So how many Germans know that dolphins aren't fish then?
So long and thanks for all the fish is the message the dolphins left when they evacuated earth....cf Douglas Adams
Also, some dolphins are fish (teleosts, not secondarily aquatic mammals).
Indeed. I was taken to a restaurant in Miami many years ago now by some American lawyers. I was eating a fish which was delicious. I asked what it was and was told dolphin. I considered seeking political asylum rather than face my daughters back home but I was assured it wasn't that kind of dolphin. Whew.
It's an Irish site, so there's no particular British political angle. I found it an interesting read.
You might not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with some of that but I have consistently said that the deal (before there was one) is a starting point, not an end point. The key for us is to have access for our financial services by the end of March (which is the target date). If we don't get it I think we seriously have to wonder how much this deal is actually in our interests given the massive trade imbalances.
Where I think that the piece gets it wrong is that it is somewhat parochial, it seems to work on the assumption that the EU is the rest of the world for us. It isn't and its share of our trade will decline, possibly quite sharply. How sharply will depend on how they behave.
I'm friends with a former Vote Leave staffers, they both privately admitted if that if the public knew back in 2016 that this would be the deal, Remain would have won. Compare the rhetoric of Vote Leave in 2016 with the reality of the deal.
This deal is likely as good as it gets for the financial services sector, I think you're likely to see an acceleration of movements of out of the UK and domiciling the trades into the EU, which is is going to well and truly screw Rishi Sunak's plans.
I think H1 2021 will be the reverse of the big bang of 1986. The only question left is in which EU country they domicile the trades in.
What a load of rubbish.
The financial services sector voted Remain mainly anyway, as did London.
However this Canada style deal is exactly what Leave voting regions from the Midlands to Wales, to the North and East and SouthWest of England were voting for. It avoids tariffs on goods, ends free movement, ends ECJ jurisdiction and regains sovereignty and enables us to do our own trade deals and reclaims some UK waters for UK fishermen.
If the financial sector finds it has not got its own way for once for most Leavers the response will be simple, tough.
Indeed after the referendum a Canada style Deal was the most popular form of Brexit, backed by 50% of voters to just 24% opposed
And that's a perfectly ok position for Leavers to take provided they are willing to pay the taxes the financial sector previously paid. Or to go without the services those taxes paid for if they aren't.
You wouldn't want us thinking that they are in "cake and eat it" mode now, would you.
I think this year will be quite brutal in terms of Corporation tax, as the first shutdown will show in the returns from the end of this month.
My own company return goes in in January, with a tax bill half of last year with 10/12 months were pre lockdown. It will be near zero the following year. Personal tax receipts will only show a major drop in Jan 22.
The combination of Sunak's spending spree, covid impact on receipts and Brexit is going to make a massive hole in government finances. There ain't going to be much going on in the Red Wall apart from austerity.
While there will certainly be many negatives yet to work their way through the system it is important to distinguish between temporarily drops (which realistically are going to be borrowed and never repaid except via Quantitative Easing) and permanent ones which hit the structural deficit that will need to be eliminated in the post-pandemic boom.
Temporary disruptions like this one will occur but won't be structural. They will hit our debt figures and may lead to further QE before this is over - but they're not structural. It is structural changes that are far more damning.
People always like to claim the deficit isn't structural, especially when it is.
The structural changes in the economy due to covid and Brexit will lead to a structural deficit.
Oh absolutely there will be a structural deficit that will need fixing but what that is won't be clear until we're back to normal.
Your own company having a "near zero" Corporation Tax bill - is that going to be temporary or permanent?
The structural deficit will take years to fix, but lets not pretend that every element of the deficit currently is structural, leave that nonsense for the likes of contrarian.
I went an dug around in the ONS numbers - it turns out that the the hospitalisation rates they are using *are* based on the percentage of that age group in the population. So when they say 137.2 per 100k hospitalisation rate for over 85s - that means 137.2 per 100 thousand people over the age of 85....
I used 2019 census data to create this
Age Deaths Hospitalisations Number 85 years and over 41.75% 23.20% 1,647,271 75 to 84 years 32.82% 25.75% 4,040,624 65 to 74 years 15.14% 17.91% 6,687,066 45 to 64 years 9.24% 21.74% 17,224,230 15 to 44 years 1.03% 9.84% 25,236,635 1 to 14 years 0.01% 1.50% 11,238,100 Under 1 year 0.00% 0.05% 722,881
Dont understand what does 41.75% deaths mean? and 23.2% Hospitalisations mean??
I understand that 15-44 year olds are 1.03% of deaths, but 9.84% of admissions.
Yes - the idea is to work out the proportion of deaths and hospitalisations for each group.
Have any of these virtue signallers actually said what they would have negotiated into the deal to make it better? More fish? More potatoes? Something to do with Brie?
Or are they actually No Dealers, equating No Deal with being anti-globalisation?
At least it will give them something to boast about at their next dinner party.
Single market and customs union would be a big improvement. I bet Brexit was dreamt up at a dinner party in Islington. Or a private dining room in Mayfair. One of the two.
That is a case to put forward. But they're not.
They still seem to think that they are voting Remain. Which is nonsense.
The question they need to answer is what version of Leave they would like to see. Otherwise they lack credibility. The same applies to the LibDems and others planning to vote against. (But not the SNP since they have a different agenda.)
What is the point of arguing for a different type of Brexit at this point? I think it is legitimate to vote against this deal if you think it is a crap deal and if your constituents didn't vote for Brexit in the first place, eg London or Scottish MPs. I think Labour should abstain personally. A bad deal is better than no deal but once you vote for it you lose some of your ability to prosper as its badness manifests itself to the electorate. And it will pass whatever you do, so you aren't voting for no deal if you abstain or even vote against.
Afternoon. I did. Galloway’s response is hilariously and predictably ‘don’t you know who I am?!’ Queen of the South must be thinking long and hard now GG has said he’s going to turn them into a world brand.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
A Dumfries voter has gone to the Electoral Commission after he received a letter from Tory Oliver Mundell inviting him to complete a postal vote application form and return it to his office – rather than the Electoral Registration Officer.
I went an dug around in the ONS numbers - it turns out that the the hospitalisation rates they are using *are* based on the percentage of that age group in the population. So when they say 137.2 per 100k hospitalisation rate for over 85s - that means 137.2 per 100 thousand people over the age of 85....
I used 2019 census data to create this
Age Deaths Hospitalisations Number 85 years and over 41.75% 23.20% 1,647,271 75 to 84 years 32.82% 25.75% 4,040,624 65 to 74 years 15.14% 17.91% 6,687,066 45 to 64 years 9.24% 21.74% 17,224,230 15 to 44 years 1.03% 9.84% 25,236,635 1 to 14 years 0.01% 1.50% 11,238,100 Under 1 year 0.00% 0.05% 722,881
Dont understand what does 41.75% deaths mean? and 23.2% Hospitalisations mean??
I understand that 15-44 year olds are 1.03% of deaths, but 9.84% of admissions.
I see so over 85s represent 2.47% of Population but 23.2% of hospitalisations and 41.75% of deaths
A Dumfries voter has gone to the Electoral Commission after he received a letter from Tory Oliver Mundell inviting him to complete a postal vote application form and return it to his office – rather than the Electoral Registration Officer.
What I love about Scottish politics is how nasty every party is to its opponents,
I went an dug around in the ONS numbers - it turns out that the the hospitalisation rates they are using *are* based on the percentage of that age group in the population. So when they say 137.2 per 100k hospitalisation rate for over 85s - that means 137.2 per 100 thousand people over the age of 85....
I used 2019 census data to create this
Age Deaths Hospitalisations Number 85 years and over 41.75% 23.20% 1,647,271 75 to 84 years 32.82% 25.75% 4,040,624 65 to 74 years 15.14% 17.91% 6,687,066 45 to 64 years 9.24% 21.74% 17,224,230 15 to 44 years 1.03% 9.84% 25,236,635 1 to 14 years 0.01% 1.50% 11,238,100 Under 1 year 0.00% 0.05% 722,881
Dont understand what does 41.75% deaths mean? and 23.2% Hospitalisations mean??
I understand that 15-44 year olds are 1.03% of deaths, but 9.84% of admissions.
I see so over 85s represent 2.47% of Population but 23.2% of hospitalisations and 41.75% of deaths
So circa 30k of 1.647m over 85's dead (1.8%)
So vaccinating the over 75s should stop three quarters of deaths and half of hospitalisations, all else being equal.
Vaccinating the over 65s should stop over 90% of deaths and more than two-thirds of hospitalisations.
It will take the 45s plus being vaccinated to remove 90% of hospitalisations and 99% of deaths.
It's an Irish site, so there's no particular British political angle. I found it an interesting read.
You might not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with some of that but I have consistently said that the deal (before there was one) is a starting point, not an end point. The key for us is to have access for our financial services by the end of March (which is the target date). If we don't get it I think we seriously have to wonder how much this deal is actually in our interests given the massive trade imbalances.
Where I think that the piece gets it wrong is that it is somewhat parochial, it seems to work on the assumption that the EU is the rest of the world for us. It isn't and its share of our trade will decline, possibly quite sharply. How sharply will depend on how they behave.
I'm friends with a former Vote Leave staffers, they both privately admitted if that if the public knew back in 2016 that this would be the deal, Remain would have won. Compare the rhetoric of Vote Leave in 2016 with the reality of the deal.
