Jupiter in eclipse? Macron looks a very weak odds-on favourite – politicalbetting.com

System

Jupiter in eclipse? Macron looks a very weak odds-on favourite – politicalbetting.com

No incumbent French president has won re-election since the terms were reduced from seven years to five. Granted, there are not many examples – two – on which to base what might appear to be if not a rule of thumb then certainly a trend. But nor is the Élysée exactly a secure base from which to a presidential campaign (compare here with the American presidency).

Read the full story here

MattW

First.

On-topic. Thanks for this David.

MattW

2nd.

FPT:

Black_Rook said:

So, today's summary:

*European Commission threatens key vaccine manufacturer with legal action for breaking commitments it appears not actually to have made
*European Commission threatens its allies with vaccine export bans. Exempts Bashar al Assad
*President of France spreads blatant anti-vax propaganda in country with Europe's highest rate of anti-vax sentiment
*European Commission activates emergency clause in key international treaty without making required legal representations to relevant parties
*European Commission deactivates emergency clause in key international treaty after relevant parties find out and complain

Is there anything I've missed?

There's plenty not on there. Two interesting ones are:

* That the EU Commission published their "redacted" contract with much of the redacted content left in the bookmarks. Which repeats the type of mistake that amateurs used to make in redactions at least 12-15 years ago, when you could read a many redacted reports by a staight cut and paste to Word or similar from the "editing" version of Acrobat.

That puts them in breach of their own confidentiality clause. Here, the bits in red are those that have been exposed by cockup (in addition to the prices sent out by mistake the other day):
https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/8409-apa_-_astrazeneca/

* I'm seeing the first glimmerings of interesting debates about EU Reform from groups who have previously worshipped the ground it stands on. ie Young professionals / activists who have felt the EU has done much to help their countries move from e.g. old Easter Europe into the 21st century, or say ROI citizens and online civil society activists.

Debates about Democratic Deficit, how do we control this thing when it goes bezerk sometimes? Still plenty of belief in the fake stuff about AZT, and questions / assumptions on AZT actions, but a glimmer of proper skepticism.

I hope that out of this the terms of debate will shift a little.

(Personally I voted Brexit for sovereignty reasons, and because I think the EU as it was was an irreformable inward-looking pig-in-a-poke headed for the rocks, so I am encouraged by that. One question is how we help that process, it having proved impossible from inside.)

Roger

The nice thing about this nation of philosophers is that they'll always do whatever it takes to make sure the far right never wins. I wish I could trust the UK to do the same

Black_Rook

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Foxy

Roger said:

The nice thing about this nation of philosophers is that they'll always do whatever it takes to make sure the far right never wins. I wish I could trust the UK to do the same

I don't think that true in either case. Even though there has been a reverse takeover by UKIP of the Conservative Party, they are not far Right (though there are some far Right MPs amongst them).

France did elect as President a man, and later a party, that benefited from a military coup against a democratic government. No country is immune to the far Right.

In terms of betting, I would agree with DH, Le Pen and one other will be the final two, but that second person may not be Macron. After all, who had heard of Macron at this stage in the last electoral cycle?

I like Macron politically (though he is wrong about the AZN vaccine). The structural problems of the French economy are fairly intractable, and I don't think that he had the level of organisation and infrastructure in his party to do the hard work of bringing the people with him on reform.

The French are a truculent bunch, one thing that we as a nation share too, and not easy to reform.

I think it will probably be Macron vs Le Pen, but wouldn't count on him winning. Le Pen cannot be kept out forever, and has significantly rowed back from euroscepticism.

felix

Roger said:

The nice thing about this nation of philosophers is that they'll always do whatever it takes to make sure the far right never wins. I wish I could trust the UK to do the same

Vichy France would like a word.....

Chris

Mysticrose said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Mysticrose said:

In my experience in life the most difficult people to deal with are those who never change their mind.

Events shift. Facts evolve. So must we.

I certainly hadn’t fully processed just how bad the EU is likely to keep looking from the outside (they might not do anything this egregious too often, but they’ll do other stuff). My slight worry we’d end up rejoining is falling away.

I would have campaigned hard to rejoin. And, personally, I was beginning to look at houses in Scotland for retirement in what I thought would become an EU country.

No more. After the disgraceful behaviour of the EU and, far worse, the manner in which they have crapped all over their own citizens there's no chance I will ever support them again. They have acted like the worst examples of an old centralist Communist dictatorship, even evoking the idea that solidarity comes before production. They have made an appalling mess of the most important job since their inception.

We got out just in time. Now we need to face out and strike trade deals around the world.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I thought Brexit was a disastrous mistake. Now I think it was the right thing to do.

I never liked the undemocratic nature of the EU. But I'd never seen a demonstration of just how dangerous the consequences could be.

How can anyone trust the EU Commission to comply with even the most minimal standards of behaviour after this? Disregard for the well-being of their own people, and contempt for everyone else.

Jonathan

If Macron is weak, what of the old right and left?

It’s amazing to reflect this happening in the U.K. A centrist emerging from the Labour Party, winning power and destroying the Labour and Conservative parties and leaving Farage as the only viable challenger.

Roger

Foxy said:

Roger said:

The nice thing about this nation of philosophers is that they'll always do whatever it takes to make sure the far right never wins. I wish I could trust the UK to do the same

I don't think that true in either case. Even though there has been a reverse takeover by UKIP of the Conservative Party, they are not far Right (though there are some far Right MPs amongst them).

France did elect as President a man, and later a party, that benefited from a military coup against a democratic government. No country is immune to the far Right.

In terms of betting, I would agree with DH, Le Pen and one other will be the final two, but that second person may not be Macron. After all, who had heard of Macron at this stage in the last electoral cycle?

I like Macron politically (though he is wrong about the AZN vaccine). The structural problems of the French economy are fairly intractable, and I don't think that he had the level of organisation and infrastructure in his party to do the hard work of bringing the people with him on reform.

The French are a truculent bunch, one thing that we as a nation share too, and not easy to reform.

I think it will probably be Macron vs Le Pen, but wouldn't count on him winning. Le Pen cannot be kept out forever, and has significantly rowed back from euroscepticism.

Woud you describe Le Pen as being more right wing than our Home Secretary?

Foxy

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Casino_Royale

Good article, David.

I'd back Macron at 5/4 but not 4/5.

MarqueeMark

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

Foxy

Roger said:

Foxy said:

Roger said:

The nice thing about this nation of philosophers is that they'll always do whatever it takes to make sure the far right never wins. I wish I could trust the UK to do the same

I don't think that true in either case. Even though there has been a reverse takeover by UKIP of the Conservative Party, they are not far Right (though there are some far Right MPs amongst them).

France did elect as President a man, and later a party, that benefited from a military coup against a democratic government. No country is immune to the far Right.

In terms of betting, I would agree with DH, Le Pen and one other will be the final two, but that second person may not be Macron. After all, who had heard of Macron at this stage in the last electoral cycle?

I like Macron politically (though he is wrong about the AZN vaccine). The structural problems of the French economy are fairly intractable, and I don't think that he had the level of organisation and infrastructure in his party to do the hard work of bringing the people with him on reform.

The French are a truculent bunch, one thing that we as a nation share too, and not easy to reform.

I think it will probably be Macron vs Le Pen, but wouldn't count on him winning. Le Pen cannot be kept out forever, and has significantly rowed back from euroscepticism.

Woud you describe Le Pen as being more right wing than our Home Secretary?

I wouldn't find much to choose between them. Le Pen is less anti-EU, but how much of that is politically expediency is hard to tell. I don't think PP is racist, but I don't know enough about the nuances of the current Le Pen on the issue, though she certainly attracts racist supporters.

Foxy

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

Thats what we voted for.

MarqueeMark

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

Thats what we voted for.

That's what we voted to leave.

Jonathan

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

MarqueeMark

Foxy said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

Roger said:

The nice thing about this nation of philosophers is that they'll always do whatever it takes to make sure the far right never wins. I wish I could trust the UK to do the same

I don't think that true in either case. Even though there has been a reverse takeover by UKIP of the Conservative Party, they are not far Right (though there are some far Right MPs amongst them).

France did elect as President a man, and later a party, that benefited from a military coup against a democratic government. No country is immune to the far Right.

In terms of betting, I would agree with DH, Le Pen and one other will be the final two, but that second person may not be Macron. After all, who had heard of Macron at this stage in the last electoral cycle?

I like Macron politically (though he is wrong about the AZN vaccine). The structural problems of the French economy are fairly intractable, and I don't think that he had the level of organisation and infrastructure in his party to do the hard work of bringing the people with him on reform.

The French are a truculent bunch, one thing that we as a nation share too, and not easy to reform.

