Funny how the media are now obsessed with hotel quarantine.....in a way they weren't over the summer or Christmas holidays.
Telegrpah bleating about how it will cost families thousands. Well, err.. how about not going on holiday?
It is like all the twats at the airports moaning...its not fair, not fair....I am coming back from Barbados and it is taking 2hrs to get through passport control....sorry Barbados, what exactly were you doing there....erhhhhh errhhhh business, yes thats it, business.
Yeahbut the hotel said if I tag them in three Instagram posts while I’m there, they’ll give me 10% off my room for the week. That’s work, innit?
Which chain so I can avoid the one that allow z class celebs in.
Sandy lane has a problem with that but I usually only end up walking through it when I've got the tides wrong on the walk up to Hole Town.
There’s been some funny stories in Dubai about all these ‘influencers’. They’ve been spotted coming out of 3-star hotels and heading for the public beach, or spotted taking photos in a dozen different outfits in one day, having bought a leisure day-pass to one of the nice hotels - then spending the next month giving the impression that they’re staying in a five-star resort that costs $500 a night. Also, giving the stewardess a £20 tip to spend five minutes in a business-class seat for the selfies, or doing so when everyone’s leaving the plane.
It’s all a mirage and a fantasy, and sadly a whole load of young people are completely taken in by this culture.
I think that's the worst bit about it. That so many young people see all this and think it is real and easily achievable, in fact it isn't fair if they don't have it. When in reality, you either have to get incredibly lucky or work your arse off or normally both.
Oh indeed, it’s a bit like most artistic jobs where a very few make life-changing money - but the majority of the rest are barely over the poverty line.
For these ‘influencer’ types, their whole life is a constant broadcast lie about where they are and what they’re doing.
The successful ones are using social media to showcase their business, whatever that may be, rather than deriving the majority of their income from sponsored posting - despite what it may look like from the outside.
Wouldn't their whinging have a little more credibility if they'd managed to get around to approving the AZ vaccine by now?
And ordered sooner rather than taking their time haggling over the price, and invested more in production and development.
But it's the EU, so it can't be their fault, and to criticise it means you're anti-European.
Also, it's the EU Commission, so, if you're a furious EU citizen and want to punish them for their incompetence, by voting them out of power, you can't. They are unelected. They are under zero political pressure.
I have the strangest idea of what the EU "suggestion" will be to make up the shortfall.
There are no tanks in Baghdad....I mean no wonder Italy are so pissed off, they got off to a decent start on vaccinations, but now no supply and down to 10-15k jabs a day.
Some good news on a Monday morning. Lotus Cars announce £100m investment into Hethel facility, with 250 extra jobs working on new sports car to replace existing Elise, Exige and Evora models.
I've always wanted a 2.2 Series 2 Esprit but then when I go to look at one I always recoil from the Morris Marina interior and sub-Marina build quality. They remind me very much of 2CVs; there is an amazing amount of engineering genius in them but 95% of that genius is channeled into making them as cheap as possible to build.
LOL did you go to Belize at all?
Two airlines in the region at the time:
TACA - take a chance airways; and SAHSA - stay at home, stay alive.
Planes had a habit of driving into the mountain range at the end of the runway at Tegucigalpa.
The same for Pakistan International Airlines was Please Inform Allah....
There was a Russian pilot that used to fly out of Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, with a parrot on his shoulder. Sadly, he slammed into the volcano there....
It was quite sobering to see the mountain range at the end of the runway as you were taxiing ready for take off...
My nearest miss? Happily minding my own business dozing/reading the paper in an Air China BAe146 as we flew through some fog in northern China. Suddenly the plane just changed direction and flew upwards at a near vertical angle, engines roaring (did I imagine that?). And when I looked out of the window we were flying through and amongst a mountain range with the buggers all around.
Didn't have time to be scared as it was over before anyone realised but have pondered that at moments since.
Flying into Alderney across the cliffs in a high, gusty, wind wasn't fun.
Landing in a tiny plane on a grass air strip on the island of Foula - the UK's loneliest inhabited island and also the stormiest (it averages one "calm" day a year).
Some good news on a Monday morning. Lotus Cars announce £100m investment into Hethel facility, with 250 extra jobs working on new sports car to replace existing Elise, Exige and Evora models.
I've always wanted a 2.2 Series 2 Esprit but then when I go to look at one I always recoil from the Morris Marina interior and sub-Marina build quality. They remind me very much of 2CVs; there is an amazing amount of engineering genius in them but 95% of that genius is channeled into making them as cheap as possible to build.
LOL did you go to Belize at all?
Two airlines in the region at the time:
TACA - take a chance airways; and SAHSA - stay at home, stay alive.
Planes had a habit of driving into the mountain range at the end of the runway at Tegucigalpa.
The same for Pakistan International Airlines was Please Inform Allah....
There was a Russian pilot that used to fly out of Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, with a parrot on his shoulder. Sadly, he slammed into the volcano there....
It was quite sobering to see the mountain range at the end of the runway as you were taxiing ready for take off...
My nearest miss? Happily minding my own business dozing/reading the paper in an Air China BAe146 as we flew through some fog in northern China. Suddenly the plane just changed direction and flew upwards at a near vertical angle, engines roaring (did I imagine that?). And when I looked out of the window we were flying through and amongst a mountain range with the buggers all around.
Didn't have time to be scared as it was over before anyone realised but have pondered that at moments since.
Flying into Alderney across the cliffs in a high, gusty, wind wasn't fun.
Christiano Ronaldo in Madeira. That's a fun one in Funchal....
Funny how the media are now obsessed with hotel quarantine.....in a way they weren't over the summer or Christmas holidays.
Its as if they have been on their sunshine breaks and now have nothing to look forward to for several months.
I await the screeching for the removal of what they claim is a "racist and discriminatory policy, that hits the poor the hardest", when we get to June.
Most of the media weren't interested at all when passengers from Milan were arriving at Heathrow and Gatwick last March and April without any checks whatsoever on their health condition despite the fact that that was the epicentre of the pandemic at the time.
Back then people were acting as though a quick check with a thermometer was all it took.
Some good news on a Monday morning. Lotus Cars announce £100m investment into Hethel facility, with 250 extra jobs working on new sports car to replace existing Elise, Exige and Evora models.
I've always wanted a 2.2 Series 2 Esprit but then when I go to look at one I always recoil from the Morris Marina interior and sub-Marina build quality. They remind me very much of 2CVs; there is an amazing amount of engineering genius in them but 95% of that genius is channeled into making them as cheap as possible to build.
LOL did you go to Belize at all?
Two airlines in the region at the time:
TACA - take a chance airways; and SAHSA - stay at home, stay alive.
Planes had a habit of driving into the mountain range at the end of the runway at Tegucigalpa.
The same for Pakistan International Airlines was Please Inform Allah....
There was a Russian pilot that used to fly out of Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, with a parrot on his shoulder. Sadly, he slammed into the volcano there....
It was quite sobering to see the mountain range at the end of the runway as you were taxiing ready for take off...
My nearest miss? Happily minding my own business dozing/reading the paper in an Air China BAe146 as we flew through some fog in northern China. Suddenly the plane just changed direction and flew upwards at a near vertical angle, engines roaring (did I imagine that?). And when I looked out of the window we were flying through and amongst a mountain range with the buggers all around.
Didn't have time to be scared as it was over before anyone realised but have pondered that at moments since.
Always struck me as one fo the macabre Farside cartoons.
Pilots’ last thought - that cloud looks a bit like a sheep.
Some good news on a Monday morning. Lotus Cars announce £100m investment into Hethel facility, with 250 extra jobs working on new sports car to replace existing Elise, Exige and Evora models.
I've always wanted a 2.2 Series 2 Esprit but then when I go to look at one I always recoil from the Morris Marina interior and sub-Marina build quality. They remind me very much of 2CVs; there is an amazing amount of engineering genius in them but 95% of that genius is channeled into making them as cheap as possible to build.
LOL did you go to Belize at all?
Two airlines in the region at the time:
TACA - take a chance airways; and SAHSA - stay at home, stay alive.
Planes had a habit of driving into the mountain range at the end of the runway at Tegucigalpa.
The same for Pakistan International Airlines was Please Inform Allah....
There was a Russian pilot that used to fly out of Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, with a parrot on his shoulder. Sadly, he slammed into the volcano there....
It was quite sobering to see the mountain range at the end of the runway as you were taxiing ready for take off...
My nearest miss? Happily minding my own business dozing/reading the paper in an Air China BAe146 as we flew through some fog in northern China. Suddenly the plane just changed direction and flew upwards at a near vertical angle, engines roaring (did I imagine that?). And when I looked out of the window we were flying through and amongst a mountain range with the buggers all around.
Didn't have time to be scared as it was over before anyone realised but have pondered that at moments since.
I was once flying over the Himalayas - and we dropped like a stone. The one place you don't want to be dropping thousands of feet!
One thing I do respect about HYUFD is that he voted Remain and has never recanted from conceding that Brexit is economically damaging (albeit necessary, having voted for it).
That’s actually a lot more honest than many posters who scoffed unto the end that any economic harm was just “Project Fear”.
Virtually everything that was warned about Brexit that was dismissed as "project fear" has largely come to pass. The only real Project Fear was that used by Leave fascists who wanted the gullible to believe that they were about to be overrun by Romanians
I’d give it about 8/10.
Slower growth? Check. Fall in pound? Check. Increased inflation? Only a little only (so far) Increased indy sentiment? Check. Succour to populists and alt-rightest? Check. Trade restrictions? Check. Loss of rights? Check. Damage to relations with key allies? Check. Loss of U.K. influence? Check. Fall in house prices? Not really.
I'd give it the following Fall in pound? Check. (But I'd argue in the circumstances this is a good thing) Increased indy sentiment? Check. Trade restrictions? Check. (Negligible, just paperwork not tariffs etc) Loss of rights? Check. (Those that were acknowkledged during the referendum)
Slower growth? ❌ - Objectively the UK had faster, not slower, growth than the Eurozone in the past decade "despite Brexit"
Increased inflation? ❌ - Objectively the UK has below-target inflation.
Succour to populists and alt-rightest? ❌ - Objectively opinion polls are showing reduced tolerance of alt-rightists and populists and greater acceptance of immigrants and immigration.
Loss of U.K. influence? ❌ - I can't see any objective way to measure this but UK has been capable of reaching agreements with those they want to do so, on a similar basis as we could before.
Damage to relations with key allies? ❌ - Allies have accepted Brexit and moved on. They view it as Britain being Britain and not objectively damaged.