This deal is likely as good as it gets for the financial services sector, I think you're likely to see an acceleration of movements of out of the UK and domiciling the trades into the EU, which is is going to well and truly screw Rishi Sunak's plans.
I think H1 2021 will be the reverse of the big bang of 1986. The only question left is in which EU country they domicile the trades in.
What a load of rubbish.
The financial services sector voted Remain mainly anyway, as did London.
However this Canada style deal is exactly what Leave voting regions from the Midlands to Wales, to the North and East and SouthWest of England were voting for. It avoids tariffs on goods, ends free movement, ends ECJ jurisdiction and regains sovereignty and enables us to do our own trade deals and reclaims some UK waters for UK fishermen.
If the financial sector finds it has not got its own way for once for most Leavers the response will be simple, tough.
Indeed after the referendum a Canada style Deal was the most popular form of Brexit, backed by 50% of voters to just 24% opposed
And that's a perfectly ok position for Leavers to take provided they are willing to pay the taxes the financial sector previously paid. Or to go without the services those taxes paid for if they aren't.
You wouldn't want us thinking that they are in "cake and eat it" mode now, would you.
I think this year will be quite brutal in terms of Corporation tax, as the first shutdown will show in the returns from the end of this month.
My own company return goes in in January, with a tax bill half of last year with 10/12 months were pre lockdown. It will be near zero the following year. Personal tax receipts will only show a major drop in Jan 22.
The combination of Sunak's spending spree, covid impact on receipts and Brexit is going to make a massive hole in government finances. There ain't going to be much going on in the Red Wall apart from austerity.
While there will certainly be many negatives yet to work their way through the system it is important to distinguish between temporarily drops (which realistically are going to be borrowed and never repaid except via Quantitative Easing) and permanent ones which hit the structural deficit that will need to be eliminated in the post-pandemic boom.
Temporary disruptions like this one will occur but won't be structural. They will hit our debt figures and may lead to further QE before this is over - but they're not structural. It is structural changes that are far more damning.
People always like to claim the deficit isn't structural, especially when it is.
The structural changes in the economy due to covid and Brexit will lead to a structural deficit.
Oh absolutely there will be a structural deficit that will need fixing but what that is won't be clear until we're back to normal.
Your own company having a "near zero" Corporation Tax bill - is that going to be temporary or permanent?
The structural deficit will take years to fix, but lets not pretend that every element of the deficit currently is structural, leave that nonsense for the likes of contrarian.
Near Zero for fin year 20-21, as expenses will exceed earnings due to the nationalisation of the private hospitals. After that is less certain, but I plan to put the Company into voluntary liquidation at the end of 2022.
It's an Irish site, so there's no particular British political angle. I found it an interesting read.
You might not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with some of that but I have consistently said that the deal (before there was one) is a starting point, not an end point. The key for us is to have access for our financial services by the end of March (which is the target date). If we don't get it I think we seriously have to wonder how much this deal is actually in our interests given the massive trade imbalances.
Where I think that the piece gets it wrong is that it is somewhat parochial, it seems to work on the assumption that the EU is the rest of the world for us. It isn't and its share of our trade will decline, possibly quite sharply. How sharply will depend on how they behave.
I'm friends with a former Vote Leave staffers, they both privately admitted if that if the public knew back in 2016 that this would be the deal, Remain would have won. Compare the rhetoric of Vote Leave in 2016 with the reality of the deal.
This deal is likely as good as it gets for the financial services sector, I think you're likely to see an acceleration of movements of out of the UK and domiciling the trades into the EU, which is is going to well and truly screw Rishi Sunak's plans.
I think H1 2021 will be the reverse of the big bang of 1986. The only question left is in which EU country they domicile the trades in.
What a load of rubbish.
The financial services sector voted Remain mainly anyway, as did London.
However this Canada style deal is exactly what Leave voting regions from the Midlands to Wales, to the North and East and SouthWest of England were voting for. It avoids tariffs on goods, ends free movement, ends ECJ jurisdiction and regains sovereignty and enables us to do our own trade deals and reclaims some UK waters for UK fishermen.
If the financial sector finds it has not got its own way for once for most Leavers the response will be simple, tough.
Indeed after the referendum a Canada style Deal was the most popular form of Brexit, backed by 50% of voters to just 24% opposed
And that's a perfectly ok position for Leavers to take provided they are willing to pay the taxes the financial sector previously paid. Or to go without the services those taxes paid for if they aren't.
You wouldn't want us thinking that they are in "cake and eat it" mode now, would you.
I think this year will be quite brutal in terms of Corporation tax, as the first shutdown will show in the returns from the end of this month.
My own company return goes in in January, with a tax bill half of last year with 10/12 months were pre lockdown. It will be near zero the following year. Personal tax receipts will only show a major drop in Jan 22.
The combination of Sunak's spending spree, covid impact on receipts and Brexit is going to make a massive hole in government finances. There ain't going to be much going on in the Red Wall apart from austerity.
Given the impact Brexit is going to have on the finance industry (see other posts today) I wouldn't be worried about it.
While Boris did promise to level up the UK as the economy overall sinks it's possible to argue that if the North /Red wall regions sink less / slower than areas that were are currently wealthy due to Financial services Boris will have levelled up the UK without spending a penny.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
It's an Irish site, so there's no particular British political angle. I found it an interesting read.
You might not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with some of that but I have consistently said that the deal (before there was one) is a starting point, not an end point. The key for us is to have access for our financial services by the end of March (which is the target date). If we don't get it I think we seriously have to wonder how much this deal is actually in our interests given the massive trade imbalances.
Where I think that the piece gets it wrong is that it is somewhat parochial, it seems to work on the assumption that the EU is the rest of the world for us. It isn't and its share of our trade will decline, possibly quite sharply. How sharply will depend on how they behave.
I'm friends with a former Vote Leave staffers, they both privately admitted if that if the public knew back in 2016 that this would be the deal, Remain would have won. Compare the rhetoric of Vote Leave in 2016 with the reality of the deal.
This deal is likely as good as it gets for the financial services sector, I think you're likely to see an acceleration of movements of out of the UK and domiciling the trades into the EU, which is is going to well and truly screw Rishi Sunak's plans.
I think H1 2021 will be the reverse of the big bang of 1986. The only question left is in which EU country they domicile the trades in.
What a load of rubbish.
The financial services sector voted Remain mainly anyway, as did London.
However this Canada style deal is exactly what Leave voting regions from the Midlands to Wales, to the North and East and SouthWest of England were voting for. It avoids tariffs on goods, ends free movement, ends ECJ jurisdiction and regains sovereignty and enables us to do our own trade deals and reclaims some UK waters for UK fishermen.
If the financial sector finds it has not got its own way for once for most Leavers the response will be simple, tough.
Indeed after the referendum a Canada style Deal was the most popular form of Brexit, backed by 50% of voters to just 24% opposed
And that's a perfectly ok position for Leavers to take provided they are willing to pay the taxes the financial sector previously paid. Or to go without the services those taxes paid for if they aren't.
You wouldn't want us thinking that they are in "cake and eat it" mode now, would you.
I think this year will be quite brutal in terms of Corporation tax, as the first shutdown will show in the returns from the end of this month.
My own company return goes in in January, with a tax bill half of last year with 10/12 months were pre lockdown. It will be near zero the following year. Personal tax receipts will only show a major drop in Jan 22.
The combination of Sunak's spending spree, covid impact on receipts and Brexit is going to make a massive hole in government finances. There ain't going to be much going on in the Red Wall apart from austerity.
While there will certainly be many negatives yet to work their way through the system it is important to distinguish between temporarily drops (which realistically are going to be borrowed and never repaid except via Quantitative Easing) and permanent ones which hit the structural deficit that will need to be eliminated in the post-pandemic boom.
Temporary disruptions like this one will occur but won't be structural. They will hit our debt figures and may lead to further QE before this is over - but they're not structural. It is structural changes that are far more damning.
People always like to claim the deficit isn't structural, especially when it is.
The structural changes in the economy due to covid and Brexit will lead to a structural deficit.
Oh absolutely there will be a structural deficit that will need fixing but what that is won't be clear until we're back to normal.
Your own company having a "near zero" Corporation Tax bill - is that going to be temporary or permanent?
The structural deficit will take years to fix, but lets not pretend that every element of the deficit currently is structural, leave that nonsense for the likes of contrarian.
Near Zero for fin year 20-21, as expenses will exceed earnings due to the nationalisation of the private hospitals. After that is less certain, but I plan to put the Company into voluntary liquidation at the end of 2022.
Is that because of your own personal circumstances or because there's no space in the market for what you were doing anymore?
Ie would someone else realistically have an alternative company doing what you were doing? Or will that be gone?
So this story comes into the same kind of category as the one about the EU and bendy bananas which was invented by a well-known British joutnalist working on a reputable British newspaper. Except that this time it is the British who are on the receiving end of the fun and games. What japes, eh?
A Dumfries voter has gone to the Electoral Commission after he received a letter from Tory Oliver Mundell inviting him to complete a postal vote application form and return it to his office – rather than the Electoral Registration Officer.
What I love about Scottish politics is how nasty every party is to its opponents,
I could see all the above being plausible, except 11, which should read, “The West’s response will be non-existant."
China is either No1 in the world, or about to be. And it isn't No.1 in a Great Power situation with No2, 3, 4 etc close behind. The US is behind. After that, there is basically no one.
China can do what it likes. No one will stop it I'm afraid to say.
China has c 20% of the worlds population (although rather less as a % gdp).