I think it will probably be Macron vs Le Pen, but wouldn't count on him winning. Le Pen cannot be kept out forever, and has significantly rowed back from euroscepticism.

Woud you describe Le Pen as being more right wing than our Home Secretary?

I wouldn't find much to choose between them. Le Pen is less anti-EU, but how much of that is politically expediency is hard to tell. I don't think PP is racist, but I don't know enough about the nuances of the current Le Pen on the issue, though she certainly attracts racist supporters.

"I don't think PP is racist, but"

PP thanks you for your condescension.

malcolmg

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Usual wishful thinking bollox on here, EU or not we want out of the shackles and chains of being treated as a colony by England. F all to do with EU we just want out.

Black_Rook

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

The hostility over Vaccinegate comes entirely from the EU side. Whatever acrobatic contortions you choose to indulge in to try to justify their behaviour, it's got zilch to do with the Government. And the EU isn't "demonstrating what third country status means," it's deliberately picking fights to try to distract from its own errors. What else explains the presence of Belarus and Lebanon on the exemption list for the EU's vaccine nationalism policy, but not the UK?

I am no unionist, but sorry: if the sabre-rattling from across the Channel continues then that can only have one effect. A widening rift, which will necessarily preclude the Government in London from making concessions on territorial integrity, beyond Northern Ireland which is an exceptional case. You don't like it, I don't like it, but it's true regardless. So let's just hope that, having finally done something to de-escalate tensions late last night, there aren't any further acts of capricious and brazen stupidity, shall we?

Time_to_Leave

Thanks for the article. Food for thought, but I’m way too nervous to risk cash on EU elections. My instincts are always off.

It does feel to me like Covid has a few more surprises to spring on us all yet though, and what seems electorally obvious today might not be so tomorrow.

Casino_Royale

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Desperate stuff.

The last 48 hours must have hit you hard.

malcolmg

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

The hostility over Vaccinegate comes entirely from the EU side. Whatever acrobatic contortions you choose to indulge in to try to justify their behaviour, it's got zilch to do with the Government. And the EU isn't "demonstrating what third country status means," it's deliberately picking fights to try to distract from its own errors. What else explains the presence of Belarus and Lebanon on the exemption list for the EU's vaccine nationalism policy, but not the UK?

I am no unionist, but sorry: if the sabre-rattling from across the Channel continues then that can only have one effect. A widening rift, which will necessarily preclude the Government in London from making concessions on territorial integrity, beyond Northern Ireland which is an exceptional case. You don't like it, I don't like it, but it's true regardless. So let's just hope that, having finally done something to de-escalate tensions late last night, there aren't any further acts of capricious and brazen stupidity, shall we?

What do you mean by "making concessions on territorial integrity", what part of UK territory is the EU asking for again. Sounds like you have been infected with Little Englanderitis. Chill out and take a pill.
Or are you really virtue signalling that England should hold Scotland prisoner just in case they still talk to the EU.

Time_to_Leave

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

That’s a very interesting thought. My experience was always that EU policy would end being something the UK, France, and Germany could live with; with each of us assembling coalitions of countries around our views. Remove us from the equation and a lot would have changed.

Foxy

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

Roger said:

The nice thing about this nation of philosophers is that they'll always do whatever it takes to make sure the far right never wins. I wish I could trust the UK to do the same

I don't think that true in either case. Even though there has been a reverse takeover by UKIP of the Conservative Party, they are not far Right (though there are some far Right MPs amongst them).

France did elect as President a man, and later a party, that benefited from a military coup against a democratic government. No country is immune to the far Right.

In terms of betting, I would agree with DH, Le Pen and one other will be the final two, but that second person may not be Macron. After all, who had heard of Macron at this stage in the last electoral cycle?

I like Macron politically (though he is wrong about the AZN vaccine). The structural problems of the French economy are fairly intractable, and I don't think that he had the level of organisation and infrastructure in his party to do the hard work of bringing the people with him on reform.

The French are a truculent bunch, one thing that we as a nation share too, and not easy to reform.

I think it will probably be Macron vs Le Pen, but wouldn't count on him winning. Le Pen cannot be kept out forever, and has significantly rowed back from euroscepticism.

Woud you describe Le Pen as being more right wing than our Home Secretary?

I wouldn't find much to choose between them. Le Pen is less anti-EU, but how much of that is politically expediency is hard to tell. I don't think PP is racist, but I don't know enough about the nuances of the current Le Pen on the issue, though she certainly attracts racist supporters.

"I don't think PP is racist, but"

PP thanks you for your condescension.

The "but" is for Le Pen. I thought my sentence clear.

Indeed, I hedged about Le Pen too.

Roger

Chris said:

Mysticrose said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Mysticrose said:

In my experience in life the most difficult people to deal with are those who never change their mind.

Events shift. Facts evolve. So must we.

I certainly hadn’t fully processed just how bad the EU is likely to keep looking from the outside (they might not do anything this egregious too often, but they’ll do other stuff). My slight worry we’d end up rejoining is falling away.

I would have campaigned hard to rejoin. And, personally, I was beginning to look at houses in Scotland for retirement in what I thought would become an EU country.

No more. After the disgraceful behaviour of the EU and, far worse, the manner in which they have crapped all over their own citizens there's no chance I will ever support them again. They have acted like the worst examples of an old centralist Communist dictatorship, even evoking the idea that solidarity comes before production. They have made an appalling mess of the most important job since their inception.

We got out just in time. Now we need to face out and strike trade deals around the world.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I thought Brexit was a disastrous mistake. Now I think it was the right thing to do.

I never liked the undemocratic nature of the EU. But I'd never seen a demonstration of just how dangerous the consequences could be.

How can anyone trust the EU Commission to comply with even the most minimal standards of behaviour after this? Disregard for the well-being of their own people, and contempt for everyone else.

How flaky can you get! I take back all I've said about Hartlepool. Mrs Jones at 55 Longhorn Avenue said something nice about immigrants last Thursday.

RochdalePioneers

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

"protection money". Wow...

Its a trading block. Which we clearly need. With the Department of International Trade advising UK companies they need to set up in the EU to trade there.

They are being advised to set up a local office (and I’m sure EU companies are getting the same advice for here). It’s really not the same thing.

The same advice is indeed the case in reverse. EU companies need a UK subsidiary to effectively trade in the UK. Living proof that the border as created by the UK government doesn't allow trade without barriers so costly as to make it uneconomical.

That the UK government had No Clue about any of this should be a surprise but isn't. They had no idea how the border actually operated. Which is why most of the information that companies needed to "check, change, go" was not available.

Black_Rook

malcolmg said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Usual wishful thinking bollox on here, EU or not we want out of the shackles and chains of being treated as a colony by England. F all to do with EU we just want out.

"Wishful thinking" implies an element of wishing. I am not a unionist. I do not want an awkward scenario to play out, both for that and other good reasons. It is the interest of no-one. Unfortunately for all of us, however, the European Union might have different ideas. And the consequences of bad behaviour across the Channel appear obvious.

Foxy

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Desperate stuff.

The last 48 hours must have hit you hard.

Not really, too busy at work, and off again later.

Squabbling over vaccine supplies was always going to happen, particularly when manufacturers have trailed over optimistic deliveries. I don't think the EU has acted sensibly over vaccines. Health has always been a national competence within the EU, and should have stayed that way.

noneoftheabove

For once, I am pleased to say a very well done to the government, not just on vaccine procurement generally but particularly for their response to the last few days.

Unlike most on here, they understood this is political posturing and unhelpful pantomime from the EU, that vaccines procured by the UK will continue to arrive from the EU, and that the only benefit from escalation would be a short term polling boost back home. In the best British traditions, keeping calm and quietly getting an assurance that deliveries of vaccines will continue was entirely the right response.

Casino_Royale

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Yeah, there's an argument to say they wouldn't be so fucking nuts if the UK were still a member but I don't buy it.

When we were a member we were a very loud third wheel banging the table whilst the Franco-German integrationist axis ploughed on regardless. And they still did nutty things then: selecting Juncker, institutional gymnastics over the Eurozone bailout to get round our veto and the mother of all brainfarts over the refugee crisis then as well

The response to that is normally, "if only we'd joined in breaking bie with Jean Monnett in 1948", or "if only we'd fully signed up to the Euro and all its trappings", it'd all be different.

I think that's nonsense. The fundamental difference is philosophical: British Governments (be they Conservative or Labour) have been interested in power broking using votes to further the national interest, not as passionate believers in the project to build a new federal superpower based on an emotion of European solidarity.

And that's the circle that could never be squared.

Time_to_Leave

malcolmg said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Usual wishful thinking bollox on here, EU or not we want out of the shackles and chains of being treated as a colony by England. F all to do with EU we just want out.