Fall in house prices? Not really. - Which is a shame but nevermind.
A fall in the pound makes British people poorer and so cannot be considered, in itself, to be a good thing. It may be a necessary thing, given other factors (eg if you hinder your exporters and damage your productive capacity, you will need a weaker currency to restore your competitiveness). With a floating exchange rate the currency will find its level. If that level is significantly lower than before, that is telling you something, and it isn't good.
A fall in the pound doesn't make the British people poorer. Inflation makes the British people poorer, but inflation is below target.
Setting aside Brexit and looking at the economic fundamentals we have below target inflation, a current account deficit, a balance of payments deficit and low savings ratio. If you don't have savings, you have a balance of payments deficit etc then your currency falling is what should happen - not a bad thing.
The pound has fallen consistently not just in recent years but for the whole of the last century. The last century has been a story of the pound falling. It is falling because we don't save enough, we import too much and export too little. Save more, import less, export more and the pound will stabilise instead of continuing its century-long period of decline.
But for so long as we have insufficient savings ratio, a balance of payments deficit and the rest of the fundamentals then falling sterling is a good thing not a bad thing. It is a natural stabiliser and when you remove natural stabilisers the pressures on the system go somewhere else they don't go away. Fix savings, fix balance of payments, fix everything else and the pound will stop falling.
We don't have inflation now because GBP is stable now. Following its devaluation in 2016 CPI inflation went from 0% to 3%, and inflation for heavily imported items went up even more (food inflation from - 3% to 4%). As you say, the fall in the currency is a natural stabiliser. What is it stabilising? What happened in 2016 that made FX market participants think we would be finding it harder to make our living in the world, so that we needed to make our workers cheaper to compensate? We all know the answer.
Lots of price increases at Asda this week
4pts milk up 5p to £1.15
My fav Asda Yoghurt up 10p to £1.10
Basically about a dozen of my 50 favorites have increased by between 4% and 10% this week
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
Have we established whether the razor wire will be needed to keep the Scots out or the English in?
A little from column A, a little from column B.
I think I have seen this before but looking at the wall created by East Germany as a young boy (about 12) had a profound effect on my views. Its when I realised that the razor wire was facing in the way and the minefields and sentry posts were there not to guard a border from an external threat but the desire of their people to leave. It brought home to me how evil these communist regimes were and I have found it hard to be polite to their fellow travelers ever since. Just delusional.
I don't believe for a second that this would ever happen on the English/Scottish border of course. But customs posts and the paperwork that so many remainers like to obsess over would be inevitable.
One thing I do respect about HYUFD is that he voted Remain and has never recanted from conceding that Brexit is economically damaging (albeit necessary, having voted for it).
That’s actually a lot more honest than many posters who scoffed unto the end that any economic harm was just “Project Fear”.
Virtually everything that was warned about Brexit that was dismissed as "project fear" has largely come to pass. The only real Project Fear was that used by Leave fascists who wanted the gullible to believe that they were about to be overrun by Romanians
I’d give it about 8/10.
Slower growth? Check. Fall in pound? Check. Increased inflation? Only a little only (so far) Increased indy sentiment? Check. Succour to populists and alt-rightest? Check. Trade restrictions? Check. Loss of rights? Check. Damage to relations with key allies? Check. Loss of U.K. influence? Check. Fall in house prices? Not really.
I'd give it the following Fall in pound? Check. (But I'd argue in the circumstances this is a good thing) Increased indy sentiment? Check. Trade restrictions? Check. (Negligible, just paperwork not tariffs etc) Loss of rights? Check. (Those that were acknowkledged during the referendum)
Slower growth? ❌ - Objectively the UK had faster, not slower, growth than the Eurozone in the past decade "despite Brexit"
Increased inflation? ❌ - Objectively the UK has below-target inflation.
Succour to populists and alt-rightest? ❌ - Objectively opinion polls are showing reduced tolerance of alt-rightists and populists and greater acceptance of immigrants and immigration.
Loss of U.K. influence? ❌ - I can't see any objective way to measure this but UK has been capable of reaching agreements with those they want to do so, on a similar basis as we could before.
Damage to relations with key allies? ❌ - Allies have accepted Brexit and moved on. They view it as Britain being Britain and not objectively damaged.
Fall in house prices? Not really. - Which is a shame but nevermind.
A fall in the pound makes British people poorer and so cannot be considered, in itself, to be a good thing. It may be a necessary thing, given other factors (eg if you hinder your exporters and damage your productive capacity, you will need a weaker currency to restore your competitiveness). With a floating exchange rate the currency will find its level. If that level is significantly lower than before, that is telling you something, and it isn't good.
A fall in the pound doesn't make the British people poorer. Inflation makes the British people poorer, but inflation is below target.
Setting aside Brexit and looking at the economic fundamentals we have below target inflation, a current account deficit, a balance of payments deficit and low savings ratio. If you don't have savings, you have a balance of payments deficit etc then your currency falling is what should happen - not a bad thing.
The pound has fallen consistently not just in recent years but for the whole of the last century. The last century has been a story of the pound falling. It is falling because we don't save enough, we import too much and export too little. Save more, import less, export more and the pound will stabilise instead of continuing its century-long period of decline.
But for so long as we have insufficient savings ratio, a balance of payments deficit and the rest of the fundamentals then falling sterling is a good thing not a bad thing. It is a natural stabiliser and when you remove natural stabilisers the pressures on the system go somewhere else they don't go away. Fix savings, fix balance of payments, fix everything else and the pound will stop falling.
We don't have inflation now because GBP is stable now. Following its devaluation in 2016 CPI inflation went from 0% to 3%, and inflation for heavily imported items went up even more (food inflation from - 3% to 4%). As you say, the fall in the currency is a natural stabiliser. What is it stabilising? What happened in 2016 that made FX market participants think we would be finding it harder to make our living in the world, so that we needed to make our workers cheaper to compensate? We all know the answer.
Target inflation is 2% +/- 1%. 3% is closer to target than 0% so that's a good thing not a bad thing.
Cherrypicking random items that went up more is meaningless, someone else could cherrypick others that went up less, the simple fact of the matter is that despite the fall in sterling inflation has remained within or below target for almost all of recent years.
Again the savings ratio isn't high enough, that is why pound falls. If you want the pound to stop falling then save more. As for making our living in the world it goes back to what was said a couple of pages ago: in the last decade, despite whatever happened in 2016 onwards, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone over the decade. Not slower, faster. Yes with the pound falling across the decade - to which I say: so what?
Which would you rather have given we have too low savings and high balance of payments deficit: falling currency and faster growth across the decade (sterling), or rising currency and slower growth across the decade (Eurozone)?
Funny how the media are now obsessed with hotel quarantine.....in a way they weren't over the summer or Christmas holidays.
Its as if they have been on their sunshine breaks and now have nothing to look forward to for several months.
I await the screeching for the removal of what they claim is a "racist and discriminatory policy, that hits the poor the hardest", when we get to June.
Most of the media weren't interested at all when passengers from Milan were arriving at Heathrow and Gatwick last March and April without any checks whatsoever on their health condition despite the fact that that was the epicentre of the pandemic at the time.
Back then people were acting as though a quick check with a thermometer was all it took.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
I think you guys have now talked this subject to death. At least for today? You are all repeating yourselves
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
No, you said he'd have to resign. Not that he'd be hounded out.
There is no surge in "al fresco defacation" here in Kent. We have been quite relieved (no pun intended) TBH. That is because the expecation we were given was of complee gridlock but what we have ended up with is not anywhere near that. That may change but the increase in people releiving themselves on the M20 has not happened (yet). There is a new lorry park but mostly Manston Airport has been repurposed.
Indeed. Kent has largely been saved thanks to the almost total collapse of trade across the channel. Hurrah!
Isn't it at 70% of previous? That's not a total collapse.
Reported as 15% of previous. People posting from Euroshuttle trains that are almost entirely empty etc etc.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
But it has the powers of a federal state, but not the accountability of a federal state. That is the worst of both worlds.
If you want a federal state, then the EU should have the powers and it should have a fully-empowered Parliament. That is an acceptable federal solution.
If you don't want a federal state, then the EU should not have the powers.
There is no democratic justification whatsoever for it to have the powers of a federal state, but without a fully-empowered Parliament.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Which is precisely why it is a lumbering, technocratic, anti-democratic hybrid. Neither fish nor fowl. It is quite good at keeping the peace between squabbling nations, but the vaccine programme shows many of its graver flaws.
The Commission chose a bad moment to screw the pooch.
Funny how the media are now obsessed with hotel quarantine.....in a way they weren't over the summer or Christmas holidays.
Telegrpah bleating about how it will cost families thousands. Well, err.. how about not going on holiday?
It is like all the twats at the airports moaning...its not fair, not fair....I am coming back from Barbados and it is taking 2hrs to get through passport control....sorry Barbados, what exactly were you doing there....erhhhhh errhhhh business, yes thats it, business.
Yeahbut the hotel said if I tag them in three Instagram posts while I’m there, they’ll give me 10% off my room for the week. That’s work, innit?
Which chain so I can avoid the one that allow z class celebs in.
Sandy lane has a problem with that but I usually only end up walking through it when I've got the tides wrong on the walk up to Hole Town.
There’s been some funny stories in Dubai about all these ‘influencers’. They’ve been spotted coming out of 3-star hotels and heading for the public beach, or spotted taking photos in a dozen different outfits in one day, having bought a leisure day-pass to one of the nice hotels - then spending the next month giving the impression that they’re staying in a five-star resort that costs $500 a night. Also, giving the stewardess a £20 tip to spend five minutes in a business-class seat for the selfies, or doing so when everyone’s leaving the plane.
It’s all a mirage and a fantasy, and sadly a whole load of young people are completely taken in by this culture.
I think that's the worst bit about it. That so many young people see all this and think it is real and easily achievable, in fact it isn't fair if they don't have it. When in reality, you either have to get incredibly lucky or work your arse off or normally both.
Influencer "culture" is the absolute worst, a total lie. I do think though that it is holding up a mirror to the wider society, it points to a kind of empty materialism that seems to be the logical end point of consumer capitalism. As you say, real success requires a combination of talent, hard work and luck. I know (or used to know) someone who achieved real success in the arts (I'm currently listening to one of their albums), and their career only took a decade of thankless effort, at least one lucky break, and they also have phenomenal talent.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
I don't disagree and Sturgeon has said she will not do a UDI although the hardcore Salmondites are demanding she should.