It is always going to be a significant player. Whether it is global #1 depends on whether it has global ambitions (not convinced), a divided and distracted west (at present) and a stable political system.
I have always hoped that as Chinese people got richer they would demand more freedom, but I’ve not been proved right so far. I think the “Chinese model” is the latest test of liberal principles. I hope we are strong enough to fight for what we believe in
It's an Irish site, so there's no particular British political angle. I found it an interesting read.
You might not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with some of that but I have consistently said that the deal (before there was one) is a starting point, not an end point. The key for us is to have access for our financial services by the end of March (which is the target date). If we don't get it I think we seriously have to wonder how much this deal is actually in our interests given the massive trade imbalances.
Where I think that the piece gets it wrong is that it is somewhat parochial, it seems to work on the assumption that the EU is the rest of the world for us. It isn't and its share of our trade will decline, possibly quite sharply. How sharply will depend on how they behave.
I'm friends with a former Vote Leave staffers, they both privately admitted if that if the public knew back in 2016 that this would be the deal, Remain would have won. Compare the rhetoric of Vote Leave in 2016 with the reality of the deal.
This deal is likely as good as it gets for the financial services sector, I think you're likely to see an acceleration of movements of out of the UK and domiciling the trades into the EU, which is is going to well and truly screw Rishi Sunak's plans.
I think H1 2021 will be the reverse of the big bang of 1986. The only question left is in which EU country they domicile the trades in.
What a load of rubbish.
The financial services sector voted Remain mainly anyway, as did London.
However this Canada style deal is exactly what Leave voting regions from the Midlands to Wales, to the North and East and SouthWest of England were voting for. It avoids tariffs on goods, ends free movement, ends ECJ jurisdiction and regains sovereignty and enables us to do our own trade deals and reclaims some UK waters for UK fishermen.
If the financial sector finds it has not got its own way for once for most Leavers the response will be simple, tough.
Indeed after the referendum a Canada style Deal was the most popular form of Brexit, backed by 50% of voters to just 24% opposed
And that's a perfectly ok position for Leavers to take provided they are willing to pay the taxes the financial sector previously paid. Or to go without the services those taxes paid for if they aren't.
You wouldn't want us thinking that they are in "cake and eat it" mode now, would you.
I think this year will be quite brutal in terms of Corporation tax, as the first shutdown will show in the returns from the end of this month.
My own company return goes in in January, with a tax bill half of last year with 10/12 months were pre lockdown. It will be near zero the following year. Personal tax receipts will only show a major drop in Jan 22.
The combination of Sunak's spending spree, covid impact on receipts and Brexit is going to make a massive hole in government finances. There ain't going to be much going on in the Red Wall apart from austerity.
Given the impact Brexit is going to have on the finance industry (see other posts today) I wouldn't be worried about it.
While Boris did promise to level up the UK as the economy overall sinks it's possible to argue that if the North /Red wall regions sink less / slower than areas that were formerly wealthy due to Financial services Boris will have levelled up the UK without spending a penny.
Like the claim that the EU will only be 30% of our overall trade in 5 years time. You can hit that target without increasing ROW trade by £1.
I went an dug around in the ONS numbers - it turns out that the the hospitalisation rates they are using *are* based on the percentage of that age group in the population. So when they say 137.2 per 100k hospitalisation rate for over 85s - that means 137.2 per 100 thousand people over the age of 85....
I used 2019 census data to create this
Age Deaths Hospitalisations Number 85 years and over 41.75% 23.20% 1,647,271 75 to 84 years 32.82% 25.75% 4,040,624 65 to 74 years 15.14% 17.91% 6,687,066 45 to 64 years 9.24% 21.74% 17,224,230 15 to 44 years 1.03% 9.84% 25,236,635 1 to 14 years 0.01% 1.50% 11,238,100 Under 1 year 0.00% 0.05% 722,881
Dont understand what does 41.75% deaths mean? and 23.2% Hospitalisations mean??
I understand that 15-44 year olds are 1.03% of deaths, but 9.84% of admissions.
I see so over 85s represent 2.47% of Population but 23.2% of hospitalisations and 41.75% of deaths
So circa 30k of 1.647m over 85's dead (1.8%)
Yes, though not sure if out of hospital deaths count in the figures.
The other aspect is that the age structure of the population is not even across the country, so London will have a lower proportion of deaths to admissions than a place with similar prevalence but older population.
I went an dug around in the ONS numbers - it turns out that the the hospitalisation rates they are using *are* based on the percentage of that age group in the population. So when they say 137.2 per 100k hospitalisation rate for over 85s - that means 137.2 per 100 thousand people over the age of 85....
I used 2019 census data to create this
Age Deaths Hospitalisations Number 85 years and over 41.75% 23.20% 1,647,271 75 to 84 years 32.82% 25.75% 4,040,624 65 to 74 years 15.14% 17.91% 6,687,066 45 to 64 years 9.24% 21.74% 17,224,230 15 to 44 years 1.03% 9.84% 25,236,635 1 to 14 years 0.01% 1.50% 11,238,100 Under 1 year 0.00% 0.05% 722,881
Assuming that “number” is population can you add a % of population column as well?
I could see all the above being plausible, except 11, which should read, “The West’s response will be non-existant."
China is either No1 in the world, or about to be. And it isn't No.1 in a Great Power situation with No2, 3, 4 etc close behind. The US is behind. After that, there is basically no one.
China can do what it likes. No one will stop it I'm afraid to say.
China has c 20% of the worlds population (although rather less as a % gdp).
It is always going to be a significant player. Whether it is global #1 depends on whether it has global ambitions (not convinced), a divided and distracted west (at present) and a stable political system.
I have always hoped that as Chinese people got richer they would demand more freedom, but I’ve not been proved right so far. I think the “Chinese model” is the latest test of liberal principles. I hope we are strong enough to fight for what we believe in
In related news...
China has escalated its campaign to rein in the vast tech empire controlled by Jack Ma, the co-founder of Alibaba and one of the country’s richest people.
Authorities in Beijing, who had on Christmas Eve ordered an investigation into allegations of “monopolistic practices” by Ma’s online retail giant, have now ordered his financial technology company Ant Group to scale back its operations.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
Sounds like you'd be happier with no deal than I would be or am falsely accused of supporting then.
I still believe in free trade and think it is a good thing to be expanding that globally not just in Europe.
The EU didn't have a fully fleshed out professional services single market in the first place anyway.
Ultimately I think how the UK manages its own laws and its own economy will influence our future prosperity far more than whether we do or do not have a trade deal or not.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The blame for Brexit was the idiotic remain campaign and highlighted by Obama's back of the queue comment
For me the highlight was the 'warning' that wages would rise if we voted to leave.
Closely followed by the claim that Brexit would lead to the collapse of western civilisation.
I predicted temporary wage rises in the case of Brexit due to labour shortages. Temporary because there is indeed no such thing as a Lump of Labour. I am not sure I got that prediction right. Have there rises in real wages?
PS Your second claim is something of a straw man, I feel.
Given the amount losing their jobs it would seem strange that wages would need to rise given the amount of slack in the system.
It's an Irish site, so there's no particular British political angle. I found it an interesting read.
You might not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with some of that but I have consistently said that the deal (before there was one) is a starting point, not an end point. The key for us is to have access for our financial services by the end of March (which is the target date). If we don't get it I think we seriously have to wonder how much this deal is actually in our interests given the massive trade imbalances.
Where I think that the piece gets it wrong is that it is somewhat parochial, it seems to work on the assumption that the EU is the rest of the world for us. It isn't and its share of our trade will decline, possibly quite sharply. How sharply will depend on how they behave.
I'm friends with a former Vote Leave staffers, they both privately admitted if that if the public knew back in 2016 that this would be the deal, Remain would have won. Compare the rhetoric of Vote Leave in 2016 with the reality of the deal.
This deal is likely as good as it gets for the financial services sector, I think you're likely to see an acceleration of movements of out of the UK and domiciling the trades into the EU, which is is going to well and truly screw Rishi Sunak's plans.
I think H1 2021 will be the reverse of the big bang of 1986. The only question left is in which EU country they domicile the trades in.
What a load of rubbish.
The financial services sector voted Remain mainly anyway, as did London.
However this Canada style deal is exactly what Leave voting regions from the Midlands to Wales, to the North and East and SouthWest of England were voting for. It avoids tariffs on goods, ends free movement, ends ECJ jurisdiction and regains sovereignty and enables us to do our own trade deals and reclaims some UK waters for UK fishermen.
If the financial sector finds it has not got its own way for once for most Leavers the response will be simple, tough.
Indeed after the referendum a Canada style Deal was the most popular form of Brexit, backed by 50% of voters to just 24% opposed
And that's a perfectly ok position for Leavers to take provided they are willing to pay the taxes the financial sector previously paid. Or to go without the services those taxes paid for if they aren't.
You wouldn't want us thinking that they are in "cake and eat it" mode now, would you.
I think this year will be quite brutal in terms of Corporation tax, as the first shutdown will show in the returns from the end of this month.
My own company return goes in in January, with a tax bill half of last year with 10/12 months were pre lockdown. It will be near zero the following year. Personal tax receipts will only show a major drop in Jan 22.
The combination of Sunak's spending spree, covid impact on receipts and Brexit is going to make a massive hole in government finances. There ain't going to be much going on in the Red Wall apart from austerity.
Given the impact Brexit is going to have on the finance industry (see other posts today) I wouldn't be worried about it.