It’s the only question that matters for Scottish independence isn’t it?

Are a majority of Scots happy that they get one vote each which weighs the same as anyone anywhere in the U.K., and that the concept of Scotland and “Scotland’s view” is no more meaningful in the Commons then Lancashire and “Lancashire’s view” is?

If not, then Scotland should be independent. No point in a union with Scotland if the Scots don’t want it.

Foxy

noneoftheabove said:

For once, I am pleased to say a very well done to the government, not just on vaccine procurement generally but particularly for their response to the last few days.

Unlike most on here, they understood this is political posturing and unhelpful pantomime from the EU, that vaccines procured by the UK will continue to arrive from the EU, and that the only benefit from escalation would be a short term polling boost back home. In the best British traditions, keeping calm and quietly getting an assurance that deliveries of vaccines will continue was entirely the right response.

Yes, I agree that the government response has been sound.

Newspapers and PB armchair Generals talking of war, less so...

FF43

French Presidential politics are a little strange. Key objective for Macron is that Le Pen gets the other run-off slot so he wins the presidency by being less objectionable than she is. Which he ought to do. Macron needs to do slightly better than the non-Lepenist field so he gets to the run off. The risk is greater here, I think. I would look at Édouard Philippe, whom Macron had to sack as prime minister because Philippe was more popular than he was. A bit of a clue.

MattW

First I have seen on the outcome of the "inspections" of the Pfizer plant in Belgium. From the Guardian:

"Gallina, shaken by the move, dived into the customs records to find evidence that AstraZeneca had shipped EU-produced doses to the UK – but without success."

(Gallina is the EU vaccine supply negotiation czar. "The move" is the AZ reduction in available supply.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/coronavirus-what-is-eu-medical-equipment-scheme-why-did-uk-opt-out

Black_Rook

Time_to_Leave said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

That’s a very interesting thought. My experience was always that EU policy would end being something the UK, France, and Germany could live with; with each of us assembling coalitions of countries around our views. Remove us from the equation and a lot would have changed.

This topic has been much discussed, though FWIW I don't buy the notion that having the UK - which, as we all know, was always a semi-detached member since we declined to participate in the Euro - inside the project this year would've made the blindest bit of difference. If the Germans, Dutch, French and Italians combined could be talked into ditching their vaccine preparations and letting the Commission take over on their behalf, then I somehow doubt that the Brit in the room could've changed their minds. Besides anything else, if Cameron had won the EU referendum it would quite possibly still have been him, and we know how much influence he had.

Foxy

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

"protection money". Wow...

Its a trading block. Which we clearly need. With the Department of International Trade advising UK companies they need to set up in the EU to trade there.

They are being advised to set up a local office (and I’m sure EU companies are getting the same advice for here). It’s really not the same thing.

The same advice is indeed the case in reverse. EU companies need a UK subsidiary to effectively trade in the UK. Living proof that the border as created by the UK government doesn't allow trade without barriers so costly as to make it uneconomical.

That the UK government had No Clue about any of this should be a surprise but isn't. They had no idea how the border actually operated. Which is why most of the information that companies needed to "check, change, go" was not available.

Sunny uplands...

https://twitter.com/Helen121/status/1355207846560997376?s=19

MikeSmithson

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Good point. The EU is weaker administratively without the Brits

FrancisUrquhart

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

For once, I am pleased to say a very well done to the government, not just on vaccine procurement generally but particularly for their response to the last few days.

Unlike most on here, they understood this is political posturing and unhelpful pantomime from the EU, that vaccines procured by the UK will continue to arrive from the EU, and that the only benefit from escalation would be a short term polling boost back home. In the best British traditions, keeping calm and quietly getting an assurance that deliveries of vaccines will continue was entirely the right response.

Yes, I agree that the government response has been sound.

Newspapers and PB armchair Generals talking of war, less so...

It was the EU talking of war....literally accusing the UK of starting one, despite our officials having said absolutely nothing.

noneoftheabove

On topic, as someone who knows little more about French party politics than the average man or lady on the Clapham omnibus, how extreme is Le Pen and her party? Farage like or worse?

IanB2

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Desperate stuff.

The last 48 hours must have hit you hard.

Not really, too busy at work, and off again later.

Squabbling over vaccine supplies was always going to happen, particularly when manufacturers have trailed over optimistic deliveries. I don't think the EU has acted sensibly over vaccines. Health has always been a national competence within the EU, and should have stayed that way.

Except that the aspiration to avoid national squabbling and to secure an overarching supply agreement to deliver the vaccine evenly across Europe was sensible - and not only politically; with free movement across Europe it makes sense from a risk perspective as well, with having (say) Belgium much more vaccinated than the Netherlands as suboptimal as having wildly different progress within the regions of the UK. And it made sense to handle vaccine procurement in one place, rather than replicate the process over and over. It is the execution that has been incompetent, not the design.

Also worth remembering that this is a zero sum game where the total amount of vaccine is unchanged. Had the nations of Europe gone their own ways, we'd still have the same total doses of vaccine, but they would have fallen differently.

Jonathan

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Yeah, there's an argument to say they wouldn't be so fucking nuts if the UK were still a member but I don't buy it.

When we were a member we were a very loud third wheel banging the table whilst the Franco-German integrationist axis ploughed on regardless. And they still did nutty things then: selecting Juncker, institutional gymnastics over the Eurozone bailout to get round our veto and the mother of all brainfarts over the refugee crisis then as well

The response to that is normally, "if only we'd joined in breaking bie with Jean Monnett in 1948", or "if only we'd fully signed up to the Euro and all its trappings", it'd all be different.

I think that's nonsense. The fundamental difference is philosophical: British Governments (be they Conservative or Labour) have been interested in power broking using votes to further the national interest, not as passionate believers in the project to build a new federal superpower based on an emotion of European solidarity.

And that's the circle that could never be squared.

One thing Brexit has changed in the EU is that ‘unity’ whilst desirable before Brexit is now sacred. The 27 have to agree on everything at the moment. It is preferable to agree and be wrong. This is a major problem for them that they have to resolve.

History makes it hard for Germany and France to openly disagree. The British never had that baggage, could disagree with whoever and thereby unlocked debate.

The EU needs to relearn how to be confident enough to deal with debate.

alex_

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

It's all a bit of a mystery how the EU can attempt to stick to its line about the vaccine controls being about "transparency", and not about actually banning exports/and or targeting specific countries, when so many countries are left off the list. I'm not even sure what the rationale is - why didn't they just insist on "no exceptions" if they were going down that route? It appears they've already got a bit of a shock that some other countries (eg. Australia) are so initially dependent on supplies out of the EU.

MattW

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

For once, I am pleased to say a very well done to the government, not just on vaccine procurement generally but particularly for their response to the last few days.

Unlike most on here, they understood this is political posturing and unhelpful pantomime from the EU, that vaccines procured by the UK will continue to arrive from the EU, and that the only benefit from escalation would be a short term polling boost back home. In the best British traditions, keeping calm and quietly getting an assurance that deliveries of vaccines will continue was entirely the right response.

Yes, I agree that the government response has been sound.

Newspapers and PB armchair Generals talking of war, less so...

Question if I may, @Foxy .

If there is a Europe wide rollout, will prioritising "hot spots" or similar first be a more effective strategy than by distribution by population ratios? Or is it much of a muchness?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 43, interesting suggestion on Philippe.

MarqueeMark

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Desperate stuff.

The last 48 hours must have hit you hard.

Not really, too busy at work, and off again later.

Squabbling over vaccine supplies was always going to happen, particularly when manufacturers have trailed over optimistic deliveries. I don't think the EU has acted sensibly over vaccines. Health has always been a national competence within the EU, and should have stayed that way.

Unilaterally putting a hard border across Ireland, without informing either party - you call that "squabbling"? Would hate to see a fully blown crisis then.

You don't help your credibility by failing to acknowledge how jaw-dropping this week has been.

Jonathan

MikeSmithson said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Good point. The EU is weaker administratively without the Brits

Well quite. When I look at the current EU commissioner I couldn’t help think a Brit would have done a better job politically and administratively. There are a lot of C league politicians and bureaucrats running the EU. Our B league cast offs were stronger.

Dura_Ace

noneoftheabove said:

On topic, as someone who knows little more about French party politics than the average man or lady on the Clapham omnibus, how extreme is Le Pen and her party? Farage like or worse?

Rassemblement national is a weird coalition of outright racists, right wing greens, protectionists, economic interventionists and social conservatives all held together by the Le Pen brand. As such there is a wide range of views on just about every issue.

It's basically the party the tories wish they had the self-confidence to be.

FrancisUrquhart

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Desperate stuff.

The last 48 hours must have hit you hard.