However a confrontation is inevitable if the SNP win a majority in May at Holyrood on an indyref2 platform.
Wouldn't their whinging have a little more credibility if they'd managed to get around to approving the AZ vaccine by now?
And ordered sooner rather than taking their time haggling over the price, and invested more in production and development.
But it's the EU, so it can't be their fault, and to criticise it means you're anti-European.
Also, it's the EU Commission, so, if you're a furious EU citizen and want to punish them for their incompetence, by voting them out of power, you can't. They are unelected. They are under zero political pressure.
I have the strangest idea of what the EU "suggestion" will be to make up the shortfall.
Obvious really....
I presume they'll be told to Foxtrot Oscar.....
Depends how much pressure they can apply - and what they can control within EU borders.
After, look what happened with PPE back last year.
Wouldn't their whinging have a little more credibility if they'd managed to get around to approving the AZ vaccine by now?
And ordered sooner rather than taking their time haggling over the price, and invested more in production and development.
But it's the EU, so it can't be their fault, and to criticise it means you're anti-European.
Also, it's the EU Commission, so, if you're a furious EU citizen and want to punish them for their incompetence, by voting them out of power, you can't. They are unelected. They are under zero political pressure.
This is not really true, though.
The real power in the EU is in the Council, which is composed of duly elected heads of government.
The analog to the Commission is Whitehall. You cannot vote out Whitehall, either. Granted you can vote for a Boris Johnson who utilises a Dom Cummings to “fix” Whitehall.
But as of 2021, Dom is gone and Whitehall is still there.
Is that true? I thought the commission was the sole body that could propose laws, for example.
Yes, but they essentially do so within the tolerance allowed by the Council.
If the Council wants something done, it is done.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
The Parliament is largely toothless, yes. This is how the Council (ie the heads of government) prefer it in order to protect their one sovereignty.
Imagine, as a thought experiment, a core British interest that was over-ruled somehow by the EU Parliament. It would be hugely unpopular in Britain.
The set up is certainly imperfect (and there is not an easy answer), but @Leon’s specific point was incorrect.
There is no surge in "al fresco defacation" here in Kent. We have been quite relieved (no pun intended) TBH. That is because the expecation we were given was of complee gridlock but what we have ended up with is not anywhere near that. That may change but the increase in people releiving themselves on the M20 has not happened (yet). There is a new lorry park but mostly Manston Airport has been repurposed.
Indeed. Kent has largely been saved thanks to the almost total collapse of trade across the channel. Hurrah!
Isn't it at 70% of previous? That's not a total collapse.
Reported as 15% of previous. People posting from Euroshuttle trains that are almost entirely empty etc etc.
Wouldn't their whinging have a little more credibility if they'd managed to get around to approving the AZ vaccine by now?
And ordered sooner rather than taking their time haggling over the price, and invested more in production and development.
But it's the EU, so it can't be their fault, and to criticise it means you're anti-European.
Also, it's the EU Commission, so, if you're a furious EU citizen and want to punish them for their incompetence, by voting them out of power, you can't. They are unelected. They are under zero political pressure.
This is not really true, though.
The real power in the EU is in the Council, which is composed of duly elected heads of government.
The analog to the Commission is Whitehall. You cannot vote out Whitehall, either. Granted you can vote for a Boris Johnson who utilises a Dom Cummings to “fix” Whitehall.
But as of 2021, Dom is gone and Whitehall is still there.
Is that true? I thought the commission was the sole body that could propose laws, for example.
Yes, but they essentially do so within the tolerance allowed by the Council.
If the Council wants something done, it is done.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
The Parliament is largely toothless, yes. This is how the Council (ie the heads of government) prefer it in order to protect their one sovereignty.
Imagine, as a thought experiment, a core British interest that was over-ruled somehow by the EU Parliament. It would be hugely unpopular in Britain.
The set up is certainly imperfect (and there is not an easy answer), but @Leon’s specific point was incorrect.
But British interests could be over-ruled by the Council via QMV. How is that any better? How is that democratic?
There is a very reasonable question as to whether you want powers to be shared on a federal basis - if you don't then don't share the powers, simple. If you do then you should have a fully fledged federal government and federal Parliament that is held to account at federal elections.
Having a federal government but no federal elections is the worst of all worlds.
If you can't justify a fully-fledged, fully accountable federal Parliament then don't have federal lawmaking. Simple.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
That isn't the plan. The plan is to pressurise Johnson by claiming the higher ground.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
That isn't the plan. The plan is to pressurise Johnson by claiming the higher ground.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
I don't disagree and Sturgeon has said she will not do a UDI although the hardcore Salmondites are demanding she should.
However a confrontation is inevitable if the SNP win a majority in May at Holyrood on an indyref2 platform.
On topic for the discussion of federalism, the Tories need to be making urgent noises about the further federalisation of power if they want to keep Scotland on board willingly, and I don't see much sign of that so far - or any, in fact.
One thing I do respect about HYUFD is that he voted Remain and has never recanted from conceding that Brexit is economically damaging (albeit necessary, having voted for it).
That’s actually a lot more honest than many posters who scoffed unto the end that any economic harm was just “Project Fear”.
Virtually everything that was warned about Brexit that was dismissed as "project fear" has largely come to pass. The only real Project Fear was that used by Leave fascists who wanted the gullible to believe that they were about to be overrun by Romanians
I’d give it about 8/10.
Slower growth? Check. Fall in pound? Check. Increased inflation? Only a little only (so far) Increased indy sentiment? Check. Succour to populists and alt-rightest? Check. Trade restrictions? Check. Loss of rights? Check. Damage to relations with key allies? Check. Loss of U.K. influence? Check. Fall in house prices? Not really.
I'd give it the following Fall in pound? Check. (But I'd argue in the circumstances this is a good thing) Increased indy sentiment? Check. Trade restrictions? Check. (Negligible, just paperwork not tariffs etc) Loss of rights? Check. (Those that were acknowkledged during the referendum)
Slower growth? ❌ - Objectively the UK had faster, not slower, growth than the Eurozone in the past decade "despite Brexit"
Increased inflation? ❌ - Objectively the UK has below-target inflation.
Succour to populists and alt-rightest? ❌ - Objectively opinion polls are showing reduced tolerance of alt-rightists and populists and greater acceptance of immigrants and immigration.
Loss of U.K. influence? ❌ - I can't see any objective way to measure this but UK has been capable of reaching agreements with those they want to do so, on a similar basis as we could before.
Damage to relations with key allies? ❌ - Allies have accepted Brexit and moved on. They view it as Britain being Britain and not objectively damaged.
Fall in house prices? Not really. - Which is a shame but nevermind.
A fall in the pound makes British people poorer and so cannot be considered, in itself, to be a good thing. It may be a necessary thing, given other factors (eg if you hinder your exporters and damage your productive capacity, you will need a weaker currency to restore your competitiveness). With a floating exchange rate the currency will find its level. If that level is significantly lower than before, that is telling you something, and it isn't good.
A fall in the pound doesn't make the British people poorer. Inflation makes the British people poorer, but inflation is below target.
Setting aside Brexit and looking at the economic fundamentals we have below target inflation, a current account deficit, a balance of payments deficit and low savings ratio. If you don't have savings, you have a balance of payments deficit etc then your currency falling is what should happen - not a bad thing.
The pound has fallen consistently not just in recent years but for the whole of the last century. The last century has been a story of the pound falling. It is falling because we don't save enough, we import too much and export too little. Save more, import less, export more and the pound will stabilise instead of continuing its century-long period of decline.
But for so long as we have insufficient savings ratio, a balance of payments deficit and the rest of the fundamentals then falling sterling is a good thing not a bad thing. It is a natural stabiliser and when you remove natural stabilisers the pressures on the system go somewhere else they don't go away. Fix savings, fix balance of payments, fix everything else and the pound will stop falling.
We don't have inflation now because GBP is stable now. Following its devaluation in 2016 CPI inflation went from 0% to 3%, and inflation for heavily imported items went up even more (food inflation from - 3% to 4%). As you say, the fall in the currency is a natural stabiliser. What is it stabilising? What happened in 2016 that made FX market participants think we would be finding it harder to make our living in the world, so that we needed to make our workers cheaper to compensate? We all know the answer.
Lots of price increases at Asda this week
4pts milk up 5p to £1.15
My fav Asda Yoghurt up 10p to £1.10
Basically about a dozen of my 50 favorites have increased by between 4% and 10% this week
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
But it has the powers of a federal state, but not the accountability of a federal state. That is the worst of both worlds.
If you want a federal state, then the EU should have the powers and it should have a fully-empowered Parliament. That is an acceptable federal solution.
If you don't want a federal state, then the EU should not have the powers.
There is no democratic justification whatsoever for it to have the powers of a federal state, but without a fully-empowered Parliament.
It doesn't have the powers of a federal state. It has powers within the tightly-defined parameters of the EU treaties, and of course any member can leave at two years' notice.
It's really not like any other institution anywhere.
Funny how the media are now obsessed with hotel quarantine.....in a way they weren't over the summer or Christmas holidays.
Telegrpah bleating about how it will cost families thousands. Well, err.. how about not going on holiday?
It is like all the twats at the airports moaning...its not fair, not fair....I am coming back from Barbados and it is taking 2hrs to get through passport control....sorry Barbados, what exactly were you doing there....erhhhhh errhhhh business, yes thats it, business.
Yeahbut the hotel said if I tag them in three Instagram posts while I’m there, they’ll give me 10% off my room for the week. That’s work, innit?
Which chain so I can avoid the one that allow z class celebs in.
Sandy lane has a problem with that but I usually only end up walking through it when I've got the tides wrong on the walk up to Hole Town.
There’s been some funny stories in Dubai about all these ‘influencers’. They’ve been spotted coming out of 3-star hotels and heading for the public beach, or spotted taking photos in a dozen different outfits in one day, having bought a leisure day-pass to one of the nice hotels - then spending the next month giving the impression that they’re staying in a five-star resort that costs $500 a night. Also, giving the stewardess a £20 tip to spend five minutes in a business-class seat for the selfies, or doing so when everyone’s leaving the plane.
It’s all a mirage and a fantasy, and sadly a whole load of young people are completely taken in by this culture.
I think that's the worst bit about it. That so many young people see all this and think it is real and easily achievable, in fact it isn't fair if they don't have it. When in reality, you either have to get incredibly lucky or work your arse off or normally both.
