It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
I don't think it does. If rejoining the EU is popular he will simply say "yes". If it isn't, he will say "no". Nobody has any attachment to CPTPP and neither does it actually mean anything to ordinary people.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
The Brexit Derangement Syndrome guy is here to answer all you mental health enquiries.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
The pandemic isn't going to be "under control" until the virus is eliminated and all social distancing measures have been entirely removed in full.
If it is possible for a pub or restaurant not just to be open (currently they're all closed afterall), but to be open normally with no social distancing measures. If we are eg able to safely go to a packed, crowded bar and have over a hundred people stood standing room only shoulder to shoulder watching Liverpool vs Manchester United then the pandemic is under control - if we can not, it is not.
Yes defeating the virus globally is necessary but that isn't done by sending what is internationally a tiny number of doses overseas, but to us a dramatic number of doses. Again 7 million doses would allow jabs for over 10% of our population but not even 0.1% of global population - you are an innumerate fool if you think vaccinating the world is possible at the expense of not vaccinating ourselves.
It isn't either/or we need to do both and the best way to do both is to finish the job here and then be able to work properly and afford to pay for the rest of the world. We don't need to send a few million doses that would let us finish the job here overseas, we need to finish the job here and send hundreds of millions of doses overseas.
The unfortunate "innumerate fool" comment arises from a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about now. I'm talking about where we have achieved a level of virus immunity and prevalence sufficiently high and low respectively to substantially reopen our society at a time when the global vaccine supply is limited and we through our sterling efforts have nailed down a disproportionate share of it. So then one can argue (as you are) that this is not job done and we should continue to prioritize ourselves and only ourselves. We should carry on vaccinating all the way down to 18, every adult, shoot for zero Covid and total domestic normality (but with closed borders), and not worry about the global situation until we've got there. Or one can argue it makes both ethical and practical sense to release stock and pipeline for use in places where the virus is rampant and likely to mutate in a malign direction. Both arguments are respectable. Neither is stupid or immoral. I prefer the 2nd for reasons I've explained many times.
Except it is illogical, false, immoral, unreasonable and bad for the entire world.
The world doesn't need a couple of million extra doses of vaccine from us. The world needs billions of doses of vaccine.
The UK is funding vaccinations for the rest of the world as a parallel track to our own vaccinations but that doesn't mean stopping our own vaccination scheme. Our own vaccines are for ourselves first and the only logical way to use them is domestically.
The simple fact of the matter is that the pandemic is costing us economically about £6 billion per week. If we could end the pandemic one week sooner in the UK then we would generate a saving of £6 billion for that week. Money that could go towards buying more vaccines for the entire world.
If you want two ways of looking at it then the choices are:
Stop vaccinating Brits, keep restrictions, keep economic support going for Brits, have low taxes due to a lack of domestic trade, continue to have deaths, send a few million vaccines overseas.
Finish vaccinating Brits, lift restrictions, gain taxes due to trade resurging, stop having deaths, have a Treasury billions of pounds per week better off, spend billions procuring hundreds of millions of vaccines overseas.
It is literally a no-brainer. One of those options is a win/win/win/win for everyone including the third world.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Not culturally diverse enough for you or something?
The CPTPP - should we join it - becomes more of a global trade partnership than a Pacific rim one. The elephant in the room for the "lets go WTO" children was that the WTO is a disfunctional mess. Creating a very large trade alliance which allows economies to organise themselves is a good thing.
So of course we should look to join this thing. Thats not the daft idea, its the suggestion that it will replace the loss of trade from departing the EEA that is daft.
As you are so good at numbers , could you oblige with the death rates and positivity rates for same countries , we can then do a real comparison of who is doing well rather than your Tory cult ideas of success.
Deflect, blame, ignore.
You don't want the Scottish government to improve its rate of vaccination?
I want them to improve of course, but yet again you highlight your bias with your selective numbers. I am happy that Scotland has lower death rate , lower positivity rate and lower vaccination rate. I look at the big picture , you on the other hand ignore the devastating other numbers and focus on the one good part. When we are all vaccinated , Scotland a week or so behind England but England still having 40% higher death rate and probably world champions, will you still be crowing.
Sounds like you are the one crowing about deaths in England. Unless you've got a time machine you can't change the past - all we can change is the present and the future - but you and the SNP seem very defensive over Scotland's slower vaccination rate, now the "care homes first" rationale has run out of road.
Trying to avoid the point yet again. Post the numbers or prove that you are a ne'er do well. I know for a fact you will not post the real data, cowards like you just hide in the shadows and post misinformation. Not very pleasant.
I'm sure you can google like anyone else - I'm not your data service. Yes, the death numbers in England are worse - for many reasons, some of which will be government (in)action, others will not.