Not really, too busy at work, and off again later.

Squabbling over vaccine supplies was always going to happen, particularly when manufacturers have trailed over optimistic deliveries. I don't think the EU has acted sensibly over vaccines. Health has always been a national competence within the EU, and should have stayed that way.

Unilaterally putting a hard border across Ireland, without informing either party - you call that "squabbling"? Would hate to see a fully blown crisis then.

You don't help your credibility by failing to acknowledge how jaw-dropping this week has been.

Even the Guardian and the FT said they had thrown all their toys out of the pram...and what they are doing is wrong.

RochdalePioneers

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

Foxy

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Desperate stuff.

The last 48 hours must have hit you hard.

Not really, too busy at work, and off again later.

Squabbling over vaccine supplies was always going to happen, particularly when manufacturers have trailed over optimistic deliveries. I don't think the EU has acted sensibly over vaccines. Health has always been a national competence within the EU, and should have stayed that way.

Except that the aspiration to avoid national squabbling and to secure an overarching supply agreement to deliver the vaccine evenly across Europe was sensible - and not only politically; with free movement across Europe it makes sense from a risk perspective as well, with having (say) Belgium much more vaccinated than the Netherlands as suboptimal as having wildly different progress within the regions of the UK. And it made sense to handle vaccine procurement in one place, rather than replicate the process over and over. It is the execution that has been incompetent, not the design.

Also worth remembering that this is a zero sum game where the total amount of vaccine is unchanged. Had the nations of Europe gone their own ways, we'd still have the same total doses of vaccine, but they would have fallen differently.

Yes, it is a zero sum game, and I would hope that all vaccines are used expeditiously and appropriate everywhere.

I always have predicted that immunisation across Europe would be patchy at best. Apart from childhood vaccinations, the systems of distribution are very poor compared to the NHS. As I have posted before, this has been true for years:

alex_

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Desperate stuff.

The last 48 hours must have hit you hard.

Not really, too busy at work, and off again later.

Squabbling over vaccine supplies was always going to happen, particularly when manufacturers have trailed over optimistic deliveries. I don't think the EU has acted sensibly over vaccines. Health has always been a national competence within the EU, and should have stayed that way.

Except that the aspiration to avoid national squabbling and to secure an overarching supply agreement to deliver the vaccine evenly across Europe was sensible - and not only politically; with free movement across Europe it makes sense from a risk perspective as well, with having (say) Belgium much more vaccinated than the Netherlands as suboptimal as having wildly different progress within the regions of the UK. And it made sense to handle vaccine procurement in one place, rather than replicate the process over and over. It is the execution that has been incompetent, not the design.

Also worth remembering that this is a zero sum game where the total amount of vaccine is unchanged. Had the nations of Europe gone their own ways, we'd still have the same total doses of vaccine, but they would have fallen differently.

Or maybe they could have followed the UK example and done a lot more to actively invest in vaccine production facilities, including taking some risks and putting money down in advance...?

Rather than hedging, haggling and belatedly raising orders on the coat tails of the efforts of others. And then maybe there might have been a bit more vaccine to fight over...

Morris_Dancer

Decided to lay Sunak a little more for next PM, at 4.3 on Betfair.

Only because I was lucky enough to have a little on Mr. Thompson's perfectly timed 251 tip.

Previously backed Hunt as well, so unless Hunt's odds decline for laying likewise, I think that'll be it for me on the next PM market (green whatever happens, as it stands).

FF43

A role reversal for the European Commission on the Vaccine Wars. They have gone all populist when they are supposed to be aloof and technocratic. I have no doubt they are being populist. Just about no-one in Europe supports Astrazeneca and the UK over the Commission. Pascal Soriot made a big mistake if he thought his interview with La Repubblica boosted his PR (albeit interesting interview for the rest of us). Also it's not the job of CEOs to make your major clients look like idiots. Especially if you think they are idiots.

Problem is, the European Commission has now trashed its aloof and technocratic brand and I am not sure how good they will be at this populism thing.

Mysticrose

Mysticrose said:

IanB2 said:

But I suspect the damage to UvdL and the rest of the Commission will probably be a lot less than what happened to the Tories here.

Politicians can get away with more nowadays. You don’t have to look over the channel to see that.

I'm not sure you're right on this. People's lives are at stake, not merely the reputation of the Commission.

The German politicians and media are turning on Ursula von der Leyen:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/29/german-politicians-turn-careless-ursula-von-der-leyen-vaccine

Thing is, they know from past experiences that she's not very good.

I predict that in 12 months Britain will be vaccinated, significantly Covid-free, largely able to travel globally on vaccine passports whilst the EU will still be languishing behind on vaccinating its citizens at around 50%.

And the Conservatives will hold a 10-point lead over Labour.

Okay, the last one is less sure but if the science is correct: that vaccines are our way out of this then Johnson is going to get his wish. He will look like Churchill.

alex_

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Desperate stuff.

The last 48 hours must have hit you hard.

Not really, too busy at work, and off again later.

Squabbling over vaccine supplies was always going to happen, particularly when manufacturers have trailed over optimistic deliveries. I don't think the EU has acted sensibly over vaccines. Health has always been a national competence within the EU, and should have stayed that way.

Appreciate you've been at work and really can't be expected to keep up with every nuance of this - but it really would be worth taking note of some of the people on here who are currently posting very negative things about the EU at the moment.

Not exactly "the usual suspects" which says quite a lot.

felix

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

For once, I am pleased to say a very well done to the government, not just on vaccine procurement generally but particularly for their response to the last few days.

Unlike most on here, they understood this is political posturing and unhelpful pantomime from the EU, that vaccines procured by the UK will continue to arrive from the EU, and that the only benefit from escalation would be a short term polling boost back home. In the best British traditions, keeping calm and quietly getting an assurance that deliveries of vaccines will continue was entirely the right response.

Yes, I agree that the government response has been sound.

Newspapers and PB armchair Generals talking of war, less so...

I believe much of the talk of war and the antivax rhetoric has come from Various EU MEPs and the President of France. The musings of some anonymous PB posters aren't really in the same league are they?
And remind us who until late last night was threatening the Good Friday Agreement - no les than the EU Commission. I think your priorities here are somewhat muddled.

Time_to_Leave

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

You’re missing the point. We want to be a third country. Being told, however, that other third countries, including that of the murderous Assad, will be treated better than us is, well let’s use the diplomatic speak of “disappointing”. We won’t forget.

Casino_Royale

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Yeah, there's an argument to say they wouldn't be so fucking nuts if the UK were still a member but I don't buy it.

When we were a member we were a very loud third wheel banging the table whilst the Franco-German integrationist axis ploughed on regardless. And they still did nutty things then: selecting Juncker, institutional gymnastics over the Eurozone bailout to get round our veto and the mother of all brainfarts over the refugee crisis then as well

The response to that is normally, "if only we'd joined in breaking bie with Jean Monnett in 1948", or "if only we'd fully signed up to the Euro and all its trappings", it'd all be different.

I think that's nonsense. The fundamental difference is philosophical: British Governments (be they Conservative or Labour) have been interested in power broking using votes to further the national interest, not as passionate believers in the project to build a new federal superpower based on an emotion of European solidarity.

And that's the circle that could never be squared.

One thing Brexit has changed in the EU is that ‘unity’ whilst desirable before Brexit is now sacred. The 27 have to agree on everything at the moment. It is preferable to agree and be wrong. This is a major problem for them that they have to resolve.

History makes it hard for Germany and France to openly disagree. The British never had that baggage, could disagree with whoever and thereby unlocked debate.

The EU needs to relearn how to be confident enough to deal with debate.

I think the reason they keep going on about "unity" is insecurity.

It's because they fear people don't think they are, and are therefore not as powerful or influential as they look, because they know that behind the scenes there *are* lots of disagreements.

They say it so often that they're starting to look a bit of an empty vessel.

eek

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

"protection money". Wow...

Its a trading block. Which we clearly need. With the Department of International Trade advising UK companies they need to set up in the EU to trade there.

They are being advised to set up a local office (and I’m sure EU companies are getting the same advice for here). It’s really not the same thing.

The same advice is indeed the case in reverse. EU companies need a UK subsidiary to effectively trade in the UK. Living proof that the border as created by the UK government doesn't allow trade without barriers so costly as to make it uneconomical.

That the UK government had No Clue about any of this should be a surprise but isn't. They had no idea how the border actually operated. Which is why most of the information that companies needed to "check, change, go" was not available.

Sunny uplands...

https://twitter.com/Helen121/status/1355207846560997376?s=19

So that explains why instead of improving workers rights we are trying to remove some.

Roger

Dura_Ace said:

noneoftheabove said:

On topic, as someone who knows little more about French party politics than the average man or lady on the Clapham omnibus, how extreme is Le Pen and her party? Farage like or worse?