While Boris did promise to level up the UK as the economy overall sinks it's possible to argue that if the North /Red wall regions sink less / slower than areas that were formerly wealthy due to Financial services Boris will have levelled up the UK without spending a penny.
Like the claim that the EU will only be 30% of our overall trade in 5 years time. You can hit that target without increasing ROW trade by £1.
Indeed, it really is not obvious that losing such a great share of our trade with the EU will help us elsewhere. Why does losing one customer help gain another?
Our entire media swallowing an account leaving out the twin aspects of 1 - What they did was an option they were offered and 2 - Numbers inflated by about 1000%.
Our entire media swallowing an account leaving out the twin aspects of 1 - What they did was an option they were offered and 2 - Numbers inflated by about 1000%.
Not the first time.
The problem with the modern media is that they all follow each other on social media and pressure on pumping out x new articles an hour for their website, so when somebody breaks a story, they all rush to copy and pasta it without real checks or balances.
We see it time and time again e.g. the FT report on how much had been spent on Operation Moonshot. They "misread" a load of tender documents, pumped out a story, and within a couple of hours it was "FACT" as reported by every media outlet that the government had spent 6 trillion quid on rapid testing.
Outrageous lies by the Food and Drink Federation. Sticking all those reds against customs. Scandallous. We need to get rid of these experts with their facts and instead commission the Institute of Government to write a report.
Our entire media swallowing an account leaving out the twin aspects of 1 - What they did was an option they were offered and 2 - Numbers inflated by about 1000%.
Not the first time.
If a story hits our own prejudices, we instinctively believe it, far more often than we should.
Hence Trumpism. As a society we need to do much much better on this.
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Indeed, it really is not obvious that losing such a great share of our trade with the EU will help us elsewhere. Why does losing one customer help gain another?
I've heard about it in the past from someone who misunderstood how much water they needed to drink a day. It's very possible to "drown" from drinking too much
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
Sounds like you'd be happier with no deal than I would be or am falsely accused of supporting then.
I still believe in free trade and think it is a good thing to be expanding that globally not just in Europe.
The EU didn't have a fully fleshed out professional services single market in the first place anyway.
Ultimately I think how the UK manages its own laws and its own economy will influence our future prosperity far more than whether we do or do not have a trade deal or not.
I never believed it would be the disaster that many claimed but I accept that given where we got to and the chronic lack of preparation a deal is necessary at this point to limit disruption at a time of economic chaos.
I am concerned about the LPF provisions and whether these are going to tie our hands in seeking to address this horrific structural deficit in our trade. Will we be unable to provide seed capital for growing industries for example? Have we committed ourselves to an EU level of bureaucracy and regulation which makes it harder to compete for international investment?
So, if I was in Parliament I would vote for Boris's deal but I would be looking for a plan that is going to address these weaknesses in our economy and allow us to pay our way in the world, ideally with a growing standard of living. That, ultimately, is going to require a different sort of relationship with the EU than this deal offers.
It's an Irish site, so there's no particular British political angle. I found it an interesting read.
You might not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with some of that but I have consistently said that the deal (before there was one) is a starting point, not an end point. The key for us is to have access for our financial services by the end of March (which is the target date). If we don't get it I think we seriously have to wonder how much this deal is actually in our interests given the massive trade imbalances.
Where I think that the piece gets it wrong is that it is somewhat parochial, it seems to work on the assumption that the EU is the rest of the world for us. It isn't and its share of our trade will decline, possibly quite sharply. How sharply will depend on how they behave.
I'm friends with a former Vote Leave staffers, they both privately admitted if that if the public knew back in 2016 that this would be the deal, Remain would have won. Compare the rhetoric of Vote Leave in 2016 with the reality of the deal.
This deal is likely as good as it gets for the financial services sector, I think you're likely to see an acceleration of movements of out of the UK and domiciling the trades into the EU, which is is going to well and truly screw Rishi Sunak's plans.
I think H1 2021 will be the reverse of the big bang of 1986. The only question left is in which EU country they domicile the trades in.
What a load of rubbish.
The financial services sector voted Remain mainly anyway, as did London.
However this Canada style deal is exactly what Leave voting regions from the Midlands to Wales, to the North and East and SouthWest of England were voting for. It avoids tariffs on goods, ends free movement, ends ECJ jurisdiction and regains sovereignty and enables us to do our own trade deals and reclaims some UK waters for UK fishermen.
If the financial sector finds it has not got its own way for once for most Leavers the response will be simple, tough.
Indeed after the referendum a Canada style Deal was the most popular form of Brexit, backed by 50% of voters to just 24% opposed
And that's a perfectly ok position for Leavers to take provided they are willing to pay the taxes the financial sector previously paid. Or to go without the services those taxes paid for if they aren't.
You wouldn't want us thinking that they are in "cake and eat it" mode now, would you.
I think this year will be quite brutal in terms of Corporation tax, as the first shutdown will show in the returns from the end of this month.
My own company return goes in in January, with a tax bill half of last year with 10/12 months were pre lockdown. It will be near zero the following year. Personal tax receipts will only show a major drop in Jan 22.
The combination of Sunak's spending spree, covid impact on receipts and Brexit is going to make a massive hole in government finances. There ain't going to be much going on in the Red Wall apart from austerity.
While there will certainly be many negatives yet to work their way through the system it is important to distinguish between temporarily drops (which realistically are going to be borrowed and never repaid except via Quantitative Easing) and permanent ones which hit the structural deficit that will need to be eliminated in the post-pandemic boom.
Temporary disruptions like this one will occur but won't be structural. They will hit our debt figures and may lead to further QE before this is over - but they're not structural. It is structural changes that are far more damning.
People always like to claim the deficit isn't structural, especially when it is.
The structural changes in the economy due to covid and Brexit will lead to a structural deficit.
Oh absolutely there will be a structural deficit that will need fixing but what that is won't be clear until we're back to normal.
Your own company having a "near zero" Corporation Tax bill - is that going to be temporary or permanent?
The structural deficit will take years to fix, but lets not pretend that every element of the deficit currently is structural, leave that nonsense for the likes of contrarian.
Near Zero for fin year 20-21, as expenses will exceed earnings due to the nationalisation of the private hospitals. After that is less certain, but I plan to put the Company into voluntary liquidation at the end of 2022.
Is that because of your own personal circumstances or because there's no space in the market for what you were doing anymore?
Ie would someone else realistically have an alternative company doing what you were doing? Or will that be gone?
A mixture of reasons, but private practice is no longer financially attractive. There is a certain momentum to it in normal times, but having lost that momentum, I don't think it worth the effort to restart. Will someone else takeover? Possibly, but they will have start up costs which are quite a barrier to market entry.
So this story comes into the same kind of category as the one about the EU and bendy bananas which was invented by a well-known British joutnalist working on a reputable British newspaper. Except that this time it is the British who are on the receiving end of the fun and games. What japes, eh?
It may also be relevant that going on skiing holidays in a pandemic is a rather more serious matter than whether bananas are bent or straight.
Our entire media swallowing an account leaving out the twin aspects of 1 - What they did was an option they were offered and 2 - Numbers inflated by about 1000%.
Not the first time.
The problem with the modern media is that they all follow each other on social media and pressure on pumping out x new articles an hour for their website, so when somebody breaks a story, they all rush to copy and pasta it without real checks or balances.
We see it time and time again e.g. the FT report on how much had been spent on Operation Moonshot. They "misread" a load of tender documents, pumped out a story, and within a couple of hours it was "FACT" as reported by every media outlet that the government had spent 6 trillion quid on rapid testing.
Another example is the story concerning the military and testing in schools - 0.05 soldiers per school etc. What is actually happening is that the military is providing logistics and coaching for the testing. The coaching will be generally online. This is what they did for the Manchester mass testing.
The problem is that with the pressure to pump out stories, there is little of no interest in asking "Why is that number strange?"
Indeed, it really is not obvious that losing such a great share of our trade with the EU will help us elsewhere. Why does losing one customer help gain another?
Our entire media swallowing an account leaving out the twin aspects of 1 - What they did was an option they were offered and 2 - Numbers inflated by about 1000%.
Not the first time.
The problem with the modern media is that they all follow each other on social media and pressure on pumping out x new articles an hour for their website, so when somebody breaks a story, they all rush to copy and pasta it without real checks or balances.
We see it time and time again e.g. the FT report on how much had been spent on Operation Moonshot. They "misread" a load of tender documents, pumped out a story, and within a couple of hours it was "FACT" as reported by every media outlet that the government had spent 6 trillion quid on rapid testing.
For modern media you could also say the same about pb posters......
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
I would be looking for a plan that is going to address these weaknesses in our economy and allow us to pay our way in the world, ideally with a growing standard of living. That, ultimately, is going to require a different sort of relationship with the EU than this deal offers.
As Thatcher knew, that would look a lot more like membership
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
Sounds like you'd be happier with no deal than I would be or am falsely accused of supporting then.
I still believe in free trade and think it is a good thing to be expanding that globally not just in Europe.
The EU didn't have a fully fleshed out professional services single market in the first place anyway.
Ultimately I think how the UK manages its own laws and its own economy will influence our future prosperity far more than whether we do or do not have a trade deal or not.
I never believed it would be the disaster that many claimed but I accept that given where we got to and the chronic lack of preparation a deal is necessary at this point to limit disruption at a time of economic chaos.
I am concerned about the LPF provisions and whether these are going to tie our hands in seeking to address this horrific structural deficit in our trade. Will we be unable to provide seed capital for growing industries for example? Have we committed ourselves to an EU level of bureaucracy and regulation which makes it harder to compete for international investment?