Influencer "culture" is the absolute worst, a total lie. I do think though that it is holding up a mirror to the wider society, it points to a kind of empty materialism that seems to be the logical end point of consumer capitalism. As you say, real success requires a combination of talent, hard work and luck. I know (or used to know) someone who achieved real success in the arts (I'm currently listening to one of their albums), and their career only took a decade of thankless effort, at least one lucky break, and they also have phenomenal talent.
Maybe young people are under the same duty to think carefully about things and use their common sense and intelligence about persuaders and influencers as everyone else is?
Unless we act on some such basis then searching for others to blame for what is individual accountability will be endless.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
But it has the powers of a federal state, but not the accountability of a federal state. That is the worst of both worlds.
If you want a federal state, then the EU should have the powers and it should have a fully-empowered Parliament. That is an acceptable federal solution.
If you don't want a federal state, then the EU should not have the powers.
There is no democratic justification whatsoever for it to have the powers of a federal state, but without a fully-empowered Parliament.
It should be a proper Federal state now. The euro will only work if they move to true unity, and soon they will have no choice. That is the destiny, Nabavi is wrong. It will happen.
eg the EU now has its first uniformed armed officials. Frontex. Already accused of corruption
The further problem, however, is that even a Federal "democratic" EU with elected president and Commisson may not work, because there is no European demos, no single European people, speaking one language, to create a true democracy - and there is no pan-European media to scrutinise the powerful.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
I don't disagree and Sturgeon has said she will not do a UDI although the hardcore Salmondites are demanding she should.
However a confrontation is inevitable if the SNP win a majority in May at Holyrood on an indyref2 platform.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
That isn't the plan. The plan is to pressurise Johnson by claiming the higher ground.
It’s not Johnson with the power to authorise the referendum, it’s Parliament. The vote would be 590ish v 48.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Isn't it a pretty common view that the current level of federalism in the EU is all wrong, and it either needs to be scaled back or accelerated to work properly?
On that basis, the argument for leaving is that we know which direction the EU wants to move in. I'm less clear what the argument to remain was (or would have been).
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Which is precisely why it is a lumbering, technocratic, anti-democratic hybrid. Neither fish nor fowl. It is quite good at keeping the peace between squabbling nations, but the vaccine programme shows many of its graver flaws.
The Commission chose a bad moment to screw the pooch.
The vaccine programme should never have been done at EU level, and didn't have to be. They got a bit over-communitaire there, but it was a voluntary sovereign decision by the 27 nations. A very bad one, but we in the UK are not in a good position to criticise other countries for bad decisions.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
But it has the powers of a federal state, but not the accountability of a federal state. That is the worst of both worlds.
If you want a federal state, then the EU should have the powers and it should have a fully-empowered Parliament. That is an acceptable federal solution.
If you don't want a federal state, then the EU should not have the powers.
There is no democratic justification whatsoever for it to have the powers of a federal state, but without a fully-empowered Parliament.
It doesn't have the powers of a federal state. It has powers within the tightly-defined parameters of the EU treaties, and of course any member can leave at two years' notice.
It's really not like any other institution anywhere.
It does have the powers of a federal state. It can create laws on a federal basis, post-Lisbon via QMV on almost everything.
Yes the parameters are defined by treaties, just like the parameters of the US Federal Government are defined by the US Constitution. Does that mean the US isn't a Federal state?
If you don't want an accountable federal Parliament then don't have federal lawmaking. Then there would be no federal laws and no need for a federal Parliament at all.
I would guess they are there because they're a quote, so they don't have to go with the wordier 'Nicola Sturgeon's husband faces row over allegations he committed perjury.'
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
I don't disagree and Sturgeon has said she will not do a UDI although the hardcore Salmondites are demanding she should.
However a confrontation is inevitable if the SNP win a majority in May at Holyrood on an indyref2 platform.
On topic for the discussion of federalism, the Tories need to be making urgent noises about the further federalisation of power if they want to keep Scotland on board willingly, and I don't see much sign of that so far - or any, in fact.
Constitutionally they don't in the sense that the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no legal indyref2 or change to the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 without Westminster and UK government approval so as they will not grant indyref2 the Tories do not need to put in the effort to win it.
Now Labour if they got in in 2024 and granted a legal indyref2, for example if new PM Starmer needed SNP confidence and supply in a hung parliament, would indeed need to make noises about further federalisation, as Brown and Starmer are on devomax for Holyrood, regional assemblies for England etc. However it would be up to Labour to do the hard work to win that legal indyref2 they granted, the Tories by refusing any legal indyref2 anyway won't bother
Perhaps better not to harp too much on the Oxford aspect, considering most people are probably hoping they will get one of the vaccines developed in American, German or Belgian laboratories!
There is no surge in "al fresco defacation" here in Kent. We have been quite relieved (no pun intended) TBH. That is because the expecation we were given was of complee gridlock but what we have ended up with is not anywhere near that. That may change but the increase in people releiving themselves on the M20 has not happened (yet). There is a new lorry park but mostly Manston Airport has been repurposed.
Indeed. Kent has largely been saved thanks to the almost total collapse of trade across the channel. Hurrah!
Isn't it at 70% of previous? That's not a total collapse.
Reported as 15% of previous. People posting from Euroshuttle trains that are almost entirely empty etc etc.
Funny how the media are now obsessed with hotel quarantine.....in a way they weren't over the summer or Christmas holidays.
Telegrpah bleating about how it will cost families thousands. Well, err.. how about not going on holiday?
It is like all the twats at the airports moaning...its not fair, not fair....I am coming back from Barbados and it is taking 2hrs to get through passport control....sorry Barbados, what exactly were you doing there....erhhhhh errhhhh business, yes thats it, business.
Yeahbut the hotel said if I tag them in three Instagram posts while I’m there, they’ll give me 10% off my room for the week. That’s work, innit?
Which chain so I can avoid the one that allow z class celebs in.
Sandy lane has a problem with that but I usually only end up walking through it when I've got the tides wrong on the walk up to Hole Town.
There’s been some funny stories in Dubai about all these ‘influencers’. They’ve been spotted coming out of 3-star hotels and heading for the public beach, or spotted taking photos in a dozen different outfits in one day, having bought a leisure day-pass to one of the nice hotels - then spending the next month giving the impression that they’re staying in a five-star resort that costs $500 a night. Also, giving the stewardess a £20 tip to spend five minutes in a business-class seat for the selfies, or doing so when everyone’s leaving the plane.
It’s all a mirage and a fantasy, and sadly a whole load of young people are completely taken in by this culture.
I think that's the worst bit about it. That so many young people see all this and think it is real and easily achievable, in fact it isn't fair if they don't have it. When in reality, you either have to get incredibly lucky or work your arse off or normally both.
Influencer "culture" is the absolute worst, a total lie. I do think though that it is holding up a mirror to the wider society, it points to a kind of empty materialism that seems to be the logical end point of consumer capitalism. As you say, real success requires a combination of talent, hard work and luck. I know (or used to know) someone who achieved real success in the arts (I'm currently listening to one of their albums), and their career only took a decade of thankless effort, at least one lucky break, and they also have phenomenal talent.
Maybe young people are under the same duty to think carefully about things and use their common sense and intelligence about persuaders and influencers as everyone else is?
Unless we act on some such basis then searching for others to blame for what is individual accountability will be endless.
A key problem, though, is that earlier generations of adolescents didn't have to face a vastly influential social media behemoth, that has harvested the benefits of decades of psychological data research and machine learning to continuously nudge their behaviour in various directions. There's a good quote, I think from a former Google executive, in the recent Netflix Social Dilemma documentary - "can an individual, or in fact a kid, really stand up to that ? "
Wouldn't their whinging have a little more credibility if they'd managed to get around to approving the AZ vaccine by now?
And ordered sooner rather than taking their time haggling over the price, and invested more in production and development.
But it's the EU, so it can't be their fault, and to criticise it means you're anti-European.
Also, it's the EU Commission, so, if you're a furious EU citizen and want to punish them for their incompetence, by voting them out of power, you can't. They are unelected. They are under zero political pressure.
This is not really true, though.
The real power in the EU is in the Council, which is composed of duly elected heads of government.
The analog to the Commission is Whitehall. You cannot vote out Whitehall, either. Granted you can vote for a Boris Johnson who utilises a Dom Cummings to “fix” Whitehall.
But as of 2021, Dom is gone and Whitehall is still there.
Is that true? I thought the commission was the sole body that could propose laws, for example.
Yes, but they essentially do so within the tolerance allowed by the Council.
If the Council wants something done, it is done.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
The Parliament is largely toothless, yes. This is how the Council (ie the heads of government) prefer it in order to protect their one sovereignty.
Imagine, as a thought experiment, a core British interest that was over-ruled somehow by the EU Parliament. It would be hugely unpopular in Britain.
The set up is certainly imperfect (and there is not an easy answer), but @Leon’s specific point was incorrect.
But British interests could be over-ruled by the Council via QMV. How is that any better? How is that democratic?
There is a very reasonable question as to whether you want powers to be shared on a federal basis - if you don't then don't share the powers, simple. If you do then you should have a fully fledged federal government and federal Parliament that is held to account at federal elections.
Having a federal government but no federal elections is the worst of all worlds.
If you can't justify a fully-fledged, fully accountable federal Parliament then don't have federal lawmaking. Simple.
I really don’t know what is meant by “federal powers” here.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
But it has the powers of a federal state, but not the accountability of a federal state. That is the worst of both worlds.
If you want a federal state, then the EU should have the powers and it should have a fully-empowered Parliament. That is an acceptable federal solution.
If you don't want a federal state, then the EU should not have the powers.
There is no democratic justification whatsoever for it to have the powers of a federal state, but without a fully-empowered Parliament.
It should be a proper Federal state now. The euro will only work if they move to true unity, and soon they will have no choice. That is the destiny, Nabavi is wrong. It will happen.
eg the EU now has its first uniformed armed officials. Frontex. Already accused of corruption
The further problem, however, is that even a Federal "democratic" EU with elected president and Commisson may not work, because there is no European demos, no single European people, speaking one language, to create a true democracy - and there is no pan-European media to scrutinise the powerful.
I don't see any solution to that.
A European demos will evolve over time. It is the history of federations.
The choice is whether you want to be federal (in which case give its Parliament full accountability) or not (in which case Brexit). Mr Nabavi wanting the EU to have federal powers but trumpetting the lack of federal accountability as a strength is just bizarre.
Some good news on a Monday morning. Lotus Cars announce £100m investment into Hethel facility, with 250 extra jobs working on new sports car to replace existing Elise, Exige and Evora models.