Rassemblement national is a weird coalition of outright racists, right wing greens, protectionists, economic interventionists and social conservatives all held together by the Le Pen brand. As such there is a wide range of views on just about every issue.

It's basically the party the tories wish they had the self-confidence to be.

That's not a bad description. But I'd say under Johnson it's pretty well the collective that the Tory Party are though less anti EU obviously

felix

MattW said:

First I have seen on the outcome of the "inspections" of the Pfizer plant in Belgium. From the Guardian:

"Gallina, shaken by the move, dived into the customs records to find evidence that AstraZeneca had shipped EU-produced doses to the UK – but without success."

(Gallina is the EU vaccine supply negotiation czar. "The move" is the AZ reduction in available supply.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/coronavirus-what-is-eu-medical-equipment-scheme-why-did-uk-opt-out

Very sensible of the Company to have at least 2 sets of records for these eventualities no doubt.

FrancisUrquhart

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Yeah, there's an argument to say they wouldn't be so fucking nuts if the UK were still a member but I don't buy it.

When we were a member we were a very loud third wheel banging the table whilst the Franco-German integrationist axis ploughed on regardless. And they still did nutty things then: selecting Juncker, institutional gymnastics over the Eurozone bailout to get round our veto and the mother of all brainfarts over the refugee crisis then as well

The response to that is normally, "if only we'd joined in breaking bie with Jean Monnett in 1948", or "if only we'd fully signed up to the Euro and all its trappings", it'd all be different.

I think that's nonsense. The fundamental difference is philosophical: British Governments (be they Conservative or Labour) have been interested in power broking using votes to further the national interest, not as passionate believers in the project to build a new federal superpower based on an emotion of European solidarity.

And that's the circle that could never be squared.

One thing Brexit has changed in the EU is that ‘unity’ whilst desirable before Brexit is now sacred. The 27 have to agree on everything at the moment. It is preferable to agree and be wrong. This is a major problem for them that they have to resolve.

History makes it hard for Germany and France to openly disagree. The British never had that baggage, could disagree with whoever and thereby unlocked debate.

The EU needs to relearn how to be confident enough to deal with debate.

I think the reason they keep going on about "unity" is insecurity.

It's because they fear people don't think they are, and are therefore not as powerful or influential as they look, because they know that behind the scenes there *are* lots of disagreements.

They say it so often that they're starting to look a bit of an empty vessel.

Also there wasn't...German told everybody to be united over vaccines, then nabbed some on the side, as did some other countries like Poland.

alex_

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Good point. The EU is weaker administratively without the Brits

Well quite. When I look at the current EU commissioner I couldn’t help think a Brit would have done a better job politically and administratively. There are a lot of C league politicians and bureaucrats running the EU. Our B league cast offs were stronger.

The thing about the UK is our B league are often better than our A league.

felix

MikeSmithson said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Good point. The EU is weaker administratively without the Brits

They clearly think otherwise. Maybe they're about to invite Lebanon or Syria to bolster them - or maybe they've already done so...

noneoftheabove

eek said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

"protection money". Wow...

Its a trading block. Which we clearly need. With the Department of International Trade advising UK companies they need to set up in the EU to trade there.

They are being advised to set up a local office (and I’m sure EU companies are getting the same advice for here). It’s really not the same thing.

The same advice is indeed the case in reverse. EU companies need a UK subsidiary to effectively trade in the UK. Living proof that the border as created by the UK government doesn't allow trade without barriers so costly as to make it uneconomical.

That the UK government had No Clue about any of this should be a surprise but isn't. They had no idea how the border actually operated. Which is why most of the information that companies needed to "check, change, go" was not available.

Sunny uplands...

https://twitter.com/Helen121/status/1355207846560997376?s=19

So that explains why instead of improving workers rights we are trying to remove some.

The new Business Secretary has put a stop to that (for now).

RochdalePioneers

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

"protection money". Wow...

Its a trading block. Which we clearly need. With the Department of International Trade advising UK companies they need to set up in the EU to trade there.

They are being advised to set up a local office (and I’m sure EU companies are getting the same advice for here). It’s really not the same thing.

The same advice is indeed the case in reverse. EU companies need a UK subsidiary to effectively trade in the UK. Living proof that the border as created by the UK government doesn't allow trade without barriers so costly as to make it uneconomical.

That the UK government had No Clue about any of this should be a surprise but isn't. They had no idea how the border actually operated. Which is why most of the information that companies needed to "check, change, go" was not available.

Sunny uplands...

https://twitter.com/Helen121/status/1355207846560997376?s=19

I feel really sorry for people like this. "She admits to having voted ‘leave’ because she was sick of employment and health and safety rules originating from Brussels.". So the UK Health and Safety at Work regulations are why she voted to leave? Because she wanted to make things less safe for her and her employees and the EU weren't stopping her doing that?

Scott_xP

Foxy said:

Yes, I agree that the government response has been sound.

Twice in one week.

Somebody really is sitting on BoZo's head...

Mysticrose

Chris said:

Mysticrose said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Mysticrose said:

In my experience in life the most difficult people to deal with are those who never change their mind.

Events shift. Facts evolve. So must we.

I certainly hadn’t fully processed just how bad the EU is likely to keep looking from the outside (they might not do anything this egregious too often, but they’ll do other stuff). My slight worry we’d end up rejoining is falling away.

I would have campaigned hard to rejoin. And, personally, I was beginning to look at houses in Scotland for retirement in what I thought would become an EU country.

No more. After the disgraceful behaviour of the EU and, far worse, the manner in which they have crapped all over their own citizens there's no chance I will ever support them again. They have acted like the worst examples of an old centralist Communist dictatorship, even evoking the idea that solidarity comes before production. They have made an appalling mess of the most important job since their inception.

We got out just in time. Now we need to face out and strike trade deals around the world.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I thought Brexit was a disastrous mistake. Now I think it was the right thing to do.

I never liked the undemocratic nature of the EU. But I'd never seen a demonstration of just how dangerous the consequences could be.

How can anyone trust the EU Commission to comply with even the most minimal standards of behaviour after this? Disregard for the well-being of their own people, and contempt for everyone else.

My sentiments exactly.

And to Roger, this isn't about 'being flaky' ffs. This is people's lives we're talking about. It is the biggest crisis since the second world war, without a shadow of doubt, and the EU have flunked it. Since when they have lashed out at the British for getting on with the job of vaccinating their citizens as the EU should have done.

I was a remainer but I will never again support the EU after this. Everything that you thought could be bad about an over-centralised bureaucracy has come to the fore. Hideous red tape that is, literally, going to kill their own people.

Scott_xP

RochdalePioneers said:

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

That should have been on the side of a bus...

alex_

felix said:

MattW said:

First I have seen on the outcome of the "inspections" of the Pfizer plant in Belgium. From the Guardian:

"Gallina, shaken by the move, dived into the customs records to find evidence that AstraZeneca had shipped EU-produced doses to the UK – but without success."

(Gallina is the EU vaccine supply negotiation czar. "The move" is the AZ reduction in available supply.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/coronavirus-what-is-eu-medical-equipment-scheme-why-did-uk-opt-out

Very sensible of the Company to have at least 2 sets of records for these eventualities no doubt.

Sounds like Trump sending people into states to look for electoral fraud. And the people he sends in being vaguely surprised that not just was there no widespread fraud, but actually zero basis for even starting an investigation at any level.

Scott_xP

noneoftheabove said:

The new Business Secretary has put a stop to that (for now).

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1354573344578936832

felix

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Yeah, there's an argument to say they wouldn't be so fucking nuts if the UK were still a member but I don't buy it.

When we were a member we were a very loud third wheel banging the table whilst the Franco-German integrationist axis ploughed on regardless. And they still did nutty things then: selecting Juncker, institutional gymnastics over the Eurozone bailout to get round our veto and the mother of all brainfarts over the refugee crisis then as well

The response to that is normally, "if only we'd joined in breaking bie with Jean Monnett in 1948", or "if only we'd fully signed up to the Euro and all its trappings", it'd all be different.

I think that's nonsense. The fundamental difference is philosophical: British Governments (be they Conservative or Labour) have been interested in power broking using votes to further the national interest, not as passionate believers in the project to build a new federal superpower based on an emotion of European solidarity.

And that's the circle that could never be squared.

One thing Brexit has changed in the EU is that ‘unity’ whilst desirable before Brexit is now sacred. The 27 have to agree on everything at the moment. It is preferable to agree and be wrong. This is a major problem for them that they have to resolve.

History makes it hard for Germany and France to openly disagree. The British never had that baggage, could disagree with whoever and thereby unlocked debate.