So, if I was in Parliament I would vote for Boris's deal but I would be looking for a plan that is going to address these weaknesses in our economy and allow us to pay our way in the world, ideally with a growing standard of living. That, ultimately, is going to require a different sort of relationship with the EU than this deal offers.
Interesting todays Yougov daily is showing that by 63% to 12% people think parliament should approve the deal, but only 18% think it a good deal, and 32%, think it a bad deal.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
And this deal makes this worse because it benefits those in the EU selling goods to us but does little or nothing for those here selling services to the EU. It will reinforce exactly the structural imbalance you are so concerned about.
Our entire media swallowing an account leaving out the twin aspects of 1 - What they did was an option they were offered and 2 - Numbers inflated by about 1000%.
Not the first time.
The problem with the modern media is that they all follow each other on social media and pressure on pumping out x new articles an hour for their website, so when somebody breaks a story, they all rush to copy and pasta it without real checks or balances.
We see it time and time again e.g. the FT report on how much had been spent on Operation Moonshot. They "misread" a load of tender documents, pumped out a story, and within a couple of hours it was "FACT" as reported by every media outlet that the government had spent 6 trillion quid on rapid testing.
For modern media you could also say the same about pb posters......
I don't know, bullshit doesn't last long on contact with PB. Hence why we know the ski story is BS, the FT story is BS, that the early reporting of COVID stats was BS.
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
Given that social security and Family Credit are not devolved and that Scotish income tax favours the less well paid, I think you need to look more to the UK government than the Scottish one (which, for instance, is mitigating the bedroom tax).
Thing is some of these things should be in place anyway whether we are in or out of the EU. The heat treatment of pallets and wooden packaging to remove pests is something we should insist on for all packaging arriving in the UK no matter where it comes from given the ever greater risk of pests getting into the country which can have severe consequences for our trees.
I completely agree. Once the pests are in the trees it is very difficult to get rid of them. I was driving past Euston the other day and the HS2 protestors are *still* there
I would be looking for a plan that is going to address these weaknesses in our economy and allow us to pay our way in the world, ideally with a growing standard of living. That, ultimately, is going to require a different sort of relationship with the EU than this deal offers.
As Thatcher knew, that would look a lot more like membership
Well it didn't work did it? 40 years and we had not learned how to use the rules to compete. Sometimes we didn't even seem to understand what the point of the rules were. What other country would allow their manufacturing base for offshore wind to be wiped out and the profits of construction to go abroad? The naivety of our leadership and civil service is just painful. A total lack of business sense.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
Indeed, it really is not obvious that losing such a great share of our trade with the EU will help us elsewhere. Why does losing one customer help gain another?
To answer "what the fuck did he think would happen" perhaps he listened to the PM who assured everyone during the campaign that we absolutely would retain barrier free access to the single market.
I have yet to hear any Brexiteer - even happy clappy ones like Philip - make a case why strangling British Business with Red Tape is now a Good Thing. Yes we can trade with the non-EU but we could do that anyway...
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
Given that social security and Family Credit are not devolved and that Scotish income tax favours the less well paid, I think you need to look more to the UK government than the Scottish one (which, for instance, is mitigating the bedroom tax).
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
In that case, the question is why your lot (a) wanted so much red tape and (b) couldn't care a brass monkey's about the financial sector. I don't work in the latter but it does seem very odd to me.
"Keir Starmer is facing a high-profile rebellion against Labour’s Brexit position on the eve of the vote in parliament, as prominent MPs including John McDonnell and Clive Lewis accused him of “falling into the trap of rallying around this rotten deal”.
Labour is likely to contain a major rebellion of frontbench MPs but an increasing number of prominent supporters are urging Starmer to change course. Backbenchers have also raised concerns on private WhatsApp groups that Labour’s endorsement for the deal has been given without the legislation being published.
Those who signed the Labour statement urging Starmer not to support the deal come from across the political spectrum, including the former shadow chancellor McDonnell and Ben Bradshaw, a former cabinet minister who is a staunch supporter of Starmer.
“This deal is a substantial downgrade of the UK’s relationship with the EU,” the statement warns, “and is designed to open the door to rampant economic deregulation – a loss of rights and protections for workers, the environment, food standards and many other areas of life.”
The danger for Starmer is that he starts to look like a one man band. What's more his critics are making a better case for voting against than he is for voting for. My feeling is that Labour should always aim for the high ground however futile. Particularly in opposition. Take a lead from the late Charlie Kennedy.
Yes. Kennedy led the LibDems in opposition to the Iraq war. Why? The Commons was going to support the war thanks both to Labour's huge majority and the Tories also in support. Yet he stood up what what the party believed was right.
Its the same thing with the DUP, SNP, LDs, Green opposition to the Treaty. It will pass. But they cannot support it because of the harm that they perceive it will do to their constituents.
This is Labour's current folly. They are Nicola Murray about to announce that Labour will back the government cutting school feeding because its time that Labour listened to its voters who want Tough Decisions. It will backfire and backfire badly. Punters in Labour seats held and lost want "brexit". As Brexit smashes into them they will say "hang on this isn't the Brexit we voted for" and then look for someone to blame.
Electorally its a zero-sum game. The Tories will patronise them, sneer at them and then blame them (as HYUFD is already doing). But as Labour also supported it switching support to them becomes all that more difficult. The winners will be fringe lunatics like Corbyn and Farage, and frankly apathy as people just stop voting.
Labour abstaining is weak , weak , weak , and lays them open to being open to same blame as the Tories for the mess that will ensue. When will they ever get some principles and vote the way they really think rather than what they think focus groups want.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
And this deal makes this worse because it benefits those in the EU selling goods to us but does little or nothing for those here selling services to the EU. It will reinforce exactly the structural imbalance you are so concerned about.
That is my main reservation. If we don't get access for our service industries we should give notice of our intention to withdraw from this deal.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
Delusional. We did not get what the economy needs, as even Boris has admitted. And even the fishing industry is unhappy.
A Dumfries voter has gone to the Electoral Commission after he received a letter from Tory Oliver Mundell inviting him to complete a postal vote application form and return it to his office – rather than the Electoral Registration Officer.
What I love about Scottish politics is how nasty every party is to its opponents,
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
Delusional. We did not get what the economy needs, as even Boris has admitted. And even the fishing industry is unhappy.
The fishing industry is unhappy.
And the finance industry has to create European subsidiaries just to keep going.
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
Given that social security and Family Credit are not devolved and that Scotish income tax favours the less well paid, I think you need to look more to the UK government than the Scottish one (which, for instance, is mitigating the bedroom tax).
Indeed, it really is not obvious that losing such a great share of our trade with the EU will help us elsewhere. Why does losing one customer help gain another?
To answer "what the fuck did he think would happen" perhaps he listened to the PM who assured everyone during the campaign that we absolutely would retain barrier free access to the single market.
I have yet to hear any Brexiteer - even happy clappy ones like Philip - make a case why strangling British Business with Red Tape is now a Good Thing. Yes we can trade with the non-EU but we could do that anyway...
Because the red tape with the EU now is relatively trivial - and is what in your own word "we could do that anyway..." with the rest of the world that makes up the majority of our trade already.
What we can negotiate with the rest of the world is far more meaningful than what we have with the EU which is a minority and shrinking of our trade already.
How we control our own laws and what we negotiate with the rest of the world > a bit of red tape with a tiny minority of global GDP.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
Delusional. We did not get what the economy needs, as even Boris has admitted. And even the fishing industry is unhappy.
We did not get what the City of London needs but that would have required staying in the single market.
However we got what most of the rest of the economy needed with no tariffs for exports of goods to the EU, more trade deals outside Europe negotiated by the brilliant Liz Truss, we have reclaimed some fishing catch and also ensured Leave voters got no more free movement and reclaimed sovereignty from the EU as they voted for.
What this Deal might lead to is seats like Cities of London and Westminster, Chipping Barnet, Kensington, Esher and Walton and Chingford and Wokingham being more at risk of being lost at the next general election by the Tories than Red Wall seats like Grimsby, Bishop Auckland, Bolsover, Sedgefield, Vale of Clwyd and West Bromwich. Its biggest impact will again be to see the Tories become less of a Southern Party while London becomes a near Tory free zone
That is your Tories for you, nasty to the bitter end. Now Ireland is giving charity to them , quite a different response and they being the injured party in the past, showing their class.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
Delusional. We did not get what the economy needs, as even Boris has admitted. And even the fishing industry is unhappy.
You're delusional.
The fishing industry got better than nothing but were a pawn that were played to get the French away from everything else that matters much, much more. Your obsession over fishing when we got the LPF compromises we wanted etc is quite revealing.
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
Given that social security and Family Credit are not devolved and that Scotish income tax favours the less well paid, I think you need to look more to the UK government than the Scottish one (which, for instance, is mitigating the bedroom tax).
What has the bedroom tax got to do with child poverty. The bedroom "tax" is an incentive to move from 3/4 bedroom houses to something of a more suitable size when the children have left.
I think it's really very simple: once we have 6 to 10 million of the most vulnerable people vaccinated, then we can start to see restrictions relaxed. (Not removed, relaxed.)
Concerns about vaccine distribution are mostly bunkum. Sticking a needle in someone's arm is not rocket science. And while the Pfizer vaccine is very picky about its temperature for long term storage (which is still not that big a deal), that problem doesn't really exist for the other vaccines.