I've always wanted a 2.2 Series 2 Esprit but then when I go to look at one I always recoil from the Morris Marina interior and sub-Marina build quality. They remind me very much of 2CVs; there is an amazing amount of engineering genius in them but 95% of that genius is channeled into making them as cheap as possible to build.
LOL did you go to Belize at all?
Two airlines in the region at the time:
TACA - take a chance airways; and SAHSA - stay at home, stay alive.
Planes had a habit of driving into the mountain range at the end of the runway at Tegucigalpa.
The same for Pakistan International Airlines was Please Inform Allah....
There was a Russian pilot that used to fly out of Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, with a parrot on his shoulder. Sadly, he slammed into the volcano there....
It was quite sobering to see the mountain range at the end of the runway as you were taxiing ready for take off...
My nearest miss? Happily minding my own business dozing/reading the paper in an Air China BAe146 as we flew through some fog in northern China. Suddenly the plane just changed direction and flew upwards at a near vertical angle, engines roaring (did I imagine that?). And when I looked out of the window we were flying through and amongst a mountain range with the buggers all around.
Didn't have time to be scared as it was over before anyone realised but have pondered that at moments since.
Flying into Alderney across the cliffs in a high, gusty, wind wasn't fun.
Christiano Ronaldo in Madeira. That's a fun one in Funchal....
Very true. Aiming between the mountains....
I went up in those mountains at dead of night with Frank Zino, looking for Zino's Petrel. Windy, with sheer drops of many many hundreds of feet. We heard them, but sadly did not see it. One of the rarest birds in the world, maybe 60-80 pairs, they nest on a few platforms on high cliff edges. But sadly, the feral cats find a way to get the occassional bird - which is still disastrous for their numbers.
Wouldn't their whinging have a little more credibility if they'd managed to get around to approving the AZ vaccine by now?
And ordered sooner rather than taking their time haggling over the price, and invested more in production and development.
But it's the EU, so it can't be their fault, and to criticise it means you're anti-European.
Also, it's the EU Commission, so, if you're a furious EU citizen and want to punish them for their incompetence, by voting them out of power, you can't. They are unelected. They are under zero political pressure.
This is not really true, though.
The real power in the EU is in the Council, which is composed of duly elected heads of government.
The analog to the Commission is Whitehall. You cannot vote out Whitehall, either. Granted you can vote for a Boris Johnson who utilises a Dom Cummings to “fix” Whitehall.
But as of 2021, Dom is gone and Whitehall is still there.
Is that true? I thought the commission was the sole body that could propose laws, for example.
Yes, but they essentially do so within the tolerance allowed by the Council.
If the Council wants something done, it is done.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
The Parliament is largely toothless, yes. This is how the Council (ie the heads of government) prefer it in order to protect their one sovereignty.
Imagine, as a thought experiment, a core British interest that was over-ruled somehow by the EU Parliament. It would be hugely unpopular in Britain.
The set up is certainly imperfect (and there is not an easy answer), but @Leon’s specific point was incorrect.
But British interests could be over-ruled by the Council via QMV. How is that any better? How is that democratic?
There is a very reasonable question as to whether you want powers to be shared on a federal basis - if you don't then don't share the powers, simple. If you do then you should have a fully fledged federal government and federal Parliament that is held to account at federal elections.
Having a federal government but no federal elections is the worst of all worlds.
If you can't justify a fully-fledged, fully accountable federal Parliament then don't have federal lawmaking. Simple.
I really don’t know what is meant by “federal powers” here.
The ability to set laws on a federal basis?
The ability to adjudicate laws on a federal basis in a federal supreme court?
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
I don't disagree and Sturgeon has said she will not do a UDI although the hardcore Salmondites are demanding she should.
However a confrontation is inevitable if the SNP win a majority in May at Holyrood on an indyref2 platform.
On topic for the discussion of federalism, the Tories need to be making urgent noises about the further federalisation of power if they want to keep Scotland on board willingly, and I don't see much sign of that so far - or any, in fact.
Constitutionally they don't in the sense that the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no legal indyref2 or change to the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 without Westminster and UK government approval so as they will not grant indyref2 the Tories do not need to put in the effort to win it.
Now Labour if they got in in 2024 and granted a legal indyref2, for example if new PM Starmer needed SNP confidence and supply in a hung parliament, would indeed need to make noises about further federalisation, as Brown and Starmer are on devomax for Holyrood, regional assemblies for England etc. However it would be up to Labour to do the hard work to win that legal indyref2 they granted, the Tories by refusing any legal indyref2 anyway won't bother
All that would do is store up a critical mass of resentment enough to make it impossible for Labour to win a referendum, whatever concessions they offered.
Wouldn't their whinging have a little more credibility if they'd managed to get around to approving the AZ vaccine by now?
And ordered sooner rather than taking their time haggling over the price, and invested more in production and development.
But it's the EU, so it can't be their fault, and to criticise it means you're anti-European.
Also, it's the EU Commission, so, if you're a furious EU citizen and want to punish them for their incompetence, by voting them out of power, you can't. They are unelected. They are under zero political pressure.
I have the strangest idea of what the EU "suggestion" will be to make up the shortfall.
Obvious really....
I presume they'll be told to Foxtrot Oscar.....
Depends how much pressure they can apply - and what they can control within EU borders.
After, look what happened with PPE back last year.
I think that would be regarded, with justification, as a hostile move.....it's not our fault they took their time getting their act together.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
But it has the powers of a federal state, but not the accountability of a federal state. That is the worst of both worlds.
If you want a federal state, then the EU should have the powers and it should have a fully-empowered Parliament. That is an acceptable federal solution.
If you don't want a federal state, then the EU should not have the powers.
There is no democratic justification whatsoever for it to have the powers of a federal state, but without a fully-empowered Parliament.
It should be a proper Federal state now. The euro will only work if they move to true unity, and soon they will have no choice. That is the destiny, Nabavi is wrong. It will happen.
eg the EU now has its first uniformed armed officials. Frontex. Already accused of corruption
The further problem, however, is that even a Federal "democratic" EU with elected president and Commisson may not work, because there is no European demos, no single European people, speaking one language, to create a true democracy - and there is no pan-European media to scrutinise the powerful.
I don't see any solution to that.
A European demos will evolve over time. It is the history of federations.
The choice is whether you want to be federal (in which case give its Parliament full accountability) or not (in which case Brexit). Mr Nabavi wanting the EU to have federal powers but trumpetting the lack of federal accountability as a strength is just bizarre.
Hmm. It is maybe possible that a European demos will emerge. Over many decades. But the multiple languages and cultures make it very difficult. Bulgaria is just so different to Ireland, or Sweden, Romania has nothing in common with Finland. Hungary shows how even smaller countries want to go their own way.
And even if a demos does evolve in a few decades, the EU's problem is that it needs to unify NOW, to solve the euro-crisis (which is still there, lurking)
There is no surge in "al fresco defacation" here in Kent. We have been quite relieved (no pun intended) TBH. That is because the expecation we were given was of complee gridlock but what we have ended up with is not anywhere near that. That may change but the increase in people releiving themselves on the M20 has not happened (yet). There is a new lorry park but mostly Manston Airport has been repurposed.
Indeed. Kent has largely been saved thanks to the almost total collapse of trade across the channel. Hurrah!
Isn't it at 70% of previous? That's not a total collapse.
Reported as 15% of previous. People posting from Euroshuttle trains that are almost entirely empty etc etc.
One thing I do respect about HYUFD is that he voted Remain and has never recanted from conceding that Brexit is economically damaging (albeit necessary, having voted for it).
That’s actually a lot more honest than many posters who scoffed unto the end that any economic harm was just “Project Fear”.
Virtually everything that was warned about Brexit that was dismissed as "project fear" has largely come to pass. The only real Project Fear was that used by Leave fascists who wanted the gullible to believe that they were about to be overrun by Romanians
I’d give it about 8/10.
Slower growth? Check. Fall in pound? Check. Increased inflation? Only a little only (so far) Increased indy sentiment? Check. Succour to populists and alt-rightest? Check. Trade restrictions? Check. Loss of rights? Check. Damage to relations with key allies? Check. Loss of U.K. influence? Check. Fall in house prices? Not really.
I'd give it the following Fall in pound? Check. (But I'd argue in the circumstances this is a good thing) Increased indy sentiment? Check. Trade restrictions? Check. (Negligible, just paperwork not tariffs etc) Loss of rights? Check. (Those that were acknowkledged during the referendum)
Slower growth? ❌ - Objectively the UK had faster, not slower, growth than the Eurozone in the past decade "despite Brexit"
Increased inflation? ❌ - Objectively the UK has below-target inflation.
Succour to populists and alt-rightest? ❌ - Objectively opinion polls are showing reduced tolerance of alt-rightists and populists and greater acceptance of immigrants and immigration.
Loss of U.K. influence? ❌ - I can't see any objective way to measure this but UK has been capable of reaching agreements with those they want to do so, on a similar basis as we could before.
Damage to relations with key allies? ❌ - Allies have accepted Brexit and moved on. They view it as Britain being Britain and not objectively damaged.
Fall in house prices? Not really. - Which is a shame but nevermind.
A fall in the pound makes British people poorer and so cannot be considered, in itself, to be a good thing. It may be a necessary thing, given other factors (eg if you hinder your exporters and damage your productive capacity, you will need a weaker currency to restore your competitiveness). With a floating exchange rate the currency will find its level. If that level is significantly lower than before, that is telling you something, and it isn't good.
A fall in the pound doesn't make the British people poorer. Inflation makes the British people poorer, but inflation is below target.
Setting aside Brexit and looking at the economic fundamentals we have below target inflation, a current account deficit, a balance of payments deficit and low savings ratio. If you don't have savings, you have a balance of payments deficit etc then your currency falling is what should happen - not a bad thing.
The pound has fallen consistently not just in recent years but for the whole of the last century. The last century has been a story of the pound falling. It is falling because we don't save enough, we import too much and export too little. Save more, import less, export more and the pound will stabilise instead of continuing its century-long period of decline.
But for so long as we have insufficient savings ratio, a balance of payments deficit and the rest of the fundamentals then falling sterling is a good thing not a bad thing. It is a natural stabiliser and when you remove natural stabilisers the pressures on the system go somewhere else they don't go away. Fix savings, fix balance of payments, fix everything else and the pound will stop falling.
