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.
Once again an actual business owner who has to deal with the red tape and is losing business as a result is trumped by our resident expert/troll...
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.
Great piece although somewhat infused with your tendency to always expect the worst. On which note I did tell you the last time you went ultra gloomy that both a Trump 2nd term and a Brexit "no deal" were not happening events, didn't I?
Just a quick comment on your #6, the NHS being "not there". This is less prediction than reportage since it's already becoming the case. ICU capacity is insufficient. Same for O2. Ambulances are making tough decisions. And this is before it really hits.
I have been expecting the worst since the age of 16. I have rarely been proved wrong. It's why I'm good at my job. You can't even begin to try and solve problems if you refuse to be realistic about what is happening and what might go wrong.
Trump is going but the harm he has done to US democracy and to the Republican Party will long linger. Listen to what Jo Biden had to say yesterday about the hollowing out of the US's security apparatus and the lack of co-operation. The last time anything remotely like that happened the US got 9/11 because its security services had been rendered incapable by poor leadership. So that is very worrying.
Yes we avoided No Deal. If that is the limit of our ambition as a country, well, words fail me.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. That's the saying, I think. Good advice too. You don't bet, though, do you? If you bet and veer too much to the dark side on probability assessment due to innate pessimism you'll lose.
Totally agree on Trump. I happen to think he's going to fade away quite quickly once he's somehow levered out of the White House but he's done so much damage, both tangible and intangible. I pray that he represented the peak of nasty right populism in the western world.
I only bet on horses where I have been generally quite successful.
The best sport to bet on imo. Let's hope the Craven meeting in April has sun out and at least a partial crowd. I'll hit you up for a tip or two.
I cant wait for the flat, the"form" this Jumps Season is out the window. As an example three weeks ago Frodon was beaten 84 lengths by Santani, which he turned round on Boxing day.
I'm more into the flat than the jumps in any case. I like to see the hurtling finishes. Also the weather tends to be better.
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
Even the financial services passport is not the be all and end all.
The City at last count has actually gained not lost jobs since 2016. Westminster has gained full lawmaking powers over a globally significant key sector of our economy - that is more important than passporting.
As the EU passes damaging bills like the Bankers Bonus directive and looks at a nascent Financial Transactions Tax the incentive to do financial transactions in the UK and out of the EU will increase not decrease.
And the City are masters of dealing with paperwork and finding a path through it. Hence why it is a global not European City.
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.
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.
Once again an actual business owner who has to deal with the red tape and is losing business as a result is trumped by our resident expert/troll...
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
Even the financial services passport is not the be all and end all.
The City at last count has actually gained not lost jobs since 2016. Westminster has gained full lawmaking powers over a globally significant key sector of our economy - that is more important than passporting.
As the EU passes damaging bills like the Bankers Bonus directive and looks at a nascent Financial Transactions Tax the incentive to do financial transactions in the UK and out of the EU will increase not decrease.
And the City are masters of dealing with paperwork and finding a path through it. Hence why it is a global not European City.
I expect a little shift from London to Paris and Frankfurt and New York after this Deal but London will remain the main financial centre in Europe because of its global reach and relatively low tax, low regulation environment.
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.
Seeing if and how the trade deals with the rest of the world can be built upon will be important in seeing what strategy to implement.
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.
I expect a little shift from London to Paris and Frankfurt and New York after this Deal but London will remain the main financial centre in Europe because of its global reach
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?
I'll review the deal thanks all the same and form my view on what it says not rely on the views of people who were not involved in the negotiations at all and have had to rely on newspaper reports.
From what I have read so far, the government had limited ambitions, has achieved some of them and has ended up with a deal which does not achieve much for Britain but does achieve a lot for the PM and the Tory party.
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.
I am aware of that.
My point is, even having used those powers, it hasn’t been enough to avoid Scotland needing international aid, just as has happened in England.
Now you might argue with perfect justification that there are a number of very good reasons for that. After all, Scotland is a poorer country than England, and has massive legacy problems with poverty, drug addiction and housing that are certainly not the fault of the SNP - in fact, many of them have defeated governments of all types for over fifty years.
But MalcolmG was, rather disgustingly, trying to make a political point out of it by implying it only affected countries governed by ‘unionists.’ I was pointing out he was wrong.
Edit - and truthfully, the main question we should be asking about all of this, as with foodbanks, is why they are needed, and how do we change matters so they stop being needed?
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.
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.
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.
People deal with paperwork.
But when we were in the UK we didn't therefore given the choice between a supplier that needs paperwork and one that doesn't I would prefer the non paperwork supplier even if they were more expensive.
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.
He thinks Red Wallers would happily pay more for their Becks and Prosecco, as well as their motors to help out the City bankers.
Tariff free access to the excellent imported goods from the EU is one of the best bits of this deal. Better still that we cannot debase our standards too.
I expect a little shift from London to Paris and Frankfurt and New York after this Deal but London will remain the main financial centre in Europe because of its global reach
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of breaking Tier 4 lockdown rules after meeting three people, including his brother, on his doorstep on Christmas Day.
I would love @DavidL to show us his working on how the single market has cost us “at least 800k jobs”.
Britain had one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the EU, so precisely which jobs were lost?
The only jobs I can see going are from the closure of that berk’s glass eel business.
You could perhaps make an argument that JLR opening a factory in Slovakia meant employing fewer people in Coventry, but even if that were true, Brexit is not going to reverse that trend
I expect a little shift from London to Paris and Frankfurt and New York after this Deal but London will remain the main financial centre in Europe because of its global reach
Thank you, Cyclefree for your predictions ... and how about for number 12 ...
12. Cyclefree finally reveals how she voted in the Brexit referendum 😀
Of course, your vote is your own affair ... but I do get this enduring vision of Cyclefree looking at the Prada dress & sunglasses she ordered, filled with regret and disappointment.
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?
I'll review the deal thanks all the same and form my view on what it says not rely on the views of people who were not involved in the negotiations at all and have had to rely on newspaper reports.
