may have been someone's intention at some point, and the Christmas Eve spin operation was a sight to behold. But there's another way of looking at it all.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
Unless the Channel Tunnel is demolished and France pays rent for Calais, there is no deal that would satisfy Nigel Farage.
The SNP's goals here aren't the same as Labour, what do they care if England and Wales don't have a deal. The endgame for the SNP is dissolution of the union, followed by Scotland joining the EU. They have the least incentive of all to vote for the deal, along with Plaid. The deal does create divisions betwixt NI and rUK that would theoretically not be there if there was 'No deal'. So I'd fully expect DUP to vote against. There are good arguments for the SDLP to vote both for and against the deal, of course Sinn Fein will be abstaining !
Wales voted Leave though unlike Scotland so Plaid cannot ignore that
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
Current polling is irrelevant. The vote has happened, there is no referendum due.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
The referendum is even less relevant to future elections and future issues than current polling.
No it is not.
When people go to future elections they expect past votes to have been honoured. They do not expect four year old opinion polls to be honoured.
The previous poster had asserted that a four year old referendum was a reliable guide to current thinking. It is not. It is not reliable as a guide to how people will vote. (Though, as you say, the presence of an old referendum may affect how people vote, in that other sense.)
The previous poster is a fool who is obsessed with the idea that history will repeat itself in the way that suits his own agenda best.
That’s not quite fair, his military plans for Scotland and Spain are entirely novel,
Nuking Madrid certainly is.
Everything else seems to come from bastardisations of history like Braveheart except he's backing the fictionalised English villains.
Although I’m assuming Sturgeon wouldn’t skin him and use his skin as a belt, the way Wallace did Cressingham.
Third worst? Does that include the real figure from China?
According to the official Chinese figures, not a single person has died of Covid-19 for about 7 months, in a country with a population of 1.3 billion.
Given that the Chinese lock up journalists who say otherwise - and would probably also lock up anyone else reporting something different to the outside world - how reliable is such information?
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I agree with that, that the deal could only be signed when the time ran out, whenever that was.
Though the No Deal hyping was positioning for negotiations rather than for a domestic audience. It was very much a Plan B for the UK but there was always likely a room for agreement which would make Plan B unnecessary.
I think No Deal hyping was for both.
Johnson needed to persuade the EU (which I think he broadly did) that he was willing to No Deal.
He also needed to persuade soft Eurosceptic MPs that he did literally everything he could to extract concessions out of the EU. Even if they'd offered exactly what was agreed three weeks ago, he probably couldn't have welcomed it, because he needed to show he went down to the wire.
EU source in the very pro Johnson Tim Shipman piece -
"We knew Mrs May wouldn't No Deal but with Johnson there was maybe a 5 to 10% part of us which thought he just might."
Translates to they assessed it to be, at most, a very very very slim chance. Like me. Yet it went 75% in the betting and many of the commentariat were calling it as almost nailed on.
They were fooled but the EU was not. Neither was I.
DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting
The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.
What a combination
Not sure all of Labour will
And maybe not all the Tories.
Possibly but the indications are the ERG will vote for
I'll be interested to see the size of the Con vote against. I've heard 10 but I'll be surprised if it's that many. Even Farage is on board and that says a lot even if it turns out it's for a peerage or something. Johnson has pulled this off, I think, as regards the politics of it. He's da man right now. Best enjoy it because I sense the pandemic is about to get very nasty indeed.
To be honest I am not enjoying any of this either Brexit or covid
I am content that a deal has been agreed and seemingly our relationship with the EU has not been fractured as would have been the case in a no deal
The country needs to move on and improve the deal and of course the spotlight must now move to vaccinating the country as soon as possible
Yep. A sound and sensible take.
I have, though, gleaned from a few of your more animated posts of recent days that you are possibly working your way back to Boris, albeit perhaps not yet with a burning love inside?
I continue with my criticism of him on covid but on Brexit he is indisputably a winner
With the Oxford vaccine on the cusp of approval he does deserve great credit, even if it was a huge gamble
For Brexit and the vaccine he has earned his continuing tenure in no 10
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
I confess to being a tad skeptical that he has a resolute determination to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
But let's not quibble. I agree your main point. He's here for a while. My bet at 1.85 that he's still PM on 1st July 2021 is my current absolute favourite bet.