If we have them, and they work, they will be used. Availability - not distribution - is the issue.
The big issue is that right now, we maybe have 300,000 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech available per week. And its a 'dual shot' vaccine.
My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that there are 20 million doses of AZN/Oxford in the UK. If true, that will make a massive difference to getting normality back.
Could the other firms not make more of the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine under license? If so, govts should band together and make it clear this has to happen or facilities will be requisitioned to make it happen regardless.
GMP manufacturing of biologicals is not easy. Tech transfer would be difficult. It can be find but would take time to do that and then to qualify the sites. It’s why everyone started manufacturing at risk
Tech transfer wouldn't be that difficult - with the full cooperation of the company in question. I think that is the real reason it isn't happening - Moderna and Biontech are not about to give away their manufacturing secrets.
I don’t know the RNA technology intimately but I’ve seen coronavirus vaccine tech transfers take 4 years and still go wrong. Admittedly they were trying to transfer a canarypox master seed bank at the same time, but still 😂
I went an dug around in the ONS numbers - it turns out that the the hospitalisation rates they are using *are* based on the percentage of that age group in the population. So when they say 137.2 per 100k hospitalisation rate for over 85s - that means 137.2 per 100 thousand people over the age of 85....
I used 2019 census data to create this
Age Deaths Hospitalisations Number 85 years and over 41.75% 23.20% 1,647,271 75 to 84 years 32.82% 25.75% 4,040,624 65 to 74 years 15.14% 17.91% 6,687,066 45 to 64 years 9.24% 21.74% 17,224,230 15 to 44 years 1.03% 9.84% 25,236,635 1 to 14 years 0.01% 1.50% 11,238,100 Under 1 year 0.00% 0.05% 722,881
Assuming that “number” is population can you add a % of population column as well?
How about
| Age | Deaths | Hospitalisations | Percent of Population | | 85+ | 41.75% | 23.20% | 2.47% | | 75 to 84 | 32.82% | 25.75% | 6.05% | | 65 to 74 | 15.14% | 17.91% | 10.01% | | 45 to 64 | 9.24% | 21.74% | 25.79% | | 15 to 44 | 1.03% | 9.84% | 37.78% | | 1 to 14 | 0.01% | 1.50% | 16.82% | | Under 1 | 0.00% | 0.05% | 1.08% |
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
And this deal makes this worse because it benefits those in the EU selling goods to us but does little or nothing for those here selling services to the EU. It will reinforce exactly the structural imbalance you are so concerned about.
That is my main reservation. If we don't get access for our service industries we should give notice of our intention to withdraw from this deal.
That's an option. We can serve 12 months notice to do so if it comes to it.
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
Given that social security and Family Credit are not devolved and that Scotish income tax favours the less well paid, I think you need to look more to the UK government than the Scottish one (which, for instance, is mitigating the bedroom tax).
‘it happened despite their policies on FSM.’
London runs Scotland and controls the budgets, shame on the greedy barstewards, I hope they get their just desserts. Noted that you ignore that it is reserved powers to London as usual.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
And this deal makes this worse because it benefits those in the EU selling goods to us but does little or nothing for those here selling services to the EU. It will reinforce exactly the structural imbalance you are so concerned about.
That is my main reservation. If we don't get access for our service industries we should give notice of our intention to withdraw from this deal.
Brexit negotiations are dead, Long live the Brexit negotiations!
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
In that case, the question is why your lot (a) wanted so much red tape and (b) couldn't care a brass monkey's about the financial sector. I don't work in the latter but it does seem very odd to me.
(a) It isn't that much red tape. It is extra but deal with it. Leaving the customs union is more important than the extra red tape.
(b) It was a deliberate policy that we wanted full control of our own financial sector. As a global not parochial local market making nation it is important that the UK writes the rules that govern London - not the EU.
Repirocal market access should be granted and already have been on a transitionary temporary basis for clearing for example.
Market access is still being negotiated for financial services but if the choice comes between Westminster and the Bank of England being in charge of governance of the City or passporting then absolutely Westminster's sovereignty is more important for the City than passporting is.
I went an dug around in the ONS numbers - it turns out that the the hospitalisation rates they are using *are* based on the percentage of that age group in the population. So when they say 137.2 per 100k hospitalisation rate for over 85s - that means 137.2 per 100 thousand people over the age of 85....
I used 2019 census data to create this
Age Deaths Hospitalisations Number 85 years and over 41.75% 23.20% 1,647,271 75 to 84 years 32.82% 25.75% 4,040,624 65 to 74 years 15.14% 17.91% 6,687,066 45 to 64 years 9.24% 21.74% 17,224,230 15 to 44 years 1.03% 9.84% 25,236,635 1 to 14 years 0.01% 1.50% 11,238,100 Under 1 year 0.00% 0.05% 722,881
Assuming that “number” is population can you add a % of population column as well?
How about
| Age | Deaths | Hospitalisations | Percent of Population | | 85+ | 41.75% | 23.20% | 2.47% | | 75 to 84 | 32.82% | 25.75% | 6.05% | | 65 to 74 | 15.14% | 17.91% | 10.01% | | 45 to 64 | 9.24% | 21.74% | 25.79% | | 15 to 44 | 1.03% | 9.84% | 37.78% | | 1 to 14 | 0.01% | 1.50% | 16.82% | | Under 1 | 0.00% | 0.05% | 1.08% |
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
Given that social security and Family Credit are not devolved and that Scotish income tax favours the less well paid, I think you need to look more to the UK government than the Scottish one (which, for instance, is mitigating the bedroom tax).
‘it happened despite their policies on FSM.’
London runs Scotland and controls the budgets, shame on the greedy barstewards, I hope they get their just desserts. Noted that you ignore that it is reserved powers to London as usual.
FSM are a reserved power to London? Then how come the SNP extended them?
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
And this deal makes this worse because it benefits those in the EU selling goods to us but does little or nothing for those here selling services to the EU. It will reinforce exactly the structural imbalance you are so concerned about.
That is my main reservation. If we don't get access for our service industries we should give notice of our intention to withdraw from this deal.
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
Given that social security and Family Credit are not devolved and that Scotish income tax favours the less well paid, I think you need to look more to the UK government than the Scottish one (which, for instance, is mitigating the bedroom tax).
What has the bedroom tax got to do with child poverty. The bedroom "tax" is an incentive to move from 3/4 bedroom houses to something of a more suitable size when the children have left.
No. AIUI it is common to be hit with the bedroom tax on a 3 bedroom house with 1 or 2 adults plus 2 children (though the decision depends on the latters' age and sex). A quick check of Shelter (the English side, where it is not mitigated) confirms this
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
Delusional. We did not get what the economy needs, as even Boris has admitted. And even the fishing industry is unhappy.
You're delusional.
The fishing industry got better than nothing but were a pawn that were played to get the French away from everything else that matters much, much more. Your obsession over fishing when we got the LPF compromises we wanted etc is quite revealing.
I could not care less about fishing. I wonder why the government has been though. And whether the LPF provisions are quite as wonderful as you claim.
Still good to see that you admit that fishing was a pawn which was used. That'll be on a Tory campaign poster in the Red Wall and in those fishing constituencies especially. There they talk of little else but LPF, I'm sure.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
In that case, the question is why your lot (a) wanted so much red tape and (b) couldn't care a brass monkey's about the financial sector. I don't work in the latter but it does seem very odd to me.
(a) It isn't that much red tape. It is extra but deal with it. Leaving the customs union is more important than the extra red tape.
(b) It was a deliberate policy that we wanted full control of our own financial sector. As a global not parochial local market making nation it is important that the UK writes the rules that govern London - not the EU.
Repirocal market access should be granted and already have been on a transitionary temporary basis for clearing for example.
Market access is still being negotiated for financial services but if the choice comes between Westminster and the Bank of England being in charge of governance of the City or passporting then absolutely Westminster's sovereignty is more important for the City than passporting is.
There is red tape at both ends of the contract - watch the video again about the Glass Eels.
It's not his paperwork that is the issue, it's the customer who given the choice between buying from France without paperwork or buying from the UK with paperwork starts purchasing from France as it's less hassle.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
The big picture issue for us is access for our professional services. Without that giving the EU access to our market without tariffs and without quota was a mistake.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
And this deal makes this worse because it benefits those in the EU selling goods to us but does little or nothing for those here selling services to the EU. It will reinforce exactly the structural imbalance you are so concerned about.
That is my main reservation. If we don't get access for our service industries we should give notice of our intention to withdraw from this deal.
Why? To have an even worse time without a deal?
Because DavidL still believes we hold all the cards.
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
Delusional. We did not get what the economy needs, as even Boris has admitted. And even the fishing industry is unhappy.
You're delusional.
The fishing industry got better than nothing but were a pawn that were played to get the French away from everything else that matters much, much more. Your obsession over fishing when we got the LPF compromises we wanted etc is quite revealing.
I could not care less about fishing. I wonder why the government has been though. And whether the LPF provisions are quite as wonderful as you claim.
Still good to see that you admit that fishing was a pawn which was used. That'll be on a Tory campaign poster in the Red Wall. In those constituencies they talk of little else but LPF, I'm sure.
The reason why the government has been has been explained to you repeatedly not just by myself but MarqueeMark, MaxPB and others every time you bring it up but like a goldfish you ask again: it was a definite gain and it kept Barnier/Macron preoccupied while we won the other issues.