From what I have read so far, the government had limited ambitions, has achieved some of them and has ended up with a deal which does not achieve much for Britain but does achieve a lot for the PM and the Tory party.
If you set a low bar, it's easy to pass.
What you call "limited ambitions" others consider to be exactly the ambitions they wanted. Sometimes 'more is less', you should appreciate that surely?
Considering the 'limited ambitions' were publicly stated in advance and were in the manifesto the government was elected upon then those ambitions - not the ambitions of people that lost the referendum or other parties had - seem to be the ambitions this deal should be measured against.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of breaking Tier 4 lockdown rules after meeting three people, including his brother, on his doorstep on Christmas Day.
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.
Seeing if and how the trade deals with the rest of the world can be built upon will be important in seeing what strategy to implement.
I would love @DavidL to show us his working on how the single market has cost us “at least 800k jobs”.
Britain had one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the EU, so precisely which jobs were lost?
The only jobs I can see going are from the closure of that berk’s glass eel business.
You could perhaps make an argument that JLR opening a factory in Slovakia meant employing fewer people in Coventry, but even if that were true, Brexit is not going to reverse that trend
Indeed, given the modern auto industry relied on JIT supply chains and a domestic market of 500m, Brexit incentivises this kind of relocation.
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
Even the financial services passport is not the be all and end all.
The City at last count has actually gained not lost jobs since 2016. Westminster has gained full lawmaking powers over a globally significant key sector of our economy - that is more important than passporting.
As the EU passes damaging bills like the Bankers Bonus directive and looks at a nascent Financial Transactions Tax the incentive to do financial transactions in the UK and out of the EU will increase not decrease.
And the City are masters of dealing with paperwork and finding a path through it. Hence why it is a global not European City.
I expect a little shift from London to Paris and Frankfurt and New York after this Deal but London will remain the main financial centre in Europe because of its global reach and relatively low tax, low regulation environment.
de Blasio's New York has its own problems. Earlier this month there were reports Goldman and Deutsche Bank are planning moves for huge chunks of their operations from Manhattan. To name but two.
The US banking industry could splinter to various more livable and more business friendly locations around the states.
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.
I don’t think I’ve seen any unionist on here slagging off the Irish as “poor country hicks”
I should, at this moment, be preparing my lessons for next half term.
I haven’t bothered because at this moment I haven’t a clue what I’m teaching, whether in school or online, and I don’t want to waste hours for no gain.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of breaking Tier 4 lockdown rules after meeting three people, including his brother, on his doorstep on Christmas Day.
Is Piers Corbyn going for some kind of record on lockdown breaches?
Although, in fairness, if the story as reported is a breach about 40% of the country is probably guilty.
At least they managed to stay clear of the obvious trope....
The group talks about food banks before they discuss whether Covid is being used 'as a cover to privatise the NHS' with Corbyn adding: 'What we've got is Covid billionaires - the equivalent to wartime millionaires.'
They complain about 'Big Pharma' turning the NHS into a 'milking cow' before Jeremy thanks Santa for coming and shakes the hands of all three men before sending them on their way.
-----------
The two gifts brought by 'Santa' and delivered to Jeremy by the group include the domain name of LabourParty.org and a letter which addresses his suspension from the Labour Party over his response to the anti-Semitism report.
------------
All those evil big Pharma corporations saving the world....disgusting...and of course AZN vaccine is being sold at basically cost.
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.
Unionists control it from London , despite the best efforts of Scottish Government using some of their meagre pocket money to alleviate poverty , they have no chance of overcoming London policies. You just cannot get your head round or understand what "Powers Reserved to London" means do you.
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
Also the Bedroom Tax was an "incentive" to move to homes that didn't exist. Plenty of real world examples of smaller properties not existing in council / HA stock yet people being charged for not moving into them.
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.
Unionists control it from London , despite the best efforts of Scottish Government using some of their meagre pocket money to alleviate poverty , they have no chance of overcoming London policies. You just cannot get your head round or understand what "Powers Reserved to London" means do you.
You mean, like a second referendum?
Or is that a power that’s somehow magically not reserved to London, because only when the SNP have failed in something is it London’s fault?
I should, at this moment, be preparing my lessons for next half term.
I haven’t bothered because at this moment I haven’t a clue what I’m teaching, whether in school or online, and I don’t want to waste hours for no gain.
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.
Carnyx, their hatred of SNP means they don't care about reality, Scotland/SNP BAD is all that matters.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of breaking Tier 4 lockdown rules after meeting three people, including his brother, on his doorstep on Christmas Day.
Is Piers Corbyn going for some kind of record on lockdown breaches?
Although, in fairness, if the story as reported is a breach about 40% of the country is probably guilty.
At least they managed to stay clear of the obvious trope....
The group talks about food banks before they discuss whether Covid is being used 'as a cover to privatise the NHS' with Corbyn adding: 'What we've got is Covid billionaires - the equivalent to wartime millionaires.'
They complain about 'Big Pharma' turning the NHS into a 'milking cow' before Jeremy thanks Santa for coming and shakes the hands of all three men before sending them on their way.
-----------
The two gifts brought by 'Santa' and delivered to Jeremy by the group include the domain name of LabourParty.org and a letter which addresses his suspension from the Labour Party over his response to the anti-Semitism report.
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.
People deal with paperwork.
Wowsers. You don't actually believe this crap. Red tape and pointless bureaucracy is against everything you stand for. Yet you post it anyway. The Sky example is a perfect one where people don't deal with paperwork when paperwork-free alternatives exist.
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.
The EC behaved unjustly when we entered. They changed the rules specifically to disadvantage our fishing industry. This was about righting that wrong.
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?
Example for dummies , they used money that was for other things/purposes to the detriment elsewhere but less evil than poor children.
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.
There are different ways you can assess this deal:
Is it better or worse than EU membership?
Is it better than No Deal?
Who won more? The UK or the EU?
Did the UK achieve its negotiating objectives?
Was the deal better than expected or not as good as it realistically could have been?