A pretty safe bet. Tory leaders don't resign.. Apart from getting someone to beat up his girlfriend -by no means impossible he has form-I's say you're home and dry.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
Why, why oh why won’t Scotland be more generous to English students than is England?
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
Though its odd that the Scottish Government chooses to not charge EU citizens their fees, but does charge English ones . . . when if a Scottish student goes to the EU then the arrangement is not reciprocal. Scottish students studying abroad can definitely face tuition fees.
So post-Brexit why should the Scottish Government continue to pay for the education of Europeans - given that Scots going to the continent face fees?
I could understand if the arrangement was based on reciprocity. Students from countries not charging Scottish students fees won't face fees - while those from countries that do charge fees have to pay up like the English.
It was that, if local students were allowed free tuition in Scotland, then students from all other EU nations must also be entitled to the same. The case of discrimination against English students was refused by the EU court, as being an internal U.K. matter.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
Why, why oh why won’t Scotland be more generous to English students than is England?
To make much needed money out of English students?
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
Why, why oh why won’t Scotland be more generous to English students than is England?
To make much needed money out of English students?
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
Actually tackling Covid19 or State Aid in operation? 🤔
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I wonder about the optics thing. That may have been someone's intention at some point, and the Christmas Eve spin operation was a sight to behold. But there's another way of looking at it all.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
Unless the Channel Tunnel is demolished and France pays rent for Calais, there is no deal that would satisfy Nigel Farage.
I thought that was going to be the case too but this is his pinned Tweet:
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I wonder about the optics thing. That may have been someone's intention at some point, and the Christmas Eve spin operation was a sight to behold. But there's another way of looking at it all.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
Unless the Channel Tunnel is demolished and France pays rent for Calais, there is no deal that would satisfy Nigel Farage.
I thought that was going to be the case too but this is his pinned Tweet:
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
Why, why oh why won’t Scotland be more generous to English students than is England?
To make much needed money out of English students?
Shocking, that’s England’s job!
If it's England's job, Scotland has definitely been moonlighting on the same ground!
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
I'd love it if we found out there was only ever one good vaccine produced, and everybody else produced it under their own preferred brand to encourage take up.
Well, the Moderna and Pfizer (one US, one German) vaccines show suspiciously similar results...
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
Though its odd that the Scottish Government chooses to not charge EU citizens their fees, but does charge English ones . . . when if a Scottish student goes to the EU then the arrangement is not reciprocal. Scottish students studying abroad can definitely face tuition fees.
So post-Brexit why should the Scottish Government continue to pay for the education of Europeans - given that Scots going to the continent face fees?
I could understand if the arrangement was based on reciprocity. Students from countries not charging Scottish students fees won't face fees - while those from countries that do charge fees have to pay up like the English.
It was that, if local students were allowed free tuition in Scotland, then students from all other EU nations must also be entitled to the same. The case of discrimination against English students was refused by the EU court, as being an internal U.K. matter.
Indeed but why continue with that post-Brexit?
Why should the Scottish government and universities be more generous to European students than European universities and governments are to their own students and Scottish students?
Post-Brexit the government is entitled to discriminate between EU nations so could say that free tuition would only continue on a reciprocal basis.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I wonder about the optics thing. That may have been someone's intention at some point, and the Christmas Eve spin operation was a sight to behold. But there's another way of looking at it all.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
Unless the Channel Tunnel is demolished and France pays rent for Calais, there is no deal that would satisfy Nigel Farage.
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
Only that I thought we were looking for E words! I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with C words too
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
Higher education is devolved.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?
It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).
Though its odd that the Scottish Government chooses to not charge EU citizens their fees, but does charge English ones . . . when if a Scottish student goes to the EU then the arrangement is not reciprocal. Scottish students studying abroad can definitely face tuition fees.
So post-Brexit why should the Scottish Government continue to pay for the education of Europeans - given that Scots going to the continent face fees?