The LPF is massively more than fishing. Since you "couldn't care less" about fishing then you should be capable of giving credit for using fishing in the negotiations like has been done - are you prepared to do that? Or will you ask again next time "why were we talking about fishing" as if nobody has given the answer?
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
Delusional. We did not get what the economy needs, as even Boris has admitted. And even the fishing industry is unhappy.
You're delusional.
The fishing industry got better than nothing but were a pawn that were played to get the French away from everything else that matters much, much more. Your obsession over fishing when we got the LPF compromises we wanted etc is quite revealing.
I could not care less about fishing. I wonder why the government has been though. And whether the LPF provisions are quite as wonderful as you claim.
Still good to see that you admit that fishing was a pawn which was used. That'll be on a Tory campaign poster in the Red Wall and in those fishing constituencies especially. There they talk of little else but LPF, I'm sure.
Even fishing has still made some gains compared to where they were in 2016 as we leave the CFP.
The main losers from this Deal compared to where they were in 2016 as I have said are the City of London and financial services now that we are leaving the EU and the single market and they are losing the financial services passport to the EU
That's why it was so strange, inexplicable even, that Cameron didn't have the official Leave campaign put forward an outline of a platform. It was just EU, yes or no, which made things dramatically easier for Leave and harder for Remain (who nevertheless would've won if the campaign hadn't been so bad).
The blame for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
When a goalkeeper accidentally throws the ball to the opposing team's striker who taps in the goal you don't say the "blame" for the goal belongs with the striker. The striker did his job, it was the goalkeeper that screwed up.
The credit for Brexit lies with those who wanted it, campaigned for it, voted for it.
The "blame" for Remainers losing the referendum rests squarely and solely on the Remain side.
You are doing it again: an ELI5, except that it is the explainer who comes across as a five year old.
Forget the competitive aspect, because it is fundamentally irrelevant. Assume we are an absolute monarchy and HM brexited of Her own volition with perhaps a bit of a steer from Thomas Wolsey (him, Wolsey) or similar. The primary question is whether brexit was a good move or not, not how we got there. I don't think you think it was, because you were so visibly wedded to the idea of no deal (eggs and omelettes, remember? We didn't break the eggs, so we don't have an omelette). "We won" looks increasingly embarrassing and irrelevant.
What do you mean I was wedded to a No Deal Brexit? You have completely and utterly misunderstood everything I have written on the subject if you believe that?
I have always, always wanted this outcome and besides May's calamitous leadership it is what I expected.
I always said we need to prepare for WTO and be unafraid of it, in order to get the EU to move. I made it clear that it was Good Deal > No Deal > Bad Deal but that the only way to get the good deal was to be prepared to walk away to no deal forcing the EU to accept our demands. Which is exactly how it played out. I was right and everything I predicted has happened.
I could find you a plethora of posts where I've said this unequivocally if you want since when I did I frequently used a Latin phrase that should be easy to find posts with: si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war. If you want a good deal prepare for no deal.
As for the eggs ... They are well and truly broken now. Our omelette is on its way.
Yes, you blew hot and cold a lot, but you were a pretty big no deal fanboi when that looked the likeliest outcome. We don't have a good deal, we have an anything is better than no deal deal. And your failure to predict it doesn't do much for your Borisology credentials.
I never, never, never preferred no deal.
I was always saying if the EU don't move then 'bring it on' but that I wanted and expected the EU would move in the end.
I was right. Oh and I did predict the EU would move - repeatedly. This is exactly what I predicted. Indeed even on the day the Internal Market Bill was published I said it was a masterstroke that made a deal much, much more likely as it was showing us as being seriously ready to do what we need to do in a no deal scenario. From memory williamglenn even asked how would I feel if I was wrong and we ended up with no deal.
I am glad things have turned out exactly as I predicted.
PS we do have a good deal. We have the best deal imaginable.
"The best deal imaginable." 😂
Even Boris doesn't think that.
I certainly don't. The lack of mutual recognition of standards and regulation in services is an obvious and important issue. The exclusion from SIS II is annoying and detrimental to vulnerable people in both the UK and the EU. I have not seen an extension of Gove's trusted trader scheme which would clearly help reduce the friction at the ports. Seed potatoes and some other agricultural products are annoying. I am still not clear if we are still a signatory to Dublin II or not.
But we will survive and thrive once we get rid of this damn virus.
Oh sure it isn't perfect, nothing ever is realistically.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
Unlike the government, I suppose, which focused on the utterly insignificant - to the U.K. economy - sector of fishing.
That was a negotiating masterstroke.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
In that case, the question is why your lot (a) wanted so much red tape and (b) couldn't care a brass monkey's about the financial sector. I don't work in the latter but it does seem very odd to me.
(a) It isn't that much red tape. It is extra but deal with it. Leaving the customs union is more important than the extra red tape.
(b) It was a deliberate policy that we wanted full control of our own financial sector. As a global not parochial local market making nation it is important that the UK writes the rules that govern London - not the EU.
Repirocal market access should be granted and already have been on a transitionary temporary basis for clearing for example.
Market access is still being negotiated for financial services but if the choice comes between Westminster and the Bank of England being in charge of governance of the City or passporting then absolutely Westminster's sovereignty is more important for the City than passporting is.
There is red tape at both ends of the contract - watch the video again about the Glass Eels.
It's not his paperwork that is the issue, it's the customer who given the choice between buying from France without paperwork or buying from the UK with paperwork starts purchasing from France as it's less hassle.
The majority of our trade has paperwork at both ends.
Embarrassing more like, we now need charity from Ireland, how the tables have turned.
It’s not charity. They have decided to extend a benefit they provide to RoI citizens in RoI to dual citizens in NI. They then decided (for simplicity or just to irritate the DUP) to extend it to U.K.-only citizens in NI
Sticking in unionists craws though, first UNICEF helping out with starving children , now the Irish who they are always slagging off as poor country hicks providing charity in NI.
Yes, it’s very embarrassing for UNICEF to help children in London.
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
Given that social security and Family Credit are not devolved and that Scotish income tax favours the less well paid, I think you need to look more to the UK government than the Scottish one (which, for instance, is mitigating the bedroom tax).
‘it happened despite their policies on FSM.’
London runs Scotland and controls the budgets, shame on the greedy barstewards, I hope they get their just desserts. Noted that you ignore that it is reserved powers to London as usual.
FSM are a reserved power to London? Then how come the SNP extended them?
Or are the National and the Scotsman both lying?
The issue is that ift he Scxottish Government deviates from London policy it has to take the money from elsewhere within the overall budget determined by London, and/or tax a bit more. That is where the moneyt for the bedroom tax mitigation and FSM comes from.
It's an Irish site, so there's no particular British political angle. I found it an interesting read.
You might not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with some of that but I have consistently said that the deal (before there was one) is a starting point, not an end point. The key for us is to have access for our financial services by the end of March (which is the target date). If we don't get it I think we seriously have to wonder how much this deal is actually in our interests given the massive trade imbalances.
Where I think that the piece gets it wrong is that it is somewhat parochial, it seems to work on the assumption that the EU is the rest of the world for us. It isn't and its share of our trade will decline, possibly quite sharply. How sharply will depend on how they behave.
I'm friends with a former Vote Leave staffers, they both privately admitted if that if the public knew back in 2016 that this would be the deal, Remain would have won. Compare the rhetoric of Vote Leave in 2016 with the reality of the deal.
This deal is likely as good as it gets for the financial services sector, I think you're likely to see an acceleration of movements of out of the UK and domiciling the trades into the EU, which is is going to well and truly screw Rishi Sunak's plans.
I think H1 2021 will be the reverse of the big bang of 1986. The only question left is in which EU country they domicile the trades in.
I think that this will prove to be far too pessimistic. Contrary to expectations the numbers employed in financial services has increased. London has a critical mass of skills in banking, finance, law and technology that nowhere else in Europe can come close to matching and it will continue to thrive.
But you keep on missing the point.
The some of the jobs will remain in the UK but for purposes of booking the transactions the trades will now take place in various EU countries, which means the UK Exchequer loses the revenue and various EU countries gain revenues for their countries.
I mean it isn't like financial services is the biggest contributor to the UK Exchequer.
The other point I've made (and some people at the DMO have also mentioned) is that the government's Internal Market Bill has damaged our legal sector, as has the plans to castrate the judiciary.
One of the main attractions of doing business in the UK is that we had a strong legal sector backed up by a strong and independent judiciary that does put the government back in its box, but we now have a government that thinks breaking international treaties is fine.
The point is where is the profit made, where is the tax paid and where are the bonuses paid? If we maintain competitive tax rates there will still be an inclination to book the profit here, whatever is done in an EU based subsidiary. Dublin is a bit more of a threat that way because of its low CT rates but most of mainland Europe isn't. If the critical mass remains based in London that is where they will pay their taxes and spend their loot.
Unless they want to seriously disrupt their economies in the middle of a severe recession they will want unrestricted access to London's skills.
Again you've made this point before, and again it won't work.
In the UK, if you want to set up a financial services company you're going to need a well capitalised company located set up in the UK, with the money ringfenced in the UK.
So if you want to trade in the EU the company will need a well capitalised subsidiary in a EU country/countries, with the money ringfenced there, so the EU company that the trade is happening in will book the trade and relevant taxes.
So transaction taxes and profits will be largely booked in the EU, whilst payroll taxes will be booked in the UK, for the UK you really want to former to be booked in the UK.
Thanks to this deal I'm now supervising regulatory compliance in the UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland, and France, so thanks to the Brexiteers for the pay rise but quite frankly as a patriot I'd forego the pay rise to avoid the damage we've inflicted on the sector.