My responses to those assessments:
Unquestionably worse than membership. The deal doesn't deliver a single economic benefit over membership. Most of the many Brexit degradations are left unmitigated. Being a trade deal, it doesn't affect the purported non-economic benefits, if they are such, of Brexit on sovereignty etc.
Also unquestionably better than no deal. No deal is no relationship with the UK's most important partners by far, which is unviable. Some of the specific measures in the deal are vital
Who won more is irrelevant. We are only interested in us. Presumably the EU can look after itself
The UK government achieved enough of its negotiating objectives to be satisfied with the deal, on governance, LPF and fish. I think they expected to get more through their hard ball tactics, which were ineffective to counterproductive in getting the EU to shift.
I think the UK government could have got a better deal. One was poor negotiating tactics that I have already alluded to. They could also have got a better deal by being smarter/more flexible with some of their red lines. In my opinion they over-fixated on the ECJ and avoiding commitments. Because the ECJ can actually be a useful objective arbitrator for a weaker party. Secondly the UK fundamentally misunderstood the point of treaties, which is to get commitments. They expended their negotiating capital on what I think to be red herrings and failed to follow up on achievable wins.
So where to go from here? The key points are (1) and (2). The negotiating space was and will be "lot worse than membership; lot better than nothing". As a membership organisation the EU will always prioritise the value of membership. Non-members will necessarily get a much worse deal. But the deal also has to offer something valuable to those non members. "Lot worse than membership; lot better than nothing" is a big negotiating space and there is scope to move up the spectrum.
Now we are back to the red lines. To get a better deal the UK will need to offer the EU something it wants that isn't already in the existing deals. Which probably means the UK supporting the EU more, either diplomatically, in terms of industrial alignment or with hard cash. I don't think this Brexiteer government is in that space.
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.
People deal with paperwork.
Wowsers. You don't actually believe this crap. Red tape and pointless bureaucracy is against everything you stand for. Yet you post it anyway. The Sky example is a perfect one where people don't deal with paperwork when paperwork-free alternatives exist.
Red tape and pointless bureaucracy is bad yes.
Not all red tape is worth eliminating though, not if the price of eliminating it is too high.
Red tape for customs declarations in a zero tariff/zero quota agreement should be quite negligible and people will get used to it and move on. It won't be the first or last time businessmen have faced paperwork.
Too much of my time running a business is dealing with paperwork, but it gets done.
If everything else were equal would I rather no red tape? Of course! Is everything else equal? No.
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.
The EC behaved unjustly when we entered. They changed the rules specifically to disadvantage our fishing industry. This was about righting that wrong.
Have the fisher folk accepted that that wrong has been righted, or have they discovered once again that pompous assurances from Tories that their interests will be protected aren't worth a bucket of cold fish guts?
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.
Carnyx, their hatred of SNP means they don't care about reality, Scotland/SNP BAD is all that matters.
They should learn from you Malc - you would never allow hatred of parties other than the sainted SNP to colour your posts would you.........
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.
Why is that a problem?
When you are on fixed pocket money and have outgoings , having to cover someone else's stupid policies means you have to make cuts where you do not want to , trying to fix the shambles others are foisting on you. As any simpleton would tell you , it is better to have your own wages and manage them than give them to some dummy to decide how they want to spend them.
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.
Once again an actual business owner who has to deal with the red tape and is losing business as a result is trumped by our resident expert/troll...
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.
I am aware of that.
My point is, even having used those powers, it hasn’t been enough to avoid Scotland needing international aid, just as has happened in England.
Now you might argue with perfect justification that there are a number of very good reasons for that. After all, Scotland is a poorer country than England, and has massive legacy problems with poverty, drug addiction and housing that are certainly not the fault of the SNP - in fact, many of them have defeated governments of all types for over fifty years.
But MalcolmG was, rather disgustingly, trying to make a political point out of it by implying it only affected countries governed by ‘unionists.’ I was pointing out he was wrong.
Edit - and truthfully, the main question we should be asking about all of this, as with foodbanks, is why they are needed, and how do we change matters so they stop being needed?
You were trying and failing to point out I was wrong. I correctly pointed out that it is dumb unionists in London who have created the poverty in Scotland and England and Wales and NI. Scotland who actually have a higher GDP than anywhere except London despite unionists best efforts. Foodbanks etc are needed due to the greed and shit policies of Tories.
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?
I'll review the deal thanks all the same and form my view on what it says not rely on the views of people who were not involved in the negotiations at all and have had to rely on newspaper reports.
From what I have read so far, the government had limited ambitions, has achieved some of them and has ended up with a deal which does not achieve much for Britain but does achieve a lot for the PM and the Tory party.
If you set a low bar, it's easy to pass.
It is a curious phenomenon that Brexiteers, because they have achieved what they wanted, appear to believe that they have a special insight into the 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).
‘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.
Carnyx, their hatred of SNP means they don't care about reality, Scotland/SNP BAD is all that matters.
They should learn from you Malc - you would never allow hatred of parties other than the sainted SNP to colour your posts would you.........
In fairness, I’ve seen him slag off the SNP as well, particularly over Salmond.
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.
People deal with paperwork.
Wowsers. You don't actually believe this crap. Red tape and pointless bureaucracy is against everything you stand for. Yet you post it anyway. The Sky example is a perfect one where people don't deal with paperwork when paperwork-free alternatives exist.
From personal experience:
From 1995 until I retired a few years ago I ran a pressure group. It was worldwide, but the majority of potential customers were in the USA and then Europe.
Dealing with the USA (notably Microsoft who were the worst and you would think had never heard of the paperless office rather than inventing it) was a nightmare. So much so that I helped others set up a parallel organisation to mine in the USA. We worked together instead of competing. I did a similar thing for Australia.
So yes the paperwork does deter. In my case it was so frustrating that I positively helped to get an alternative to me set up that I could work with rather than do the business for myself. I made not a penny out of it, but it improved my creditability with my customers that I had USA contacts that I couldn't profitably set up myself with all the additional admin.
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.