I could understand if the arrangement was based on reciprocity. Students from countries not charging Scottish students fees won't face fees - while those from countries that do charge fees have to pay up like the English.
It was that, if local students were allowed free tuition in Scotland, then students from all other EU nations must also be entitled to the same. The case of discrimination against English students was refused by the EU court, as being an internal U.K. matter.
Indeed but why continue with that post-Brexit?
Why should the Scottish government and universities be more generous to European students than European universities and governments are to their own students and Scottish students?
Post-Brexit the government is entitled to discriminate between EU nations so could say that free tuition would only continue on a reciprocal basis.
Correct, EU universities are now entitled to charge U.K. students the ‘international’ rate.
It will be interesting to see how Scotland reacts. The obvious way is for them to keep free tuition for Scottish students while charging everyone else, which will be a huge Brexit benefit for both Scottish universities and the Scottish Treasury.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I agree with that, that the deal could only be signed when the time ran out, whenever that was.
Though the No Deal hyping was positioning for negotiations rather than for a domestic audience. It was very much a Plan B for the UK but there was always likely a room for agreement which would make Plan B unnecessary.
I think No Deal hyping was for both.
Johnson needed to persuade the EU (which I think he broadly did) that he was willing to No Deal.
He also needed to persuade soft Eurosceptic MPs that he did literally everything he could to extract concessions out of the EU. Even if they'd offered exactly what was agreed three weeks ago, he probably couldn't have welcomed it, because he needed to show he went down to the wire.
EU source in the very pro Johnson Tim Shipman piece -
"We knew Mrs May wouldn't No Deal but with Johnson there was maybe a 5 to 10% part of us which thought he just might."
Translates to they assessed it to be, at most, a very very very slim chance. Like me. Yet it went 75% in the betting and many of the commentariat were calling it as almost nailed on.
They were fooled but the EU was not. Neither was I.
A 5-10% chance is plenty when it comes to things like No Deal or a nuclear exchange. Tends to concentrate the mind.
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
It has not been the British Commonwealth since 1949! Changed to Commonwealth of Nations to make it clear all members equal. If we are going to update it, surely update it to be relevant for the next 100 years.
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
Only that I thought we were looking for E words! I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with C words too
Order of the Big Cocks?
Dominic Cummings physically ineligible and mentally nailed on...
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
Why can't they be discriminated against?
Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament, or in this instance the Scottish Parliament, wishes to discriminate then why can't it do so?
Whether it should is surely a different matter to whether it can?
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
Why can't they be discriminated against?
Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament, or in this instance the Scottish Parliament, wishes to discriminate then why can't it do so?
Whether it should is surely a different matter to whether it can?
We’re still signatories to the ECHR. That hasn’t changed. We would have to withdraw from that before deliberate discrimination would be allowed.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
Why can't they be discriminated against?
Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament, or in this instance the Scottish Parliament, wishes to discriminate then why can't it do so?
Whether it should is surely a different matter to whether it can?
If it were indirectly discriminating based on “protected characteristics” such as race, that would be illegal under the Human Rights Act.
I am not a lawyer, but can foresee a pile of legal challenges in Scotland if they keep free tuition for mostly white EU students, based on nationality, while not required to do so by EU law.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
It's very easy for the Scottish government to discriminate, if they so choose, using the same mechanism the UK government does in the allocation of points to potential immigrants. Simply, not all universities and educational institutions are rated equally.
I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.
I'd love it if we found out there was only ever one good vaccine produced, and everybody else produced it under their own preferred brand to encourage take up.
Well, the Moderna and Pfizer (one US, one German) vaccines show suspiciously similar results...
If it were true, that only one decent vaccine had been developed, would it be morally wrong for governments to collectively decide on the deception I suggested if it did result in higher vaccine take up?
What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.
It has not been the British Commonwealth since 1949! Changed to Commonwealth of Nations to make it clear all members equal. If we are going to update it, surely update it to be relevant for the next 100 years.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
Why can't they be discriminated against?
Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament, or in this instance the Scottish Parliament, wishes to discriminate then why can't it do so?