We don't have inflation now because GBP is stable now. Following its devaluation in 2016 CPI inflation went from 0% to 3%, and inflation for heavily imported items went up even more (food inflation from - 3% to 4%). As you say, the fall in the currency is a natural stabiliser. What is it stabilising? What happened in 2016 that made FX market participants think we would be finding it harder to make our living in the world, so that we needed to make our workers cheaper to compensate? We all know the answer.
Target inflation is 2% +/- 1%. 3% is closer to target than 0% so that's a good thing not a bad thing.
Cherrypicking random items that went up more is meaningless, someone else could cherrypick others that went up less, the simple fact of the matter is that despite the fall in sterling inflation has remained within or below target for almost all of recent years.
Again the savings ratio isn't high enough, that is why pound falls. If you want the pound to stop falling then save more. As for making our living in the world it goes back to what was said a couple of pages ago: in the last decade, despite whatever happened in 2016 onwards, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone over the decade. Not slower, faster. Yes with the pound falling across the decade - to which I say: so what?
Which would you rather have given we have too low savings and high balance of payments deficit: falling currency and faster growth across the decade (sterling), or rising currency and slower growth across the decade (Eurozone)?
I don't think you really understand any of this, and it's not helped by your scattergun approach of throwing in various non sequiturs and trying to change the topic of conversation (sadly a frequent experience when trying to engage you in debate). We have a weaker currency because Brexit has harmed our ability to make a living in the world and the exchange rate has weakened to restore our competitiveness by making our workers cheaper. Inflation went up because of higher import prices, and real wages fell. The exchange rate is an equilibrating force in a floating currency world. We couldn't have a stronger currency and weaker growth or vice versa, it's not something we get to choose: we have the exchange rate that equilibrates supply and demand for sterling in FX markets and our growth rate reflects real factors such as productivity, population growth and labour market participation, and in the short run any temporary effect from fiscal or monetary policy.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Which is precisely why it is a lumbering, technocratic, anti-democratic hybrid. Neither fish nor fowl. It is quite good at keeping the peace between squabbling nations, but the vaccine programme shows many of its graver flaws.
The Commission chose a bad moment to screw the pooch.
The vaccine programme should never have been done at EU level, and didn't have to be. They got a bit over-communitaire there, but it was a voluntary sovereign decision by the 27 nations. A very bad one, but we in the UK are not in a good position to criticise other countries for bad decisions.
We were smart in backing off what we feared would become - and indeed what proved to be - a very poorly planned and executed EU way out of the crisis. Their ventilator bollocks gave fair warning. Sure, we have made our own domestic Horlicks of a bunch of issues, but on the strategic planning of vaccine, we have proved so much more nimble than the EU.
A European demos will evolve over time. It is the history of federations.
The choice is whether you want to be federal (in which case give its Parliament full accountability) or not (in which case Brexit). Mr Nabavi wanting the EU to have federal powers but trumpetting the lack of federal accountability as a strength is just bizarre.
Not at all, the choice was between our semi-detached membership, with lots of opt-outs and enhanced by Cameron's renegotiation and what we've got now, which to put it at its mildest, is not exactly going well.
A new mass vaccination centre aimed at expanding the roll-out of the Covid-19 jab has opened in Northamptonshire. The NHS said the hub, based at Moulton Park in Northampton, could enable thousands of people to vaccinated each week. The centre will operate seven days a week from 08:00 to 20:00 GMT. Chief executive of Northamptonshire Clinical Commissioning Group, Toby Sanders, said it would create "significant extra capacity".
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Which is precisely why it is a lumbering, technocratic, anti-democratic hybrid. Neither fish nor fowl. It is quite good at keeping the peace between squabbling nations, but the vaccine programme shows many of its graver flaws.
The Commission chose a bad moment to screw the pooch.
The vaccine programme should never have been done at EU level, and didn't have to be. They got a bit over-communitaire there, but it was a voluntary sovereign decision by the 27 nations. A very bad one, but we in the UK are not in a good position to criticise other countries for bad decisions.
We were smart in backing off what we feared would become - and indeed what proved to be - a very poorly planned and executed EU way out of the crisis. Their ventilator bollocks gave fair warning. Sure, we have made our own domestic Horlicks of a bunch of issues, but on the strategic planning of vaccine, we have proved so much more nimble than the EU.
Of course had our MHRA still been heavily involved with the EMA, general vaccine approval might easily have gone a lot quicker.
And with that I'm off for the day. Have fun, everybody!
A European demos will evolve over time. It is the history of federations.
The choice is whether you want to be federal (in which case give its Parliament full accountability) or not (in which case Brexit). Mr Nabavi wanting the EU to have federal powers but trumpetting the lack of federal accountability as a strength is just bizarre.
Not at all, the choice was between our semi-detached membership, with lots of opt-outs and enhanced by Cameron's renegotiation and what we've got now, which to put it at its mildest, is not exactly going well.
We do have a lot of sovereignty now which, unaccountably (geddit?), we seem to be handing back to the EU at a rapid rate.
Which absolutely no one could have foretold prior to the vote in 2016.
That is just a nonsense argument. Just picking something that has gone well. Could equally pick something that has gone badly to show it doesn't work. Need to look at it in the round. Scotland by itself might have done a cracking job. Who knows.
Eg I am a Remainer, but I'm not going to stand up and say look we should have stayed in the EU because look how well we have done in the EU with the vaccine rollout, because that would be nonsense. So an example where being in a union didn't work, yet there are other advantages/disadvantages.
A new mass vaccination centre aimed at expanding the roll-out of the Covid-19 jab has opened in Northamptonshire. The NHS said the hub, based at Moulton Park in Northampton, could enable thousands of people to vaccinated each week. The centre will operate seven days a week from 08:00 to 20:00 GMT. Chief executive of Northamptonshire Clinical Commissioning Group, Toby Sanders, said it would create "significant extra capacity".
We were smart in backing off what we feared would become - and indeed what proved to be - a very poorly planned and executed EU way out of the crisis. Their ventilator bollocks gave fair warning. Sure, we have made our own domestic Horlicks of a bunch of issues, but on the strategic planning of vaccine, we have proved so much more nimble than the EU.
Yes, indeed.
I wonder, though, whether that would still have been true if the government had left the procurement to the normal NHS process, rather than asking an unpaid venture capitalist to head up the vaccine taskforce and get the thing done despite the technical and financial risks? I rather suspect not, but it's impossible to know for sure.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Which is precisely why it is a lumbering, technocratic, anti-democratic hybrid. Neither fish nor fowl. It is quite good at keeping the peace between squabbling nations, but the vaccine programme shows many of its graver flaws.
The Commission chose a bad moment to screw the pooch.
The vaccine programme should never have been done at EU level, and didn't have to be. They got a bit over-communitaire there, but it was a voluntary sovereign decision by the 27 nations. A very bad one, but we in the UK are not in a good position to criticise other countries for bad decisions.
We were smart in backing off what we feared would become - and indeed what proved to be - a very poorly planned and executed EU way out of the crisis. Their ventilator bollocks gave fair warning. Sure, we have made our own domestic Horlicks of a bunch of issues, but on the strategic planning of vaccine, we have proved so much more nimble than the EU.
Of course had our MHRA still been heavily involved with the EMA, general vaccine approval might easily have gone a lot quicker.
Talking of border guards, this potential stand-off between Johnson and Sturgeon worries me. I don't think any of us wants to see Johnson sending in the police to arrest key SNP leaders, Catalonia-style.
Which police would he send in?
If his only recourse was to UK-wide, centrally commanded military forces, that really would be the end of the union.
Spain and China both responded to secessionist movements by arresting the key leaders, Catalonia remains part of Spain without its nationalist government having been given even one legal independence referendum, Hong Kong remains part of China and China has removed anti Beijing, pro democracy leaders from the Hong Kong Assembly.
A crackdown may not be advisable but Boris is not going to grant a legal indyref2 knowing he would be more likely to lose it than say Sunak or Starmer would and if he lost it he would have to resign as PM. So why risk it?
Not because it's a manifesto commitment then.
I'm also very taken with the idea that our present PM would resign because of a matter of principle. Always the chance of a leopard chasing it's spots, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.
Boris would be toppled by his MPs if he granted a legal indyref2 and lost the Union, he knows he could not stay in office as Cameron knew the same had he lost in 2014.
He can stay in office however ignoring Sturgeon, most Tory MPs could not care about her whinging or that of the SNP
Re your last sentence is arrogant and it is time for the party to give consideration to a genuine issue
If I was Boris I would allow a free vote on section 30 and would expect the HOC to reject it leaving the SNP to decide how to resolve the issue
Which means Boris would then still reject it after the Commons vote and there would still be the same confrontation with Sturgeon and the SNP
No the HOC would reject it
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
I don't disagree and Sturgeon has said she will not do a UDI although the hardcore Salmondites are demanding she should.
However a confrontation is inevitable if the SNP win a majority in May at Holyrood on an indyref2 platform.
On topic for the discussion of federalism, the Tories need to be making urgent noises about the further federalisation of power if they want to keep Scotland on board willingly, and I don't see much sign of that so far - or any, in fact.
Constitutionally they don't in the sense that the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no legal indyref2 or change to the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 without Westminster and UK government approval so as they will not grant indyref2 the Tories do not need to put in the effort to win it.
Now Labour if they got in in 2024 and granted a legal indyref2, for example if new PM Starmer needed SNP confidence and supply in a hung parliament, would indeed need to make noises about further federalisation, as Brown and Starmer are on devomax for Holyrood, regional assemblies for England etc. However it would be up to Labour to do the hard work to win that legal indyref2 they granted, the Tories by refusing any legal indyref2 anyway won't bother
All that would do is store up a critical mass of resentment enough to make it impossible for Labour to win a referendum, whatever concessions they offered.
Not necessarily true either, the Spanish PP conservative government refused even one independence referendum for Catalonia in 2017 despite the nationalist majority in the Catalan Parliament. Now Spain has a Socialist government negotiating with the Catalans support for Catalan independence has fallen below 50% again. Catalonia has not voted PP for decades just as Scotland has not voted Tory.
However it would be Labour granting a legal indyref2 at its own risk I agree
It is looking as if it's not just individual cases that grow exponentially, it's also variant viruses.
ETA
"Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles found that although the strain had been barely detectable in early October, it accounted for 24% of roughly 4,500 viral samples gathered throughout California in the last weeks of 2020.
In a separate analysis of 332 virus samples culled mostly from Northern California during late November and December, 25% were of the same type.