Once again an actual business owner who has to deal with the red tape and is losing business as a result is trumped by our resident expert/troll...
As opposed to PT, who's just a troll.....
He has to be working for the Tory party for sure.
I wish.
I doubt the Tory party would pay for someone to big up Scottish independence.
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.
Unionists control it from London , despite the best efforts of Scottish Government using some of their meagre pocket money to alleviate poverty , they have no chance of overcoming London policies. You just cannot get your head round or understand what "Powers Reserved to London" means do you.
You mean, like a second referendum?
Or is that a power that’s somehow magically not reserved to London, because only when the SNP have failed in something is it London’s fault?
I mean like any meaningful power, you unionists are shit scared to allow a referendum, despite constantly telling u show poor , stupid , etc we are and unable to look after ourselves. The buck stops in London , they are in control.
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.
I am aware of that.
My point is, even having used those powers, it hasn’t been enough to avoid Scotland needing international aid, just as has happened in England.
Now you might argue with perfect justification that there are a number of very good reasons for that. After all, Scotland is a poorer country than England, and has massive legacy problems with poverty, drug addiction and housing that are certainly not the fault of the SNP - in fact, many of them have defeated governments of all types for over fifty years.
But MalcolmG was, rather disgustingly, trying to make a political point out of it by implying it only affected countries governed by ‘unionists.’ I was pointing out he was wrong.
Edit - and truthfully, the main question we should be asking about all of this, as with foodbanks, is why they are needed, and how do we change matters so they stop being needed?
You were trying and failing to point out I was wrong. I correctly pointed out that it is dumb unionists in London who have created the poverty in Scotland and England and Wales and NI. Scotland who actually have a higher GDP than anywhere except London despite unionists best efforts. Foodbanks etc are needed due to the greed and shit policies of Tories.
So - you’re basically in agreement with me that the SNP attempts to mitigate it have failed, and that is why UNICEF needed to provide food aid in Scotland?
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?
I'll review the deal thanks all the same and form my view on what it says not rely on the views of people who were not involved in the negotiations at all and have had to rely on newspaper reports.
From what I have read so far, the government had limited ambitions, has achieved some of them and has ended up with a deal which does not achieve much for Britain but does achieve a lot for the PM and the Tory party.
If you set a low bar, it's easy to pass.
I'm unlikely to be reading the source text but from my understanding of the substance it is genuinely a good deal from the point of view of a hard leaver. They have every right to be pleased with the outcome - although I wish rather fewer of them were so keen to swallow the silly spin that what really shaped it was Johnson's disruptive hardball negotiating tactics, the EU becoming so terrified of him walking that they caved in all over the place on lots of serious issues. That is strictly for the Francois types for whom it's important to think we battered those eurocrats around, really showed them what's what, otherwise they can't sleep at night.
The truth is, the deal flowed naturally from the respective adjusted red lines. FOM had to go, this did not change from Mrs May's time, but other things did. She wished to get near frictionless trade with the SM and to protect the constitutional integrity of the UK, ruling out a border in the Irish Sea. Johnson dropped both of these requirements and was therefore, quid pro quo, able to negotiate a deal which looks - no, is - better for those whose main animators are borders, laws and fish. It's a deal that sacrifices the economy for visceral feel goods around "sovereignty" and as such is very much in the spirit of Brexit.
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.
I don’t think I’ve seen any unionist on here slagging off the Irish as “poor country hicks”
You obviously must be ignoring those then , was not long ago they wanted to starve them as well. England has always derided the Irish as being dumb , poor , etc. They have everlasting resentment that Ireland chucked them out.
Unfortunately, a staggered return is one where we are staggered that Govt. is asking the kids to return....
is it because they have a human right to a decent education, this disease does not affect them, and those it does threaten can be isolated and/or vaccinated?
So everyone will blame the politicians for the Covid response. I blame the NHS and the mandarins in large part.
Yep, the NHS is at fault. They had months to prep for this, they cant get away (hopefully) with throwing care home residents back out of hospital, they have had money thrown at them. Most worrying of all, they appear to be spending a tremendous amount of time knocking on to the media about how much of a disaster its all going to be. It appears to be becoming a God complex. I just heard an interview, and it was set piece not a phone in, where a nurse was amneting the current situation. Well tough, you signed up. We get its tough but there is no magic wand. The calls for action, the 'do something' before additional measures have been allowed to take effect, which takes weeks, seem to be grasping at straws.
Until the sainted, centre of the universe status given to the NHS is removed then they are unchallenged. The scandal of being people being sent back to care homes, who the fuck is being dragged up for scrutiny there? Thats an operational and policy decision by the NHS.
At the beginning of last week I spoke with someone working in NHS pperations in an area of Northern Ireland that has had a notably hard time. How was it? Aparently not as bad as its being made out. Its tough but they pointed out the service comes under pressure like this every few years in winter. ICU beds occasionally go into near or over capacity. Of course some areas are suffering worse than others but do we really know, we hear anout every hospital getting full but its also patchy in terms of the degree of pressure.
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Its fine being a salaried, pensioned civil servant, it impacts on your outlook. Unfortunately most of the population isnt and it is becoming incresingly difficult for the public to really get the picture if all we hear is cry wolf, we do not know how real it is anymore, or not. We have lost any proportion in what the message is, the media eat it up and regurgitate it. Concern is not terror, but there are days when you feel that is exactly what is bering spread by people who should know better.
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.
Unionists control it from London , despite the best efforts of Scottish Government using some of their meagre pocket money to alleviate poverty , they have no chance of overcoming London policies. You just cannot get your head round or understand what "Powers Reserved to London" means do you.
You mean, like a second referendum?
Or is that a power that’s somehow magically not reserved to London, because only when the SNP have failed in something is it London’s fault?
I mean like any meaningful power, you unionists are shit scared to allow a referendum, despite constantly telling u show poor , stupid , etc we are and unable to look after ourselves. The buck stops in London , they are in control.
Ummm...again, Malc, I have always said that an SNP majority next year should lead to another referendum.