Whether it should is surely a different matter to whether it can?
Well, I guess I don't know the answer.
But, I think if the Scottish Government wants to offer free University tuition to ~ 5000 international students -- which I would strongly applaud for educational reasons -- then it makes sense to me to offer the scholarships on the grounds of merit or achievement.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
Why can't they be discriminated against?
Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament, or in this instance the Scottish Parliament, wishes to discriminate then why can't it do so?
Whether it should is surely a different matter to whether it can?
We’re still signatories to the ECHR. That hasn’t changed. We would have to withdraw from that before deliberate discrimination would be allowed.
We have deliberate discrimination quite often in laws.
Nigerians require a visa to come to the UK while Europeans don't. Namibians and Botswanians don't either for what its worth.
The whole point of trade deals like the UK/EU one just signed is to enable the countries to facilitate trade differently between each others nations than between other ones.
PS I don't think the Scottish government are direct signatories to the ECHR are they?
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I wonder about the optics thing. That may have been someone's intention at some point, and the Christmas Eve spin operation was a sight to behold. But there's another way of looking at it all.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
Unless the Channel Tunnel is demolished and France pays rent for Calais, there is no deal that would satisfy Nigel Farage.
I thought that was going to be the case too but this is his pinned Tweet:
It seems he'd rather claim victory now than betrayal.
Good for him.
He's not a stupid campaigner, and he knows he doesn't have much left to go on. The Covid blockade frightened people as an intimation of no-deal, and he may be wanting a better relationship with the Tories to start more fully promoting a deregulatory agenda from here on in. I expect some sort of libertarian front combining anti-lockdown feeling with rhetoric about escaping the LPF and 'finally crowning Brexit' will be next up, as his last used car for the lot.
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
Brexit is comfort zone territory for the Tories and problematic for Labour. It definitely should be the other way round, but that's the upside-down politics we live in.
Very glad that I bought all the stuff I know I will need from the EU for the foreseeable this autumn.
All this red tape rather reminds me of my childhood. Rather fun - in an ironic what goes around comes around sort of way - to see the Tories become the party of bureaucracy and form-filling.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They’ll no longer be *required* to offer free tuition to EU citizens, as was previously the case.
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Your point about treatment of a student from Nigeria -- as opposed to as student from Lithuania -- is an interesting one (which I confess had not occurred to me).
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
Why can't they be discriminated against?
Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament, or in this instance the Scottish Parliament, wishes to discriminate then why can't it do so?
Whether it should is surely a different matter to whether it can?
We’re still signatories to the ECHR. That hasn’t changed. We would have to withdraw from that before deliberate discrimination would be allowed.
And we can't do that under the Deal. If we do we lose all security co-operation for a start.
Go on, just for fun, explain the similarities there.
The line is self explanatory.
I am sorry, I can't understand it for you...
"Like BoZo, Trump signed a deal at the last possible moment."
That still means nothing to me. What deal that Trump has signed is anything like Johnson's deal (who I presume you childishly mean by BoZo?).
You really need a break from this.
I'm serious about this. If I ever read that Scott Petit has died by throwing himself off Big Ben dressed only in an EU flag, I'll regret not giving you better advice.
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
Brexit is comfort zone territory for the Tories and problematic for Labour. It definitely should be the other way round, but that's the upside-down politics we live in.
It's a mirror image of the 70s. I wonder if the Tories can pull off the same trick when the pendulum swings back to closer integration and they adopt a pro-EU position.
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating
Why? What did you do?
LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it
What talk of it being introduced?
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.
Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.
How do you figure?
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
There is a bunch of stuff that is in Japan and Canada Trade deals that aren't in the UK one, but which the UK should need, for example on Financial Services, short term work visas. Why not? Basically because Frost thought the EU would fold and it didn't.
Comments
Rollout will be key all over, it's very early days .
I wonder if some enterprising law student might find a way to argue that it’s racist to offer free tuition to people from Lithuania but not from Nigeria?
Sorrynotsorry.
https://twitter.com/jruss_jruss/status/1343650301027508226
Johnson needed to persuade the EU (which I think he broadly did) that he was willing to No Deal.