“There was a homegrown variant under our noses,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, a laboratory medicine specialist at University of California, San Francisco who examined the samples from the northern part of the state with collaborators from the California Department of Public Health. Were they not on the hunt for the U.K. strain and other viral variants, he said, “we could have missed this at every level.”
Michael Vaughan is transitioning into Geoffrey Boycott. I've been listening to R5 commentary since I got up. Almost every other thing he's said has been whinging about England not starting will their full strength side in India. Even just now, after Joe Root has explained why they have to have rotation at the moment to keep the players sane with breaks from their bubble, he just can't stop complaining and repeating himself. If he commentates until the same age as Boycs did we've another 34 years of his Yorkshire tinged whinge to come.
A new mass vaccination centre aimed at expanding the roll-out of the Covid-19 jab has opened in Northamptonshire. The NHS said the hub, based at Moulton Park in Northampton, could enable thousands of people to vaccinated each week. The centre will operate seven days a week from 08:00 to 20:00 GMT. Chief executive of Northamptonshire Clinical Commissioning Group, Toby Sanders, said it would create "significant extra capacity".
It is looking as if it's not just individual cases that grow exponentially, it's also variant viruses.
ETA
"Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles found that although the strain had been barely detectable in early October, it accounted for 24% of roughly 4,500 viral samples gathered throughout California in the last weeks of 2020.
In a separate analysis of 332 virus samples culled mostly from Northern California during late November and December, 25% were of the same type.
“There was a homegrown variant under our noses,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, a laboratory medicine specialist at University of California, San Francisco who examined the samples from the northern part of the state with collaborators from the California Department of Public Health. Were they not on the hunt for the U.K. strain and other viral variants, he said, “we could have missed this at every level.”
This passage stood out:
"Officials are investigating whether an infected but asymptomatic employee was able to spread the virus widely with the help of a battery-powered fan that was part of an inflatable Christmas tree costume."
Michael Vaughan is transitioning into Geoffrey Boycott. I've been listening to R5 commentary since I got up. Almost every other thing he's said has been whinging about England not starting will their full strength side in India. Even just now, after Joe Root has explained why they have to have rotation at the moment to keep the players sane with breaks from their bubble, he just can't stop complaining and repeating himself. If he commentates until the same age as Boycs did we've another 34 years of his Yorkshire tinged whinge to come.
My favourtie batsmen to watch - so graceful - but not a good pundit at all.
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Which is precisely why it is a lumbering, technocratic, anti-democratic hybrid. Neither fish nor fowl. It is quite good at keeping the peace between squabbling nations, but the vaccine programme shows many of its graver flaws.
The Commission chose a bad moment to screw the pooch.
The vaccine programme should never have been done at EU level, and didn't have to be. They got a bit over-communitaire there, but it was a voluntary sovereign decision by the 27 nations. A very bad one, but we in the UK are not in a good position to criticise other countries for bad decisions.
We were smart in backing off what we feared would become - and indeed what proved to be - a very poorly planned and executed EU way out of the crisis. Their ventilator bollocks gave fair warning. Sure, we have made our own domestic Horlicks of a bunch of issues, but on the strategic planning of vaccine, we have proved so much more nimble than the EU.
Of course had our MHRA still been heavily involved with the EMA, general vaccine approval might easily have gone a lot quicker.
And with that I'm off for the day. Have fun, everybody!
You mean if the EU hadn't thrown their toys out of the pram in refusing reciprocal approval between MHRA and EMA, as I believe we proposed, then they would have had the vaccines approved weeks ago?
Boris Johnson saying lockdown could be relaxed before mid-February as Covid cases fall
Come on now Francis - we should try to steer ourselves off cases. It is all about hospitalisations.
Cases doesn't matter. You could get the 2-dose vaccine and test positive with not even a sniffle to show for it otherwise. Or you could be a 21-yr old elite athlete* and do the same.
Banning international flights needs to be defined very clearly as Joe Public have a different idea of what it actually would mean for a country like the UK.
I was listening to the radio last night and a caller phoned in and said that no flights or ships should be allowed to enter the UK full stop and I know that would be impossible to implement. The host asked about exceptions e.g medical staff/epidemiologists/foreign workers vital to UK national infrastructure and the caller said there should be no exceptions as "it can all be done on Zoom".
Michael Vaughan is transitioning into Geoffrey Boycott. I've been listening to R5 commentary since I got up. Almost every other thing he's said has been whinging about England not starting will their full strength side in India. Even just now, after Joe Root has explained why they have to have rotation at the moment to keep the players sane with breaks from their bubble, he just can't stop complaining and repeating himself. If he commentates until the same age as Boycs did we've another 34 years of his Yorkshire tinged whinge to come.
He is also pretty clueless about modern cricket tactics, particularly T20.
Sam Billings did a great interview a few months ago with some data analytics people and he explained what modern T20, especially IPL, was like. All the stuff about ohhh look at this guys average or he has a good strike rate, bowlers run rate, total nonsense in T20.
The analytics is all about match-ups, scoring rates at different instances and match situations e.g. Strike rate opening is totally different to strike rate as a finisher.
Great vaccine news, with U.K. now over 10% of population, well ahead of the whole world bar two small and rich countries.
Israel over 40% now, and UAE over 25%, should start to see some useful data on effectiveness in the next few weeks.
What a stunning success story by the UK.
I do wish all my fellow remainers, who are so wont to leap on every little Brexit problem, would have the good grace to acknowledge this. And the massive contrast with the shambles in the EU.
I really dont think many people have failed to acknowledge it in fairness.
Contrasting with the EU has been more implicit than explicit though.
It is looking as if it's not just individual cases that grow exponentially, it's also variant viruses.
ETA
"Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles found that although the strain had been barely detectable in early October, it accounted for 24% of roughly 4,500 viral samples gathered throughout California in the last weeks of 2020.
In a separate analysis of 332 virus samples culled mostly from Northern California during late November and December, 25% were of the same type.
“There was a homegrown variant under our noses,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, a laboratory medicine specialist at University of California, San Francisco who examined the samples from the northern part of the state with collaborators from the California Department of Public Health. Were they not on the hunt for the U.K. strain and other viral variants, he said, “we could have missed this at every level.”
Its always entertaining how debate about the impacts of leaving the EEA and CU swing back to discussions on democracy in a 3rd body. What does EU democracy have to do with anything? "The EU isn't democratic enough so we had to leave something that isn't the EU".
And the Council isn't elected at a European election on a European manifesto commitment.
The European Parliament is but its not a real Parliament in the way we understand it. The question to ask is if the European Parliament wants to pass (or repeal) a law against the wishes of the Commission and the Council then can it do so? To which the answer is no.
Could a European "Benn Act" opposed by the Commission President pass because Parliament wants it passing? No, it can not. It can in the UK - unlikely most of the time, but it can and has in our recent past.
I'm fascinated by this argument, variants of which one sees often from Brexiteers. Effectively you are criticising the EU on the grounds that it isn't a fully federal state with its own fully-empowered parliament. Well, quite. It isn't, it isn't intended to be, and certainly isn't going to be in any foreseeable future. That's what those on the Remain side were pointing out for years.
Which is precisely why it is a lumbering, technocratic, anti-democratic hybrid. Neither fish nor fowl. It is quite good at keeping the peace between squabbling nations, but the vaccine programme shows many of its graver flaws.
The Commission chose a bad moment to screw the pooch.
The vaccine programme should never have been done at EU level, and didn't have to be. They got a bit over-communitaire there, but it was a voluntary sovereign decision by the 27 nations. A very bad one, but we in the UK are not in a good position to criticise other countries for bad decisions.
We were smart in backing off what we feared would become - and indeed what proved to be - a very poorly planned and executed EU way out of the crisis. Their ventilator bollocks gave fair warning. Sure, we have made our own domestic Horlicks of a bunch of issues, but on the strategic planning of vaccine, we have proved so much more nimble than the EU.
Of course had our MHRA still been heavily involved with the EMA, general vaccine approval might easily have gone a lot quicker.
And with that I'm off for the day. Have fun, everybody!
The EMA legged it out of London on 25th January, 2019 - whilst Theresa May was still PM. Didn't even wait for Brexit.
I note we moved onto the 3rd - 5th group to be vaccinated while only at about 50% of the top 2 groups (which are now at about 75%).
I assume this was to maintain momentum. Once you have done the easy ones in the top groups the vaccinations in that group will slow down as you get to the harder ones to do, yet you have the capacity to vaccine many more people so why not open up the next group to keep the numbers up.
We are now at 44% of the top 5 groups and could reach 50% in 2 to 3 days.
I am particularly interested in knowing when they are going to hit the next group as I am in that one. I certainly wasn't expecting a jab for a long time. is this wishful thinking on my part?
Banning international flights needs to be defined very clearly as Joe Public have a different idea of what it actually would mean for a country like the UK.
I was listening to the radio last night and a caller phoned in and said that no flights or ships should be allowed to enter the UK full stop and I know that would be impossible to implement. The host asked about exceptions e.g medical staff/epidemiologists/foreign workers vital to UK national infrastructure and the caller said there should be no exceptions as "it can all be done on Zoom".
Not to mention that most arriving flights are loaded with cargo, including food and medicines, even if there’s no passengers on board.
Keep the discussion focussed on quarantine of incomers, and making that stricter. A £750 bill for ten nights’ hotel quarantine, with NO exceptions, will quickly filter out those who actually need to travel. See Australia for more details.
I don't know why Boris hired an official spokesperson given that Cole does it for free.
But perhaps his next tweet will be -
'Sturgeon to PM:"If Scotland is dragged out of the EU against its will and is then for good measure denied the referendum on independence that is also its will, can the Union any longer be described as anything but the hegemony of its largest constituent nation?"'
We were smart in backing off what we feared would become - and indeed what proved to be - a very poorly planned and executed EU way out of the crisis. Their ventilator bollocks gave fair warning. Sure, we have made our own domestic Horlicks of a bunch of issues, but on the strategic planning of vaccine, we have proved so much more nimble than the EU.
Yes, indeed.
I wonder, though, whether that would still have been true if the government had left the procurement to the normal NHS process, rather than asking an unpaid venture capitalist to head up the vaccine taskforce and get the thing done despite the technical and financial risks? I rather suspect not, but it's impossible to know for sure.
Sub-contracted health structures have not exactly covered themselves in glory throughout the Covid crisis, however. Without the NHS's still essentially national, monolithic and centralised structure, which has been a running sore for the Tories for decades, the vaccine rollout may have been roughly the speed of Germany's - if we were lucky - or probably much slower, judging by the speed of most other sub-contracted initiatives taken during the pandemic.