Unfortunately, what you and others here are demonstrating is that Scotsnats literally have passed reason. You don’t care what facts are, you just twist or invent them to suit your agenda. You are reminding me, right now, very much of Donald Trump.
My suspicion is that as a result Scotland will do a Brexit-style departure from the UK, on the back of a number of these twisted facts becoming impossible promises, and at the end when Nats are celebrating ‘freedom’ everyone else will be wondering if the marginal gain in independence was worth the cost.
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.
Seeing if and how the trade deals with the rest of the world can be built upon will be important in seeing what strategy to implement.
Holds Breath (not)
Despite asking many times, no-one has yet posted the benefits of all these new deals compared to our previous deals, I wonder why. Come on Philip sure you know them off by heart.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of breaking Tier 4 lockdown rules after meeting three people, including his brother, on his doorstep on Christmas Day.
Is Piers Corbyn going for some kind of record on lockdown breaches?
Although, in fairness, if the story as reported is a breach about 40% of the country is probably guilty.
At least they managed to stay clear of the obvious trope....
The group talks about food banks before they discuss whether Covid is being used 'as a cover to privatise the NHS' with Corbyn adding: 'What we've got is Covid billionaires - the equivalent to wartime millionaires.'
They complain about 'Big Pharma' turning the NHS into a 'milking cow' before Jeremy thanks Santa for coming and shakes the hands of all three men before sending them on their way.
-----------
The two gifts brought by 'Santa' and delivered to Jeremy by the group include the domain name of LabourParty.org and a letter which addresses his suspension from the Labour Party over his response to the anti-Semitism report.
------------
All those evil big Pharma corporations saving the world....disgusting...and of course AZN vaccine is being sold at basically cost.
The excess profits are being made by big (and not so big) testing equipment suppliers.
So everyone will blame the politicians for the Covid response. I blame the NHS and the mandarins in large part.
Yep, the NHS is at fault. They had months to prep for this, they cant get away (hopefully) with throwing care home residents back out of hospital, they have had money thrown at them. Most worrying of all, they appear to be spending a tremendous amount of time knocking on to the media about how much of a disaster its all going to be. It appears to be becoming a God complex. I just heard an interview, and it was set piece not a phone in, where a nurse was amneting the current situation. Well tough, you signed up. We get its tough but there is no magic wand. The calls for action, the 'do something' before additional measures have been allowed to take effect, which takes weeks, seem to be grasping at straws.
Until the sainted, centre of the universe status given to the NHS is removed then they are unchallenged. The scandal of being people being sent back to care homes, who the fuck is being dragged up for scrutiny there? Thats an operational and policy decision by the NHS.
At the beginning of last week I spoke with someone working in NHS pperations in an area of Northern Ireland that has had a notably hard time. How was it? Aparently not as bad as its being made out. Its tough but they pointed out the service comes under pressure like this every few years in winter. ICU beds occasionally go into near or over capacity. Of course some areas are suffering worse than others but do we really know, we hear anout every hospital getting full but its also patchy in terms of the degree of pressure.
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Its fine being a salaried, pensioned civil servant, it impacts on your outlook. Unfortunately most of the population isnt and it is becoming incresingly difficult for the public to really get the picture if all we hear is cry wolf, we do not know how real it is anymore, or not. We have lost any proportion in what the message is, the media eat it up and regurgitate it. Concern is not terror, but there are days when you feel that is exactly what is bering spread by people who should know better.
ICU occupancy rates are below average levels in most regions, according to Toby Young. I haven't seen anybody contradict that assertion.
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.
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.
Carnyx, their hatred of SNP means they don't care about reality, Scotland/SNP BAD is all that matters.
They should learn from you Malc - you would never allow hatred of parties other than the sainted SNP to colour your posts would you.........
I don't like teh SNP, I am an independence supporter , not an SNP supporter.
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.
There are different ways you can assess this deal:
Is it better or worse than EU membership?
Is it better than No Deal?
Who won more? The UK or the EU?
Did the UK achieve its negotiating objectives?
Was the deal better than expected or not as good as it realistically could have been?
My responses to those assessments:
Unquestionably worse than membership. The deal doesn't deliver a single economic benefit over membership. Most of the many Brexit degradations are left unmitigated. Being a trade deal, it doesn't affect the purported non-economic benefits, if they are such, of Brexit on sovereignty etc.
Also unquestionably better than no deal. No deal is no relationship with the UK's most important partners by far, which is unviable. Some of the specific measures in the deal are vital
Who won more is irrelevant. We are only interested in us. Presumably the EU can look after itself
The UK government achieved enough of its negotiating objectives to be satisfied with the deal, on governance, LPF and fish. I think they expected to get more through their hard ball tactics, which were ineffective to counterproductive in getting the EU to shift.
I think the UK government could have got a better deal. One was poor negotiating tactics that I have already alluded to. They could also have got a better deal by being smarter/more flexible with some of their red lines. In my opinion they over-fixated on the ECJ and avoiding commitments. Because the ECJ can actually be a useful objective arbitrator for a weaker party. Secondly the UK fundamentally misunderstood the point of treaties, which is to get commitments. They expended their negotiating capital on what I think to be red herrings and failed to follow up on achievable wins.
So where to go from here? The key points are (1) and (2). The negotiating space was and will be "lot worse than membership; lot better than nothing". As a membership organisation the EU will always prioritise the value of membership. Non-members will necessarily get a much worse deal. But the deal also has to offer something valuable to those non members. "Lot worse than membership; lot better than nothing" is a big negotiating space and there is scope to move up the spectrum.
Now we are back to the red lines. To get a better deal the UK will need to offer the EU something it wants that isn't already in the existing deals. Which probably means the UK supporting the EU more, either diplomatically, in terms of industrial alignment or with hard cash. I don't think this Brexiteer government is in that space.
I think your questions are reasonable.