You say you work in this industry? Surely you have realised by now that is an automatic disqualification from knowing anything about it? Only the high priests of Brexit and their followers have a true understanding of the economy.
He’s also taking a very pessimistic position
He's in Compliance. He actually has to read all the rules. Then explain them to the likes of you. *
And then get you to follow them.
No wonder he's pessimistic.
* Not you, exactly. But you know what I mean. 😏
Our compliance people are relaxed. The biggest hassle is going to be finding a way to include EU registered bankers on calls.
But he - and others like him - were predicting doom immediately after the referendum.
Comments
Still, by a long way, the best stand up comedian ever.
Your own company having a "near zero" Corporation Tax bill - is that going to be temporary or permanent?
The structural deficit will take years to fix, but lets not pretend that every element of the deficit currently is structural, leave that nonsense for the likes of contrarian.
The rules may also be temporary as the UK and the EU have agreed to explore liberalising them over the next 12 months.
I did. Galloway’s response is hilariously and predictably ‘don’t you know who I am?!’
Queen of the South must be thinking long and hard now GG has said he’s going to turn them into a world brand.
But on the big picture issues? It hits everything I was expecting.
The fact that complaints are largely being concentrated on issues like seed potatoes shows the concerns really are small fries.
A Dumfries voter has gone to the Electoral Commission after he received a letter from Tory Oliver Mundell inviting him to complete a postal vote application form and return it to his office – rather than the Electoral Registration Officer.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9095335/Civil-servant-34-nearly-dies-drinking-five-litres-water-DAY.html
So circa 30k of 1.647m over 85's dead (1.8%)
Vaccinating the over 65s should stop over 90% of deaths and more than two-thirds of hospitalisations.
It will take the 45s plus being vaccinated to remove 90% of hospitalisations and 99% of deaths.
While Boris did promise to level up the UK as the economy overall sinks it's possible to argue that if the North /Red wall regions sink less / slower than areas that were are currently wealthy due to Financial services Boris will have levelled up the UK without spending a penny.
I find it deeply frustrating how many people just can't get around the fact that the SM did not work to our advantage. A deficit of £80bn a year in goods cost us at least 800k jobs in this country, probably more. It has been impoverishing us for 20 years, reducing our asset base and our standard of living. All of the focus, relentlessly, was on the jobs we had that were dependent on that access. No one paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we had lost. Such is the nature of politics I suppose but whether this deal was worth it has yet to be decided.
Ie would someone else realistically have an alternative company doing what you were doing? Or will that be gone?
https://twitter.com/marionmain3/status/1341359842863292417?s=20
It is always going to be a significant player. Whether it is global #1 depends on whether it has global ambitions (not convinced), a divided and distracted west (at present) and a stable political system.
I have always hoped that as Chinese people got richer they would demand more freedom, but I’ve not been proved right so far. I think the “Chinese model” is the latest test of liberal principles. I hope we are strong enough to fight for what we believe in
If not, how soon do we have the dubious pleasure of his company?
(Incidentally, I’m assuming if he lives in Patchway that he’s MoD.)
The other aspect is that the age structure of the population is not even across the country, so London will have a lower proportion of deaths to admissions than a place with similar prevalence but older population.
China has escalated its campaign to rein in the vast tech empire controlled by Jack Ma, the co-founder of Alibaba and one of the country’s richest people.
Authorities in Beijing, who had on Christmas Eve ordered an investigation into allegations of “monopolistic practices” by Ma’s online retail giant, have now ordered his financial technology company Ant Group to scale back its operations.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/28/china-orders-alibaba-founder-jack-ma-break-up-fintech-ant
China is unveiling Xi-nomics, its new brand of capitalism, and how Jack Ma is cut to size
https://theprint.in/opinion/china-is-unveiling-xi-nomics-its-new-brand-of-capitalism-and-how-jack-ma-is-cut-to-size/575740/
I still believe in free trade and think it is a good thing to be expanding that globally not just in Europe.
The EU didn't have a fully fleshed out professional services single market in the first place anyway.
Ultimately I think how the UK manages its own laws and its own economy will influence our future prosperity far more than whether we do or do not have a trade deal or not.
Our entire media swallowing an account leaving out the twin aspects of 1 - What they did was an option they were offered and 2 - Numbers inflated by about 1000%.
Not the first time.
We see it time and time again e.g. the FT report on how much had been spent on Operation Moonshot. They "misread" a load of tender documents, pumped out a story, and within a couple of hours it was "FACT" as reported by every media outlet that the government had spent 6 trillion quid on rapid testing.
Hence Trumpism. As a society we need to do much much better on this.
https://twitter.com/Barcajim3/status/1343857957193326593
I am concerned about the LPF provisions and whether these are going to tie our hands in seeking to address this horrific structural deficit in our trade. Will we be unable to provide seed capital for growing industries for example? Have we committed ourselves to an EU level of bureaucracy and regulation which makes it harder to compete for international investment?
So, if I was in Parliament I would vote for Boris's deal but I would be looking for a plan that is going to address these weaknesses in our economy and allow us to pay our way in the world, ideally with a growing standard of living. That, ultimately, is going to require a different sort of relationship with the EU than this deal offers.
The problem is that with the pressure to pump out stories, there is little of no interest in asking "Why is that number strange?"
https://inews.co.uk/news/unicef-child-poverty-hungry-children-coronvirus-first-time-797077
And Aberdeen and Edinburgh
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus/unicef-funds-food-hampers-edinburgh-families-struggling-during-pandemic-3067519
Oh, hold on, that’s an SNP matter. It happened despite their policies on FSM.
And if you don’t believe the Scotsman, here it is in the National:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18948073.unicef-help-feed-children-uk-first-time-70-years/
It is disgraceful that we can’t feed children properly, but it isn’t just a unionist problem.
We got Barnier and the French completely bogged down in fishing, which is relatively inconsequential, then got largely what we wanted (and Barnier and Macron did not) on the LPF and everything else.
Don't you see the success of that?
A common running assumption through the negotiations was that in the end the UK would concede on the LPF and the EU would on fishing - in the end it was the other way around!
I have yet to hear any Brexiteer - even happy clappy ones like Philip - make a case why strangling British Business with Red Tape is now a Good Thing. Yes we can trade with the non-EU but we could do that anyway...
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1343858344054972416?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1343861789264637952?s=20
And the finance industry has to create European subsidiaries just to keep going.
What we can negotiate with the rest of the world is far more meaningful than what we have with the EU which is a minority and shrinking of our trade already.
How we control our own laws and what we negotiate with the rest of the world > a bit of red tape with a tiny minority of global GDP.
However we got what most of the rest of the economy needed with no tariffs for exports of goods to the EU, more trade deals outside Europe negotiated by the brilliant Liz Truss, we have reclaimed some fishing catch and also ensured Leave voters got no more free movement and reclaimed sovereignty from the EU as they voted for.
What this Deal might lead to is seats like Cities of London and Westminster, Chipping Barnet, Kensington, Esher and Walton and Chingford and Wokingham being more at risk of being lost at the next general election by the Tories than Red Wall seats like Grimsby, Bishop Auckland, Bolsover, Sedgefield, Vale of Clwyd and West Bromwich. Its biggest impact will again be to see the Tories become less of a Southern Party while London becomes a near Tory free zone
The fishing industry got better than nothing but were a pawn that were played to get the French away from everything else that matters much, much more. Your obsession over fishing when we got the LPF compromises we wanted etc is quite revealing.
How about
| Age | Deaths | Hospitalisations | Percent of Population |
| 85+ | 41.75% | 23.20% | 2.47% |
| 75 to 84 | 32.82% | 25.75% | 6.05% |
| 65 to 74 | 15.14% | 17.91% | 10.01% |
| 45 to 64 | 9.24% | 21.74% | 25.79% |
| 15 to 44 | 1.03% | 9.84% | 37.78% |
| 1 to 14 | 0.01% | 1.50% | 16.82% |
| Under 1 | 0.00% | 0.05% | 1.08% |
(b) It was a deliberate policy that we wanted full control of our own financial sector. As a global not parochial local market making nation it is important that the UK writes the rules that govern London - not the EU.
Repirocal market access should be granted and already have been on a transitionary temporary basis for clearing for example.
Market access is still being negotiated for financial services but if the choice comes between Westminster and the Bank of England being in charge of governance of the City or passporting then absolutely Westminster's sovereignty is more important for the City than passporting is.
Or are the National and the Scotsman both lying?
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/benefits/how_many_bedrooms_you_can_claim_benefits_for
Still good to see that you admit that fishing was a pawn which was used. That'll be on a Tory campaign poster in the Red Wall and in those fishing constituencies especially. There they talk of little else but LPF, I'm sure.
It's not his paperwork that is the issue, it's the customer who given the choice between buying from France without paperwork or buying from the UK with paperwork starts purchasing from France as it's less hassle.
The LPF is massively more than fishing. Since you "couldn't care less" about fishing then you should be capable of giving credit for using fishing in the negotiations like has been done - are you prepared to do that? Or will you ask again next time "why were we talking about fishing" as if nobody has given the answer?
The main losers from this Deal compared to where they were in 2016 as I have said are the City of London and financial services now that we are leaving the EU and the single market and they are losing the financial services passport to the EU
People deal with paperwork.
But he - and others like him - were predicting doom immediately after the referendum.
And yet:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0c7c2597-4afd-4ade-bc19-02c3bbc53daf