I would guess they are there because they're a quote, so they don't have to go with the wordier 'Nicola Sturgeon's husband faces row over allegations he committed perjury.'
The story is "Committee Chair asks for Murrell to be investigated for perjury"
There's not need for quotes and there isn't any row (currently). Like, the story is weighty and important without the incredibly weird headline writing.
A new mass vaccination centre aimed at expanding the roll-out of the Covid-19 jab has opened in Northamptonshire. The NHS said the hub, based at Moulton Park in Northampton, could enable thousands of people to vaccinated each week. The centre will operate seven days a week from 08:00 to 20:00 GMT. Chief executive of Northamptonshire Clinical Commissioning Group, Toby Sanders, said it would create "significant extra capacity".
It is looking as if it's not just individual cases that grow exponentially, it's also variant viruses.
ETA
"Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles found that although the strain had been barely detectable in early October, it accounted for 24% of roughly 4,500 viral samples gathered throughout California in the last weeks of 2020.
In a separate analysis of 332 virus samples culled mostly from Northern California during late November and December, 25% were of the same type.
“There was a homegrown variant under our noses,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, a laboratory medicine specialist at University of California, San Francisco who examined the samples from the northern part of the state with collaborators from the California Department of Public Health. Were they not on the hunt for the U.K. strain and other viral variants, he said, “we could have missed this at every level.”
This passage stood out:
"Officials are investigating whether an infected but asymptomatic employee was able to spread the virus widely with the help of a battery-powered fan that was part of an inflatable Christmas tree costume."
Comments
For these ‘influencer’ types, their whole life is a constant broadcast lie about where they are and what they’re doing.
The successful ones are using social media to showcase their business, whatever that may be, rather than deriving the majority of their income from sponsored posting - despite what it may look like from the outside.
The airstrip ends where the cliffs begin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foula_Airfield
4pts milk up 5p to £1.15
My fav Asda Yoghurt up 10p to £1.10
Basically about a dozen of my 50 favorites have increased by between 4% and 10% this week
The SNP would then face big problems in obtaining international recognition of UDI
I don't believe for a second that this would ever happen on the English/Scottish border of course. But customs posts and the paperwork that so many remainers like to obsess over would be inevitable.
Cherrypicking random items that went up more is meaningless, someone else could cherrypick others that went up less, the simple fact of the matter is that despite the fall in sterling inflation has remained within or below target for almost all of recent years.
Again the savings ratio isn't high enough, that is why pound falls. If you want the pound to stop falling then save more. As for making our living in the world it goes back to what was said a couple of pages ago: in the last decade, despite whatever happened in 2016 onwards, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone over the decade. Not slower, faster. Yes with the pound falling across the decade - to which I say: so what?
Which would you rather have given we have too low savings and high balance of payments deficit: falling currency and faster growth across the decade (sterling), or rising currency and slower growth across the decade (Eurozone)?
Media struggling for shit to stir.
If you want a federal state, then the EU should have the powers and it should have a fully-empowered Parliament. That is an acceptable federal solution.
If you don't want a federal state, then the EU should not have the powers.
There is no democratic justification whatsoever for it to have the powers of a federal state, but without a fully-empowered Parliament.
Which is precisely why it is a lumbering, technocratic, anti-democratic hybrid. Neither fish nor fowl. It is quite good at keeping the peace between squabbling nations, but the vaccine programme shows many of its graver flaws.
The Commission chose a bad moment to screw the pooch.
As you say, real success requires a combination of talent, hard work and luck. I know (or used to know) someone who achieved real success in the arts (I'm currently listening to one of their albums), and their career only took a decade of thankless effort, at least one lucky break, and they also have phenomenal talent.
However a confrontation is inevitable if the SNP win a majority in May at Holyrood on an indyref2 platform.
After, look what happened with PPE back last year.
This is how the Council (ie the heads of government) prefer it in order to protect their one sovereignty.
Imagine, as a thought experiment, a core British interest that was over-ruled somehow by the EU Parliament. It would be hugely unpopular in Britain.
The set up is certainly imperfect (and there is not an easy answer), but @Leon’s specific point was incorrect.
Also won't some of the 29% be caused by the pandemic?
There is a very reasonable question as to whether you want powers to be shared on a federal basis - if you don't then don't share the powers, simple. If you do then you should have a fully fledged federal government and federal Parliament that is held to account at federal elections.
Having a federal government but no federal elections is the worst of all worlds.
If you can't justify a fully-fledged, fully accountable federal Parliament then don't have federal lawmaking. Simple.
Are the quotes doing a lot of heavy lifting?
Last weeks £46.04 up to £47.19
2.5% increase in a week!!
It's really not like any other institution anywhere.
Unless we act on some such basis then searching for others to blame for what is individual accountability will be endless.
eg the EU now has its first uniformed armed officials. Frontex. Already accused of corruption
https://www.ft.com/content/32d464ad-1efb-4b6b-ad43-427d05e01852
https://www.politico.eu/article/frontex-growing-pains-europe-migration-border-coast-guards-hiring-chaos/
The further problem, however, is that even a Federal "democratic" EU with elected president and Commisson may not work, because there is no European demos, no single European people, speaking one language, to create a true democracy - and there is no pan-European media to scrutinise the powerful.
I don't see any solution to that.
On that basis, the argument for leaving is that we know which direction the EU wants to move in. I'm less clear what the argument to remain was (or would have been).
Yes the parameters are defined by treaties, just like the parameters of the US Federal Government are defined by the US Constitution. Does that mean the US isn't a Federal state?
If you don't want an accountable federal Parliament then don't have federal lawmaking. Then there would be no federal laws and no need for a federal Parliament at all.
Now Labour if they got in in 2024 and granted a legal indyref2, for example if new PM Starmer needed SNP confidence and supply in a hung parliament, would indeed need to make noises about further federalisation, as Brown and Starmer are on devomax for Holyrood, regional assemblies for England etc. However it would be up to Labour to do the hard work to win that legal indyref2 they granted, the Tories by refusing any legal indyref2 anyway won't bother
The choice is whether you want to be federal (in which case give its Parliament full accountability) or not (in which case Brexit). Mr Nabavi wanting the EU to have federal powers but trumpetting the lack of federal accountability as a strength is just bizarre.
The ability to adjudicate laws on a federal basis in a federal supreme court?
What is there you're struggling with?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/55793231
And even if a demos does evolve in a few decades, the EU's problem is that it needs to unify NOW, to solve the euro-crisis (which is still there, lurking)
A new mass vaccination centre aimed at expanding the roll-out of the Covid-19 jab has opened in Northamptonshire. The NHS said the hub, based at Moulton Park in Northampton, could enable thousands of people to vaccinated each week. The centre will operate seven days a week from 08:00 to 20:00 GMT. Chief executive of Northamptonshire Clinical Commissioning Group, Toby Sanders, said it would create "significant extra capacity".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-55795328
And with that I'm off for the day. Have fun, everybody!
Which absolutely no one could have foretold prior to the vote in 2016.
Eg I am a Remainer, but I'm not going to stand up and say look we should have stayed in the EU because look how well we have done in the EU with the vaccine rollout, because that would be nonsense. So an example where being in a union didn't work, yet there are other advantages/disadvantages.
I wonder, though, whether that would still have been true if the government had left the procurement to the normal NHS process, rather than asking an unpaid venture capitalist to head up the vaccine taskforce and get the thing done despite the technical and financial risks? I rather suspect not, but it's impossible to know for sure.
Johnson to world leaders: "look at UK. Open and ready for business and thanks to Oxford everyone back to normal".
However it would be Labour granting a legal indyref2 at its own risk I agree
https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2021/01/california-discovers-homegrown-coronavirus-strain-that-spreads-even-faster-than-any-other.html
It is looking as if it's not just individual cases that grow exponentially, it's also variant viruses.
ETA
"Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles found that although the strain had been barely detectable in early October, it accounted for 24% of roughly 4,500 viral samples gathered throughout California in the last weeks of 2020.
In a separate analysis of 332 virus samples culled mostly from Northern California during late November and December, 25% were of the same type.
“There was a homegrown variant under our noses,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, a laboratory medicine specialist at University of California, San Francisco who examined the samples from the northern part of the state with collaborators from the California Department of Public Health. Were they not on the hunt for the U.K. strain and other viral variants, he said, “we could have missed this at every level.”
Boris Johnson saying lockdown could be relaxed before mid-February as Covid cases fall
"Officials are investigating whether an infected but asymptomatic employee was able to spread the virus widely with the help of a battery-powered fan that was part of an inflatable Christmas tree costume."
Cases doesn't matter. You could get the 2-dose vaccine and test positive with not even a sniffle to show for it otherwise. Or you could be a 21-yr old elite athlete* and do the same.
It is about hospitalisations.
*perhaps you are a 21-yr old elite athlete.
I was listening to the radio last night and a caller phoned in and said that no flights or ships should be allowed to enter the UK full stop and I know that would be impossible to implement. The host asked about exceptions e.g medical staff/epidemiologists/foreign workers vital to UK national infrastructure and the caller said there should be no exceptions as "it can all be done on Zoom".
Sam Billings did a great interview a few months ago with some data analytics people and he explained what modern T20, especially IPL, was like. All the stuff about ohhh look at this guys average or he has a good strike rate, bowlers run rate, total nonsense in T20.
The analytics is all about match-ups, scoring rates at different instances and match situations e.g. Strike rate opening is totally different to strike rate as a finisher.
Contrasting with the EU has been more implicit than explicit though.
I assume this was to maintain momentum. Once you have done the easy ones in the top groups the vaccinations in that group will slow down as you get to the harder ones to do, yet you have the capacity to vaccine many more people so why not open up the next group to keep the numbers up.
We are now at 44% of the top 5 groups and could reach 50% in 2 to 3 days.
I am particularly interested in knowing when they are going to hit the next group as I am in that one. I certainly wasn't expecting a jab for a long time. is this wishful thinking on my part?
Keep the discussion focussed on quarantine of incomers, and making that stricter. A £750 bill for ten nights’ hotel quarantine, with NO exceptions, will quickly filter out those who actually need to travel. See Australia for more details.
'Sturgeon to PM:"If Scotland is dragged out of the EU against its will and is then for good measure denied the referendum on independence that is also its will, can the Union any longer be described as anything but the hegemony of its largest constituent nation?"'
In which case, surely fair enough.
There's not need for quotes and there isn't any row (currently). Like, the story is weighty and important without the incredibly weird headline writing.
It really is impressive.