For me the answers are very clearly;
1. It is far far better than EU membership. In fact anything including No Deal would have been better than EU membership. 2. It is certainly better than No Deal. But I would add not as good as some other results would have been including EFTA membership. We lost that opportunity when May became PM. 3. Agree entirely, the question of 'who won' or 'who got the most concessions' is infantile. If both sides are satisfied with the deal then both sides 'won'. 4. I think again it is a rather daft question given that both sides had apparent red lines but at least some of these were negotiating positions rather than true red lines. It strikes me that these negotiations do bear one similarity to war in so far as the old adage goes that no plan survives first contact. 5. The deal was better than I expected but that is because I have such a low opinion of our politicians. I think Frost and Barnier both deserve a huge amount of credit and that in retrospect it is the best deal either side could have hoped for if they were being realistic. I disagree fundamentally with your view of the ECJ.
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Not that the weasel word 'apprently' (sic) makes me at all suspicious, but any proof of 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.
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.
I am aware of that.
My point is, even having used those powers, it hasn’t been enough to avoid Scotland needing international aid, just as has happened in England.
Now you might argue with perfect justification that there are a number of very good reasons for that. After all, Scotland is a poorer country than England, and has massive legacy problems with poverty, drug addiction and housing that are certainly not the fault of the SNP - in fact, many of them have defeated governments of all types for over fifty years.
But MalcolmG was, rather disgustingly, trying to make a political point out of it by implying it only affected countries governed by ‘unionists.’ I was pointing out he was wrong.
Edit - and truthfully, the main question we should be asking about all of this, as with foodbanks, is why they are needed, and how do we change matters so they stop being needed?
In fairness to Malcy, the Londion Gmt are (a) unionists and (b) in charge of several major factors that affect familial income.
We do have people who think food banks are a good thing as that lets us give charitably. But that's uncomfortablu like the arguments of the early C19 (IIRC 1840s for the shift from parish relief to a Poor Law in Scotland).
I was meaning to ask you, out of interest as you actually work at the chalkface, do you think FSMs are a good thing? For all children or just the poor?
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.
So everyone will blame the politicians for the Covid response. I blame the NHS and the mandarins in large part.
Yep, the NHS is at fault. They had months to prep for this, they cant get away (hopefully) with throwing care home residents back out of hospital, they have had money thrown at them. Most worrying of all, they appear to be spending a tremendous amount of time knocking on to the media about how much of a disaster its all going to be. It appears to be becoming a God complex. I just heard an interview, and it was set piece not a phone in, where a nurse was amneting the current situation. Well tough, you signed up. We get its tough but there is no magic wand. The calls for action, the 'do something' before additional measures have been allowed to take effect, which takes weeks, seem to be grasping at straws.
Until the sainted, centre of the universe status given to the NHS is removed then they are unchallenged. The scandal of being people being sent back to care homes, who the fuck is being dragged up for scrutiny there? Thats an operational and policy decision by the NHS.
At the beginning of last week I spoke with someone working in NHS pperations in an area of Northern Ireland that has had a notably hard time. How was it? Aparently not as bad as its being made out. Its tough but they pointed out the service comes under pressure like this every few years in winter. ICU beds occasionally go into near or over capacity. Of course some areas are suffering worse than others but do we really know, we hear anout every hospital getting full but its also patchy in terms of the degree of pressure.
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Its fine being a salaried, pensioned civil servant, it impacts on your outlook. Unfortunately most of the population isnt and it is becoming incresingly difficult for the public to really get the picture if all we hear is cry wolf, we do not know how real it is anymore, or not. We have lost any proportion in what the message is, the media eat it up and regurgitate it. Concern is not terror, but there are days when you feel that is exactly what is bering spread by people who should know better.
ICU occupancy rates are below average levels in most regions, according to Toby Young. I haven't seen anybody contradict that assertion.
Do you seriously take any notice of anything Toby Young says? It must be difficult to find anyone who makes more spectacular cockups with so called facts so often.
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Not that the weasel word 'apprently' (sic) makes me at all suspicious, but any proof of this?
Yes, a couple of doctors working in acute settings in Edinburgh.
An independent Scotland would have different spending priorities than the UK. For example, it would not seek to be a world power, and would spend less on defence. It would spend more on social needs. That would be the case whichever party was in power in an independent Scotland, probably even the Conservatives, as if they followed hard right policies, they would not be elected.
So everyone will blame the politicians for the Covid response. I blame the NHS and the mandarins in large part.
Yep, the NHS is at fault. They had months to prep for this, they cant get away (hopefully) with throwing care home residents back out of hospital, they have had money thrown at them. Most worrying of all, they appear to be spending a tremendous amount of time knocking on to the media about how much of a disaster its all going to be. It appears to be becoming a God complex. I just heard an interview, and it was set piece not a phone in, where a nurse was amneting the current situation. Well tough, you signed up. We get its tough but there is no magic wand. The calls for action, the 'do something' before additional measures have been allowed to take effect, which takes weeks, seem to be grasping at straws.
Until the sainted, centre of the universe status given to the NHS is removed then they are unchallenged. The scandal of being people being sent back to care homes, who the fuck is being dragged up for scrutiny there? Thats an operational and policy decision by the NHS.
At the beginning of last week I spoke with someone working in NHS pperations in an area of Northern Ireland that has had a notably hard time. How was it? Aparently not as bad as its being made out. Its tough but they pointed out the service comes under pressure like this every few years in winter. ICU beds occasionally go into near or over capacity. Of course some areas are suffering worse than others but do we really know, we hear anout every hospital getting full but its also patchy in terms of the degree of pressure.
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Its fine being a salaried, pensioned civil servant, it impacts on your outlook. Unfortunately most of the population isnt and it is becoming incresingly difficult for the public to really get the picture if all we hear is cry wolf, we do not know how real it is anymore, or not. We have lost any proportion in what the message is, the media eat it up and regurgitate it. Concern is not terror, but there are days when you feel that is exactly what is bering spread by people who should know better.
ICU occupancy rates are below average levels in most regions, according to Toby Young. I haven't seen anybody contradict that assertion.
Do you seriously take any notice of anything Toby Young says? It must be difficult to find anyone who makes more spectacular cockups with so called facts so often.