He also needed to persuade soft Eurosceptic MPs that he did literally everything he could to extract concessions out of the EU. Even if they'd offered exactly what was agreed three weeks ago, he probably couldn't have welcomed it, because he needed to show he went down to the wire.
It was likely COVID-19 or about 5,000 very active serial killers.
So post-Brexit why should the Scottish Government continue to pay for the education of Europeans - given that Scots going to the continent face fees?
I could understand if the arrangement was based on reciprocity. Students from countries not charging Scottish students fees won't face fees - while those from countries that do charge fees have to pay up like the English.
"The Chiltern Hundreds (of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham), and the Manor of Northstead, are nominally paid offices of the Crown. They do not carry any duties and no salary or other benefits attach to them."
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2016-01-13/22439
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/chiltern-hundreds/
From memory it was something like a few shillings a month or year, as the amount hadn’t changed in several centuries. It would definitely be better if they were paid a derisory sum, and actually had to be formally paid the pennies for their time in office.
Everything else seems to come from bastardisations of history like Braveheart except he's backing the fictionalised English villains.
* Currently...
"We knew Mrs May wouldn't No Deal but with Johnson there was maybe a 5 to 10% part of us which thought he just might."
Translates to they assessed it to be, at most, a very very very slim chance. Like me. Yet it went 75% in the betting and many of the commentariat were calling it as almost nailed on.
They were fooled but the EU was not. Neither was I.
I thought the Tories had gained 20 points!
Or don't, if you can't find a tweet explaining it for you.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1342056303661879297
It seems he'd rather claim victory now than betrayal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390
I am sorry, I can't understand it for you...
Why should the Scottish government and universities be more generous to European students than European universities and governments are to their own students and Scottish students?
Post-Brexit the government is entitled to discriminate between EU nations so could say that free tuition would only continue on a reciprocal basis.
I don't know the answer, but it looks as though they both have to be treated equally now.
There seem to be ~ 20,000 EU students in Scottish Universities (data from 2017), so ~ 5,000 a year (as most Scottish degrees are 4 year long).
Presumably, the Scottish Government could continue to offer ~ 5000 free tuition scholarships annually to international students, based solely on merit.
It is a great idea. It looks as though they can afford it (as it is just a continuation of what they do now).
But, I am not sure that they could now restrict these scholarships to just EU students.
Any lawyers able to comment? Perhaps I have misunderstood the legalities ?
It will be interesting to see how Scotland reacts. The obvious way is for them to keep free tuition for Scottish students while charging everyone else, which will be a huge Brexit benefit for both Scottish universities and the Scottish Treasury.
https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1343530488443641856?s=20
I'd be happy for it to be termed a confidence vote and for anyone who votes against to face the same fate as Grieve, Clarke etc
Dominic Cummings physically ineligible and mentally nailed on...
That still means nothing to me. What deal that Trump has signed is anything like Johnson's deal (who I presume you childishly mean by BoZo?).
You really need a break from this.
Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament, or in this instance the Scottish Parliament, wishes to discriminate then why can't it do so?
Whether it should is surely a different matter to whether it can?
I am not a lawyer, but can foresee a pile of legal challenges in Scotland if they keep free tuition for mostly white EU students, based on nationality, while not required to do so by EU law.
Problem solved.
Also can be considered Order of the Brown Nose.
But, I think if the Scottish Government wants to offer free University tuition to ~ 5000 international students -- which I would strongly applaud for educational reasons -- then it makes sense to me to offer the scholarships on the grounds of merit or achievement.
Nigerians require a visa to come to the UK while Europeans don't. Namibians and Botswanians don't either for what its worth.
The whole point of trade deals like the UK/EU one just signed is to enable the countries to facilitate trade differently between each others nations than between other ones.
PS I don't think the Scottish government are direct signatories to the ECHR are they?
All this red tape rather reminds me of my childhood. Rather fun - in an ironic what goes around comes around sort of way - to see the Tories become the party of bureaucracy and form-filling.
The EU have moved much more than the UK have.
You're the first person I've seen bring it up.