The EU needs to relearn how to be confident enough to deal with debate.

Spot on - the contant refrains of 'solidarity', 'unity' and 'better together' only work when people can see the benefits - in this case in their arms. Otherwise it is just mindless virtue signalling. The 'Emperor with no pricks' or at least not in the good way.

Mysticrose

The New York Times says today that Britain is "leading the world."

Some 3rd country status.

FrancisUrquhart

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

That should have been on the side of a bus...

Well we know what will be written now...The EU, willing to throw your Granny under this, rather than admit a mistake.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/guywalters/status/1355412514679480321

alex_

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

One of interesting, but obvious in retrospect second order effects of Brexit is how the EU itself is changed by not having the UK around the table inside the organisation.

This vaccine debacle has many causes, but the absence of the U.K. inside the EU is one of them.

Yeah, there's an argument to say they wouldn't be so fucking nuts if the UK were still a member but I don't buy it.

When we were a member we were a very loud third wheel banging the table whilst the Franco-German integrationist axis ploughed on regardless. And they still did nutty things then: selecting Juncker, institutional gymnastics over the Eurozone bailout to get round our veto and the mother of all brainfarts over the refugee crisis then as well

The response to that is normally, "if only we'd joined in breaking bie with Jean Monnett in 1948", or "if only we'd fully signed up to the Euro and all its trappings", it'd all be different.

I think that's nonsense. The fundamental difference is philosophical: British Governments (be they Conservative or Labour) have been interested in power broking using votes to further the national interest, not as passionate believers in the project to build a new federal superpower based on an emotion of European solidarity.

And that's the circle that could never be squared.

One thing Brexit has changed in the EU is that ‘unity’ whilst desirable before Brexit is now sacred. The 27 have to agree on everything at the moment. It is preferable to agree and be wrong. This is a major problem for them that they have to resolve.

History makes it hard for Germany and France to openly disagree. The British never had that baggage, could disagree with whoever and thereby unlocked debate.

The EU needs to relearn how to be confident enough to deal with debate.

I think the reason they keep going on about "unity" is insecurity.

It's because they fear people don't think they are, and are therefore not as powerful or influential as they look, because they know that behind the scenes there *are* lots of disagreements.

They say it so often that they're starting to look a bit of an empty vessel.

I think that Jonathan's right - and the UK on the border is a big problem. If they start having internal disagreements then the UK is bound to be an interested party and some may seek to make common cause.

noneoftheabove

FF43 said:

A role reversal for the European Commission on the Vaccine Wars. They have gone all populist when they are supposed to be aloof and technocratic. I have no doubt they are being populist. Just about no-one in Europe supports Astrazeneca and the UK over the Commission. Pascal Soriot made a big mistake if he thought his interview with La Repubblica boosted his PR (albeit interesting interview for the rest of us). Also it's not the job of CEOs to make your major clients look like idiots. Especially if you think they are idiots.

Problem is, the European Commission has now trashed its aloof and technocratic brand and I am not sure how good they will be at this populism thing.

They only have to keep the being tough show going a few weeks, by April, perhaps a little earlier there will be enough vaccines around that all rich countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.

eek

felix said:

MattW said:

First I have seen on the outcome of the "inspections" of the Pfizer plant in Belgium. From the Guardian:

"Gallina, shaken by the move, dived into the customs records to find evidence that AstraZeneca had shipped EU-produced doses to the UK – but without success."

(Gallina is the EU vaccine supply negotiation czar. "The move" is the AZ reduction in available supply.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/coronavirus-what-is-eu-medical-equipment-scheme-why-did-uk-opt-out

Very sensible of the Company to have at least 2 sets of records for these eventualities no doubt.

Also interesting from that Guardian article - here is why we ran away from the EU scheme.

There was also growing pressure to join a joint EU procurement plan for vaccines, and to put aside the Brexit rhetoric.

But Brussels’ demands were eye-watering: the UK, unlike EU member states, would not be able to take part in the governance of the scheme, including the steering group or the negotiating team.

Britain would have no say in what vaccines to procure, at what price or in what quantity, and for what delivery schedule. There would be no side-deals possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/29/we-had-to-go-it-alone-how-the-uk-got-ahead-in-the-covid-vaccine-race

Chris

IanB2 said:

Also worth remembering that this is a zero sum game where the total amount of vaccine is unchanged. Had the nations of Europe gone their own ways, we'd still have the same total doses of vaccine, but they would have fallen differently.

Is it, though? Soriot implies otherwise - that the production difficulties might have been resolved by now if the EU hadn't delayed reaching agreement.

RochdalePioneers

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

You’re missing the point. We want to be a third country. Being told, however, that other third countries, including that of the murderous Assad, will be treated better than us is, well let’s use the diplomatic speak of “disappointing”. We won’t forget.

When have they said that? And what is in the EU - Syria Co-operation Deal that isn't in the UK EU deal? And whose fault is that if the UK failed to secure as good a deal as Assad did...?

A basic principle of negotiation. Don't fuck up the deal then complain to the counter-party about its terms. I remember the Woolies Commercial Director trying that on the year before they folded. The deal wasn't generous enough in various parameters. "But those were the terms you inserted into the deal and signed".

Roger

Mysticrose said:

Chris said:

Mysticrose said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Mysticrose said:

In my experience in life the most difficult people to deal with are those who never change their mind.

Events shift. Facts evolve. So must we.

I certainly hadn’t fully processed just how bad the EU is likely to keep looking from the outside (they might not do anything this egregious too often, but they’ll do other stuff). My slight worry we’d end up rejoining is falling away.

I would have campaigned hard to rejoin. And, personally, I was beginning to look at houses in Scotland for retirement in what I thought would become an EU country.

No more. After the disgraceful behaviour of the EU and, far worse, the manner in which they have crapped all over their own citizens there's no chance I will ever support them again. They have acted like the worst examples of an old centralist Communist dictatorship, even evoking the idea that solidarity comes before production. They have made an appalling mess of the most important job since their inception.

We got out just in time. Now we need to face out and strike trade deals around the world.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I thought Brexit was a disastrous mistake. Now I think it was the right thing to do.

I never liked the undemocratic nature of the EU. But I'd never seen a demonstration of just how dangerous the consequences could be.

How can anyone trust the EU Commission to comply with even the most minimal standards of behaviour after this? Disregard for the well-being of their own people, and contempt for everyone else.

My sentiments exactly.

And to Roger, this isn't about 'being flaky' ffs. This is people's lives we're talking about. It is the biggest crisis since the second world war, without a shadow of doubt, and the EU have flunked it. Since when they have lashed out at the British for getting on with the job of vaccinating their citizens as the EU should have done.

I was a remainer but I will never again support the EU after this. Everything that you thought could be bad about an over-centralised bureaucracy has come to the fore. Hideous red tape that is, literally, going to kill their own people.

As the country with the most deaths in Europe it ill behoves the UK to say 'the EU have flunked it'. What's the debate about if it isn't about saving lives which the the UK government have singularly failed to do

noneoftheabove

Scott_xP said:

noneoftheabove said:

The new Business Secretary has put a stop to that (for now).

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1354573344578936832

A fairly safe assumption is that the previous Bus Sec thought it a good idea to see if they could remove some rights and that the new one disagrees?

felix

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

Whatever else it meant over 7m vaccinated people right now.

Mysticrose

Roger said:

Mysticrose said:

Chris said:

Mysticrose said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Mysticrose said:

In my experience in life the most difficult people to deal with are those who never change their mind.

Events shift. Facts evolve. So must we.

I certainly hadn’t fully processed just how bad the EU is likely to keep looking from the outside (they might not do anything this egregious too often, but they’ll do other stuff). My slight worry we’d end up rejoining is falling away.

I would have campaigned hard to rejoin. And, personally, I was beginning to look at houses in Scotland for retirement in what I thought would become an EU country.

No more. After the disgraceful behaviour of the EU and, far worse, the manner in which they have crapped all over their own citizens there's no chance I will ever support them again. They have acted like the worst examples of an old centralist Communist dictatorship, even evoking the idea that solidarity comes before production. They have made an appalling mess of the most important job since their inception.

We got out just in time. Now we need to face out and strike trade deals around the world.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I thought Brexit was a disastrous mistake. Now I think it was the right thing to do.

I never liked the undemocratic nature of the EU. But I'd never seen a demonstration of just how dangerous the consequences could be.

How can anyone trust the EU Commission to comply with even the most minimal standards of behaviour after this? Disregard for the well-being of their own people, and contempt for everyone else.

My sentiments exactly.

And to Roger, this isn't about 'being flaky' ffs. This is people's lives we're talking about. It is the biggest crisis since the second world war, without a shadow of doubt, and the EU have flunked it. Since when they have lashed out at the British for getting on with the job of vaccinating their citizens as the EU should have done.