Fair enough then, show me the evidence that refutes his claim. Nobody else has.
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Not that the weasel word 'apprently' (sic) makes me at all suspicious, but any proof of this?
Yes, a couple of doctors working in acute settings in Edinburgh.
Haven't seen that reported. Any links?
And hoiw would the docs know if they are in clinical settings themselves, ie not organising the vaccine?
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Not that the weasel word 'apprently' (sic) makes me at all suspicious, but any proof of this?
Yes, a couple of doctors working in acute settings in Edinburgh.
Comments
The City at last count has actually gained not lost jobs since 2016. Westminster has gained full lawmaking powers over a globally significant key sector of our economy - that is more important than passporting.
As the EU passes damaging bills like the Bankers Bonus directive and looks at a nascent Financial Transactions Tax the incentive to do financial transactions in the UK and out of the EU will increase not decrease.
And the City are masters of dealing with paperwork and finding a path through it. Hence why it is a global not European City.
RED TAPE
When do we want it
NOW (and forever)
From what I have read so far, the government had limited ambitions, has achieved some of them and has ended up with a deal which does not achieve much for Britain but does achieve a lot for the PM and the Tory party.
If you set a low bar, it's easy to pass.
My point is, even having used those powers, it hasn’t been enough to avoid Scotland needing international aid, just as has happened in England.
Now you might argue with perfect justification that there are a number of very good reasons for that. After all, Scotland is a poorer country than England, and has massive legacy problems with poverty, drug addiction and housing that are certainly not the fault of the SNP - in fact, many of them have defeated governments of all types for over fifty years.
But MalcolmG was, rather disgustingly, trying to make a political point out of it by implying it only affected countries governed by ‘unionists.’ I was pointing out he was wrong.
Edit - and truthfully, the main question we should be asking about all of this, as with foodbanks, is why they are needed, and how do we change matters so they stop being needed?
Britain had one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the EU, so precisely which jobs were lost?
The only jobs I can see going are from the closure of that berk’s glass eel business.
Why are we paying for this, #Scotland?
UK Tory Govt's Scotland Office has revealed soaring costs
Spin doctors up 280%
Spending on comms tripled
Advertising spend up tenfold
>> Overall spending +73%
Tariff free access to the excellent imported goods from the EU is one of the best bits of this deal. Better still that we cannot debase our standards too.
“It’s not the start of the end of London, but it’s pretty bloody embarrassing and a huge own goal for Britain,” said Aquis’ Haynes.
However Brexit was not a vote to increase or even maintain the dominance of the City of London
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9095135/Did-Jeremy-Corbyn-break-rules-Ex-Labour-leader-filmed-brother-two-Christmas-Day.html
Thank you, Cyclefree for your predictions ... and how about for number 12 ...
12. Cyclefree finally reveals how she voted in the Brexit referendum 😀
Of course, your vote is your own affair ... but I do get this enduring vision of Cyclefree looking at the Prada dress & sunglasses she ordered, filled with regret and disappointment.
Considering the 'limited ambitions' were publicly stated in advance and were in the manifesto the government was elected upon then those ambitions - not the ambitions of people that lost the referendum or other parties had - seem to be the ambitions this deal should be measured against.
Success is reality minus expectations.
No, the other thing.
Although, in fairness, if the story as reported is a breach about 40% of the country is probably guilty.
The US banking industry could splinter to various more livable and more business friendly locations around the states.
I haven’t bothered because at this moment I haven’t a clue what I’m teaching, whether in school or online, and I don’t want to waste hours for no gain.
The group talks about food banks before they discuss whether Covid is being used 'as a cover to privatise the NHS' with Corbyn adding: 'What we've got is Covid billionaires - the equivalent to wartime millionaires.'
They complain about 'Big Pharma' turning the NHS into a 'milking cow' before Jeremy thanks Santa for coming and shakes the hands of all three men before sending them on their way.
-----------
The two gifts brought by 'Santa' and delivered to Jeremy by the group include the domain name of LabourParty.org and a letter which addresses his suspension from the Labour Party over his response to the anti-Semitism report.
------------
All those evil big Pharma corporations saving the world....disgusting...and of course AZN vaccine is being sold at basically cost.
You just cannot get your head round or understand what "Powers Reserved to London" means do you.
Or is that a power that’s somehow magically not reserved to London, because only when the SNP have failed in something is it London’s fault?
As per the ONS employment in UK financial and insurance activities was 1.373m in Jul-Sep 2020, an increase from 1.254m in Jul-Sep 2015.
Anyone want to predict what it will be in a year's time ?
Even if that will be disruptive for me personally and likely mean much more time on PB for January once more than I'd have planned.
- Is it better or worse than EU membership?
- Is it better than No Deal?
- Who won more? The UK or the EU?
- Did the UK achieve its negotiating objectives?
- Was the deal better than expected or not as good as it realistically could have been?
My responses to those assessments:- Unquestionably worse than membership. The deal doesn't deliver a single economic benefit over membership. Most of the many Brexit degradations are left unmitigated. Being a trade deal, it doesn't affect the purported non-economic benefits, if they are such, of Brexit on sovereignty etc.
- Also unquestionably better than no deal. No deal is no relationship with the UK's most important partners by far, which is unviable. Some of the specific measures in the deal are vital
- Who won more is irrelevant. We are only interested in us. Presumably the EU can look after itself
- The UK government achieved enough of its negotiating objectives to be satisfied with the deal, on governance, LPF and fish. I think they expected to get more through their hard ball tactics, which were ineffective to counterproductive in getting the EU to shift.
- I think the UK government could have got a better deal. One was poor negotiating tactics that I have already alluded to. They could also have got a better deal by being smarter/more flexible with some of their red lines. In my opinion they over-fixated on the ECJ and avoiding commitments. Because the ECJ can actually be a useful objective arbitrator for a weaker party. Secondly the UK fundamentally misunderstood the point of treaties, which is to get commitments. They expended their negotiating capital on what I think to be red herrings and failed to follow up on achievable wins.
So where to go from here? The key points are (1) and (2). The negotiating space was and will be "lot worse than membership; lot better than nothing". As a membership organisation the EU will always prioritise the value of membership. Non-members will necessarily get a much worse deal. But the deal also has to offer something valuable to those non members. "Lot worse than membership; lot better than nothing" is a big negotiating space and there is scope to move up the spectrum.Now we are back to the red lines. To get a better deal the UK will need to offer the EU something it wants that isn't already in the existing deals. Which probably means the UK supporting the EU more, either diplomatically, in terms of industrial alignment or with hard cash. I don't think this Brexiteer government is in that space.
Not all red tape is worth eliminating though, not if the price of eliminating it is too high.
Red tape for customs declarations in a zero tariff/zero quota agreement should be quite negligible and people will get used to it and move on. It won't be the first or last time businessmen have faced paperwork.
Too much of my time running a business is dealing with paperwork, but it gets done.
If everything else were equal would I rather no red tape? Of course! Is everything else equal? No.
ParisAmsterdamHamburg?You have heard of covid, right?
Foodbanks etc are needed due to the greed and shit policies of Tories.
From 1995 until I retired a few years ago I ran a pressure group. It was worldwide, but the majority of potential customers were in the USA and then Europe.
Dealing with the USA (notably Microsoft who were the worst and you would think had never heard of the paperless office rather than inventing it) was a nightmare. So much so that I helped others set up a parallel organisation to mine in the USA. We worked together instead of competing. I did a similar thing for Australia.
So yes the paperwork does deter. In my case it was so frustrating that I positively helped to get an alternative to me set up that I could work with rather than do the business for myself. I made not a penny out of it, but it improved my creditability with my customers that I had USA contacts that I couldn't profitably set up myself with all the additional admin.
I doubt the Tory party would pay for someone to big up Scottish independence.
The truth is, the deal flowed naturally from the respective adjusted red lines. FOM had to go, this did not change from Mrs May's time, but other things did. She wished to get near frictionless trade with the SM and to protect the constitutional integrity of the UK, ruling out a border in the Irish Sea. Johnson dropped both of these requirements and was therefore, quid pro quo, able to negotiate a deal which looks - no, is - better for those whose main animators are borders, laws and fish. It's a deal that sacrifices the economy for visceral feel goods around "sovereignty" and as such is very much in the spirit of Brexit.
Could those be the reasons?
Yep, the NHS is at fault. They had months to prep for this, they cant get away (hopefully) with throwing care home residents back out of hospital, they have had money thrown at them. Most worrying of all, they appear to be spending a tremendous amount of time knocking on to the media about how much of a disaster its all going to be. It appears to be becoming a God complex. I just heard an interview, and it was set piece not a phone in, where a nurse was amneting the current situation. Well tough, you signed up. We get its tough but there is no magic wand. The calls for action, the 'do something' before additional measures have been allowed to take effect, which takes weeks, seem to be grasping at straws.
Until the sainted, centre of the universe status given to the NHS is removed then they are unchallenged. The scandal of being people being sent back to care homes, who the fuck is being dragged up for scrutiny there? Thats an operational and policy decision by the NHS.
At the beginning of last week I spoke with someone working in NHS pperations in an area of Northern Ireland that has had a notably hard time. How was it? Aparently not as bad as its being made out. Its tough but they pointed out the service comes under pressure like this every few years in winter. ICU beds occasionally go into near or over capacity. Of course some areas are suffering worse than others but do we really know, we hear anout every hospital getting full but its also patchy in terms of the degree of pressure.
What really takes the biscuit though is in Scotland, where NHS back office staff, ie that are not in anyway working in clincal settings, have apprently been bumping the queue registering themselves for getting the vaccine. Really? Who is allowing this to happen? Is it hapenning elsewhere? Possibly. There's your sainted heroes for you.
Its fine being a salaried, pensioned civil servant, it impacts on your outlook. Unfortunately most of the population isnt and it is becoming incresingly difficult for the public to really get the picture if all we hear is cry wolf, we do not know how real it is anymore, or not. We have lost any proportion in what the message is, the media eat it up and regurgitate it. Concern is not terror, but there are days when you feel that is exactly what is bering spread by people who should know better.
Unfortunately, what you and others here are demonstrating is that Scotsnats literally have passed reason. You don’t care what facts are, you just twist or invent them to suit your agenda. You are reminding me, right now, very much of Donald Trump.
My suspicion is that as a result Scotland will do a Brexit-style departure from the UK, on the back of a number of these twisted facts becoming impossible promises, and at the end when Nats are celebrating ‘freedom’ everyone else will be wondering if the marginal gain in independence was worth the cost.
The old Establishment was always good about making sure they were on the winning side. That's how come they stayed around so long.
For me the answers are very clearly;
1. It is far far better than EU membership. In fact anything including No Deal would have been better than EU membership.
2. It is certainly better than No Deal. But I would add not as good as some other results would have been including EFTA membership. We lost that opportunity when May became PM.
3. Agree entirely, the question of 'who won' or 'who got the most concessions' is infantile. If both sides are satisfied with the deal then both sides 'won'.
4. I think again it is a rather daft question given that both sides had apparent red lines but at least some of these were negotiating positions rather than true red lines. It strikes me that these negotiations do bear one similarity to war in so far as the old adage goes that no plan survives first contact.
5. The deal was better than I expected but that is because I have such a low opinion of our politicians. I think Frost and Barnier both deserve a huge amount of credit and that in retrospect it is the best deal either side could have hoped for if they were being realistic. I disagree fundamentally with your view of the ECJ.
We do have people who think food banks are a good thing as that lets us give charitably. But that's uncomfortablu like the arguments of the early C19 (IIRC 1840s for the shift from parish relief to a Poor Law in Scotland).
I was meaning to ask you, out of interest as you actually work at the chalkface, do you think FSMs are a good thing? For all children or just the poor?
And hoiw would the docs know if they are in clinical settings themselves, ie not organising the vaccine?