I was a remainer but I will never again support the EU after this. Everything that you thought could be bad about an over-centralised bureaucracy has come to the fore. Hideous red tape that is, literally, going to kill their own people.

As the country with the most deaths in Europe it ill behoves the UK to say 'the EU have flunked it'. What's the debate about if it isn't about saving lives which the the UK government have singularly failed to do

Those praising British vaccine policy are well aware of our failings early on with this pandemic. The NYT piece, like Janet Street-Porter's in yesterday's Mail, acknowledge that. Some of our deaths are undoubtedly also not down to the Gov't but our freedom aspiring recalcitrance and, continued, refusal to wear masks, socially distance and follow rules. But yes we messed it up.

However, as vaccines are the way out of this I strongly suggest you wait for the final tally rather than the one at half-time.

RochdalePioneers

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

"protection money". Wow...

Its a trading block. Which we clearly need. With the Department of International Trade advising UK companies they need to set up in the EU to trade there.

They are being advised to set up a local office (and I’m sure EU companies are getting the same advice for here). It’s really not the same thing.

The same advice is indeed the case in reverse. EU companies need a UK subsidiary to effectively trade in the UK. Living proof that the border as created by the UK government doesn't allow trade without barriers so costly as to make it uneconomical.

That the UK government had No Clue about any of this should be a surprise but isn't. They had no idea how the border actually operated. Which is why most of the information that companies needed to "check, change, go" was not available.

Sunny uplands...

https://twitter.com/Helen121/status/1355207846560997376?s=19

So that explains why instead of improving workers rights we are trying to remove some.

The new Business Secretary has put a stop to that (for now).

I have never understood this drive in bankster "capitalism". A very basic principle of capitalism is that in order to sell your product/service you need customers who have the desire to buy and the means to do so. Having a workforce on poverty wages in unsafe conditions just increases the likelihood of poor quality and output and reduces viable punters.

Or, radical idea as it seems to be for many companies, pay your employees decently, keep them safe productive and committed, make them the consumers you need. Every worker with a disposable income creates jobs for other people.

MarqueeMark

eek said:

felix said:

MattW said:

First I have seen on the outcome of the "inspections" of the Pfizer plant in Belgium. From the Guardian:

"Gallina, shaken by the move, dived into the customs records to find evidence that AstraZeneca had shipped EU-produced doses to the UK – but without success."

(Gallina is the EU vaccine supply negotiation czar. "The move" is the AZ reduction in available supply.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/coronavirus-what-is-eu-medical-equipment-scheme-why-did-uk-opt-out

Very sensible of the Company to have at least 2 sets of records for these eventualities no doubt.

Also interesting from that Guardian article - here is why we ran away from the EU scheme.

There was also growing pressure to join a joint EU procurement plan for vaccines, and to put aside the Brexit rhetoric.

But Brussels’ demands were eye-watering: the UK, unlike EU member states, would not be able to take part in the governance of the scheme, including the steering group or the negotiating team.

Britain would have no say in what vaccines to procure, at what price or in what quantity, and for what delivery schedule. There would be no side-deals possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/29/we-had-to-go-it-alone-how-the-uk-got-ahead-in-the-covid-vaccine-race


That says so much. They were that worried about the UK making the EU look bad, they drove us to the point where....we made deals that made the EU look bad.

noneoftheabove

Chris said:

IanB2 said:

Also worth remembering that this is a zero sum game where the total amount of vaccine is unchanged. Had the nations of Europe gone their own ways, we'd still have the same total doses of vaccine, but they would have fallen differently.

Is it, though? Soriot implies otherwise - that the production difficulties might have been resolved by now if the EU hadn't delayed reaching agreement.

It clearly isnt a zero sum game. If more capacity had been built, there would be more capacity!

Chris

RochdalePioneers said:

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

You’re missing the point. We want to be a third country. Being told, however, that other third countries, including that of the murderous Assad, will be treated better than us is, well let’s use the diplomatic speak of “disappointing”. We won’t forget.

When have they said that? And what is in the EU - Syria Co-operation Deal that isn't in the UK EU deal? And whose fault is that if the UK failed to secure as good a deal as Assad did...?

Obviously he was referring to the fact that Syria is on the list of countries exempt from vaccine restrictions, and the UK isn't.

alex_

Scott_xP said:

Foxy said:

Yes, I agree that the government response has been sound.

Twice in one week.

Somebody really is sitting on BoZo's head...

It shows the value of a decent communications team and having proper control of the messages through semi-official channels. Not chaos merchants giving off the wall unattributed briefings at every opportunity.

Scott_xP

FrancisUrquhart said:

Well we know what will be written now...The EU, willing to throw your Granny under this, rather than admit a mistake.

But they did admit it was a mistake, and reversed it within hours.

How many mistakes has BoZo admitted while 100,000 people died?

Mysticrose

To Malcolm, much as I admire your assertion that the Scots want to break free I don't believe it.

If there is another indyref I no longer believe the Scots will vote for independence. That's based on talking to people who know your country and live there, recent polling and the latest appalling behaviour by the EU.

FrancisUrquhart

Scott_xP said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Well we know what will be written now...The EU, willing to throw your Granny under this, rather than admit a mistake.

But they did admit it was a mistake, and reversed it within hours.

How many mistakes has BoZo admitted while 100,000 people died?

Have they....lets wait and see. The export control checks are still there, lets see if they find reasons that Pfizer isn't being "fair".

Regardless, the instinct was clear, we will lie and cheat, and don't give a flying f##k about UK grannies, all that matters was finding somebody else to blame.

Mysticrose

Scott_xP said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Well we know what will be written now...The EU, willing to throw your Granny under this, rather than admit a mistake.

But they did admit it was a mistake, and reversed it within hours.

How many mistakes has BoZo admitted while 100,000 people died?

The EU have NOT admitted to mistakes on their approach to vaccines. Their policies and horrendous bureaucratic bungling are going to continue to wreak havoc in the EU for the rest of this year and probably well into next.

Scott_xP

alex_ said:

It shows the value of a decent communications team and having proper control of the messages through semi-official channels. Not chaos merchants giving off the wall unattributed briefings at every opportunity.

We can only imagine the position we might be in now if BoZo had sacked Cummings in March

gealbhan

felix said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

Whatever else it meant over 7m vaccinated people right now.

“Whatever else it meant over 7m vaccinated people right now.” Did I hear a crow?

My take is.

No EU nation were obliged by being in EU to have gone down collective EU route, they all could have done a UK. So going back to the beginning, did they choose the wrong path, did they make a mistake?

Or did they choose the sensible path in wishing to avoid the messy, divisive, winners and losers mad scramble of COVID nationalism?

Here’s the kicker, as Boris would say. The EU nations put their faith in a commission to do a fine job with vaccine task force/commercially. So whilst the EU Nations were sat there like a lobotomised cat, did the UK benefit from this? Does the strength of the UK position owe something to the EU not competing with us at the same time in the messy, divisive, winners and losers mad scramble of COVID nationalism?

If the truth is anything but no, my reasoning is this is actually an awkward position for UK to be in diplomatically. How? Why? Simply because COVID crisis still has a long way to run. New vaccines (and other help) can come along stronger than their predecessors at preventing hospitalisation and death whilst restricting transmissions, each one different efficacy in different age groups. Simply put, this is far too early in the game to go burning our bridges to help and cooperation.

Anyway, my poster friends, as Dave would say, let’s have a chillax Saturday.

Here is a cheerful song used in a very good film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgeIINs1TrQ

RochdalePioneers

felix said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of Scottish independence becomes also.

It's quite simple really. When you get down to brass tacks, the sole purpose of the Act of Union was to strip Scotland of its ability to make common cause with a hostile foreign power and surround England. The rest of it - including free trade, the equivalent money, and unrestricted access to the colonies - was just about providing generous enough terms and guarantees to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept. Thus, each time the EU becomes that little bit less friendly, the greater the incentive becomes for Westminster to hold on to Scotland at all costs.

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax-raising powers - but which also declares Great Britain a perpetual union and rules secession to be illegal forever.

Going right back to pre-devolution days and the "Independence in Europe" campaign, the vision of the independence movement has always been of Scotland and the remainder of the UK sitting peaceably side by side within a wider community of friendly powers. If most of the other powers cease to be friendly then that vision evaporates. It's that simple.

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

Whatever else it meant over 7m vaccinated people right now.

What the actual fuck does our vaccination programme have to do with the trade deal we signed? Our deal could have allowed UK companies like the one highlighted to still trade abroad without stopping us from leading Europe on the vaccination programme.

We did not have to sign such a shite trade deal - or even leave the EU - to do what we're doing. As the Doctor who signed off the vaccines stated very clearly at the press conference when asked that question.

Time_to_Leave

RochdalePioneers said:

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

FPT

Time_to_Leave said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scottish independence?
Northern Irish cessation?

It’s just possible I was being a bit facetious, and having a laugh at the hyperbole in “won’t survive”.

As often happens, there’s an underlying assumption that a plurality in England or Wales even cares whether Scotland or NI stay in the Union.

That's true - and Northern Ireland might very well go eventually, regardless of the EU situation, because of a combination of demographic change and its special status under international treaty.

HOWEVER - what nobody writing here seems to have appreciated yet, although you can be bloody certain that the First Minister of Scotland has, is that the worse relations between the UK and the EU become, the more remote the prospect of

Watch what happens over the next few years. If the UK-EU relationship continues along the trajectory established by this month's disastrous events then it's very easy to envision an end point at which, after a report from a constitutional commission or some such thing, Westminster passes legislation that creates a federal or quasi-federal system - probably entailing yet more devolution, especially with respect to tax

Yes, there are increasing signs that Brexit will be quite a hostile one, with the Brexiteers eager to deflect any criticism of their pet project. The EU meanwhile is demonstrating what third country status means, and has no interest in reversing Brexit. They are glad to be rid of us, and I don't blame them.

While I think Scotland would have quite a lot to deal with on a hostile border at Gretna Green, I think the Scottish attitude to the Auld Alliance is quite different to the English one.

There was a poll too this week that showed a Welsh majority for Rejoin, and that would have even more complex problems.

The problem is that Brexit was always a project of English Nationalism, so as inevitably the sunlight uplands are shown to be barren, inevitably the English government will be blamed. That is why the United Kingdom is doomed. It is only a matter of when and how now.

Yesterday showed us that "third party status" means we are behind Syria in the EU's affection.

Duly noted.

We literally demanded 3rd country status. Our doing, not theirs.

It appears that we didn't understand what that actually meant.

You’re missing the point. We want to be a third country. Being told, however, that other third countries, including that of the murderous Assad, will be treated better than us is, well let’s use the diplomatic speak of “disappointing”. We won’t forget.

When have they said that? And what is in the EU - Syria Co-operation Deal that isn't in the UK EU deal? And whose fault is that if the UK failed to secure as good a deal as Assad did...?

A basic principle of negotiation. Don't fuck up the deal then complain to the counter-party about its terms. I remember the Woolies Commercial Director trying that on the year before they folded. The deal wasn't generous enough in various parameters. "But those were the terms you inserted into the deal and signed".

We’re talking about the vaccine stuff. They made Syria exempt. Nothing to do with our trade deal.

Malmesbury

MarqueeMark said:

eek said:

felix said:

MattW said:

First I have seen on the outcome of the "inspections" of the Pfizer plant in Belgium. From the Guardian:

"Gallina, shaken by the move, dived into the customs records to find evidence that AstraZeneca had shipped EU-produced doses to the UK – but without success."

(Gallina is the EU vaccine supply negotiation czar. "The move" is the AZ reduction in available supply.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/coronavirus-what-is-eu-medical-equipment-scheme-why-did-uk-opt-out

Very sensible of the Company to have at least 2 sets of records for these eventualities no doubt.

Also interesting from that Guardian article - here is why we ran away from the EU scheme.

There was also growing pressure to join a joint EU procurement plan for vaccines, and to put aside the Brexit rhetoric.

But Brussels’ demands were eye-watering: the UK, unlike EU member states, would not be able to take part in the governance of the scheme, including the steering group or the negotiating team.

Britain would have no say in what vaccines to procure, at what price or in what quantity, and for what delivery schedule. There would be no side-deals possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/29/we-had-to-go-it-alone-how-the-uk-got-ahead-in-the-covid-vaccine-race

That says so much. They were that worried about the UK making the EU look bad, they drove us to the point where....we made deals that made the EU look bad.

It reminds me of the French offer to participate in their SLBM program at the time that Thatcher went for Trident.

- Pay more than Trident
- Less capable system
- All manufacturing to remain in France
- UK to violate previous agreements with the US and hand over all information on Polaris.

An offer so stupid, that you genuinely wonder why they bothered to waste the paper.

felix

Mysticrose said:

Roger said:

Mysticrose said:

Chris said:

Mysticrose said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Mysticrose said:

In my experience in life the most difficult people to deal with are those who never change their mind.

Events shift. Facts evolve. So must we.

I certainly hadn’t fully processed just how bad the EU is likely to keep looking from the outside (they might not do anything this egregious too often, but they’ll do other stuff). My slight worry we’d end up rejoining is falling away.

I would have campaigned hard to rejoin. And, personally, I was beginning to look at houses in Scotland for retirement in what I thought would become an EU country.

No more. After the disgraceful behaviour of the EU and, far worse, the manner in which they have crapped all over their own citizens there's no chance I will ever support them again. They have acted like the worst examples of an old centralist Communist dictatorship, even evoking the idea that solidarity comes before production. They have made an appalling mess of the most important job since their inception.

We got out just in time. Now we need to face out and strike trade deals around the world.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I thought Brexit was a disastrous mistake. Now I think it was the right thing to do.

I never liked the undemocratic nature of the EU. But I'd never seen a demonstration of just how dangerous the consequences could be.

How can anyone trust the EU Commission to comply with even the most minimal standards of behaviour after this? Disregard for the well-being of their own people, and contempt for everyone else.

My sentiments exactly.

And to Roger, this isn't about 'being flaky' ffs. This is people's lives we're talking about. It is the biggest crisis since the second world war, without a shadow of doubt, and the EU have flunked it. Since when they have lashed out at the British for getting on with the job of vaccinating their citizens as the EU should have done.

I was a remainer but I will never again support the EU after this. Everything that you thought could be bad about an over-centralised bureaucracy has come to the fore. Hideous red tape that is, literally, going to kill their own people.

As the country with the most deaths in Europe it ill behoves the UK to say 'the EU have flunked it'. What's the debate about if it isn't about saving lives which the the UK government have singularly failed to do

Those praising British vaccine policy are well aware of our failings early on with this pandemic. The NYT piece, like Janet Street-Porter's in yesterday's Mail, acknowledge that. Some of our deaths are undoubtedly also not down to the Gov't but our freedom aspiring recalcitrance and, continued, refusal to wear masks, socially distance and follow rules. But yes we messed it up.

However, as vaccines are the way out of this I strongly suggest you wait for the final tally rather than the one at half-time.

Roger no doubt will refuse the vaccine after the warnings of his hero Macron - the greatest anti-vax philosopher to come out of France. Ever.

Chris

Roger said:

Mysticrose said:

Chris said:

Mysticrose said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Mysticrose said:

In my experience in life the most difficult people to deal with are those who never change their mind.

Events shift. Facts evolve. So must we.

I certainly hadn’t fully processed just how bad the EU is likely to keep looking from the outside (they might not do anything this egregious too often, but they’ll do other stuff). My slight worry we’d end up rejoining is falling away.

I would have campaigned hard to rejoin. And, personally, I was beginning to look at houses in Scotland for retirement in what I thought would become an EU country.

No more. After the disgraceful behaviour of the EU and, far worse, the manner in which they have crapped all over their own citizens there's no chance I will ever support them again. They have acted like the worst examples of an old centralist Communist dictatorship, even evoking the idea that solidarity comes before production. They have made an appalling mess of the most important job since their inception.

We got out just in time. Now we need to face out and strike trade deals around the world.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I thought Brexit was a disastrous mistake. Now I think it was the right thing to do.

I never liked the undemocratic nature of the EU. But I'd never seen a demonstration of just how dangerous the consequences could be.

How can anyone trust the EU Commission to comply with even the most minimal standards of behaviour after this? Disregard for the well-being of their own people, and contempt for everyone else.

My sentiments exactly.

And to Roger, this isn't about 'being flaky' ffs. This is people's lives we're talking about. It is the biggest crisis since the second world war, without a shadow of doubt, and the EU have flunked it. Since when they have lashed out at the British for getting on with the job of vaccinating their citizens as the EU should have done.

I was a remainer but I will never again support the EU after this. Everything that you thought could be bad about an over-centralised bureaucracy has come to the fore. Hideous red tape that is, literally, going to kill their own people.

As the country with the most deaths in Europe it ill behoves the UK to say 'the EU have flunked it'. What's the debate about if it isn't about saving lives which the the UK government have singularly failed to do

Well, I have been horrified by the mismanagement of the pandemic by the UK government so far (with the exception of vaccination) and I am equally horrified by the mess the EU have made in providing for their own citizens to be vaccinated. I don't understand why anyone would use either one of those to excuse the other.