The point is "where we are today" and "what we could do better". Which you don't want to engage with. Lets hope the new "super centres" in Aberdeen & Edinburgh pick up the pace, but there's a lot of pace to pick up.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
Hardly. Since the benefits of any the CPTPP Agreement, if we even get to join it, will be absolutely negligible, and no-one will have heard of it anyway, it's not exactly going to be the dominant issue of the next election.
There is a wider and much more important point here, which is what the UK should do about the catastrophic mess Boris has got us into, when we do eventually get a sane government again. I'm mulling an article on this question, which really hasn't received much attention. Watch this space!
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
Hardly. Since the benefits of any the CPTPP Agreement, if we even get to join it, will be absolutely negligible, and no-one will have heard of it anyway, it's not exactly going to be the dominant issue of the next election.
There is a wider and much more important point here, which is what the UK should do about the catastrophic mess Boris has got us into when we do eventually get a sane government again. I'm mulling an article on this question, which really hasn't received much attention. Watch this space!
Spoiler: I won't be recommending Rejoin.
Ah, I was worried the answer would be more Europe.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
G , your appetite for chlorinated chicken and hormone full beef surprises me?
My appetite is for non tariff whisky exports to the US, indeed across the world
Quarantine after travel was a simple policy. During the periods where non-essential travel abroad was restricted, insist that all incoming people quarantine in airport hotels. Collect them off the plane, onto a bus, into the hotel. We certainly had the ability to do so - surplus hotel space existed. So why didn't we? And why - even now with people having to go door to door to try and mop up this SA strain - aren't we doing it now?
Three possibilities, none of which are mutually exclusive: 1. "Global Britain, Open for Business". Politically it was so important post Brexit to have Britain open that it trumped all other considerations including public health 2. Pressure from Tory donors. We have watched agog at the brazen way the Tories have handed out vast amounts of public money to their friends. And we had that amazing announcement that travel restrictions would no longer apply to captains of industry like their friends. So rich Tory friends/benefactors/donors telling the cabinet not to do it would have been influential 3. Boris is crap. He has proven utterly incapable of taking tough decisions or doing anything unpopular until its absolutely unavoidable
A stupid, corrupt fool really isn't who we needed to be "leading" us through this crisis. Which is why so many of us have died or been badly infected unnecessarily.
Laughable. But idiocy like that gives comfort to me. It means Labour are not going to win anything. Especially with Raynor as deputy.
Of course Johnson nearly died of this virus. He realised why and decided to lose weight. It's it rocket science. I'll give you and others some free advice... cut out the booze and fat.
And of course Johnson is not cruel or inept... You are being typically hysterical. It was Johnson who got the vaccine programme going.
But do carry on swimmingly. You are wondering off into the mists of irrelevance.
Fat is a very unfairly maligned macronutrient. Healthy fats are an essential part of the human diet, and are key to many biological processes.
If Labour successfully weaponise the narrative that the incoming cuts and/or tax rises are linked to Brexit then all bets are off. Anything can happen as we have seen. Who would have expected a global pandemic?
I'm not suggesting this will happen but it's a possibility. I quite frankly doubt Labour have the ability to successfully weaponise anything right now.
Vaccinating the entire British/European/American/rich country population before releasing vaccines to other countries would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of additional deaths.
The UK represents less than 1% of the world's population and is moving at lightning speed relative to almost all other countries. Stopping halfway through our programme to chuck largesse at everybody else is not going to make a huge amount of difference to them in the grand scheme of things, but it will hurt us.
@Cyclefree is correct. And underlying all the good points she makes, especially with regard to young people, there is the fundamental issue of inter-generational equity. The younger people of the UK have been crushed under the weight of lockdown and its many implications in large part to save the lives of the old. Once the old have been protected from the virus, expecting the young to then keep playing a game of Russian roulette with it, whilst people abroad are inoculated at their expense, is indefensible.
The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm - both its territory and its citizenry. Britain can help the rest of the world too, but the rest of the world will have to wait until we are good and ready.
Yes - this header very strongly reflects what I've been hearing from my 3 children and their friends. They feel forgotten: all the focus is on the older people, which they understand, but the effects on them and their lives is just being ignored.
And while they are altruistic in general they react dismissively to the idea that they should continue to be ignored once the oldies have had their vaccinations so that those same oldies can feel good about helping people far away while ignoring the very real adverse consequences for them of the sacrifices they have made.
My wife, in her mid 40s, is very down about this this morning, for herself but mainly for our teenage children.
She is frightened that even when the over 50s are vaccinated pressure will remain on the government to refrain from restoring liberties because there is still some risk in the system.
When we become accustomed to authoritarian measures it is all the more difficult to free ourselves of them when we are in such a risk-averse frame of mine. Especially when there is financial support.
As I keep saying, we have to learn to live with this new threat in life at some level.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
Hardly. Since the benefits of any the CPTPP Agreement, if we even get to join it, will be absolutely negligible, and no-one will have heard of it anyway, it's not exactly going to be the dominant issue of the next election.
There is a wider and much more important point here, which is what the UK should do about the catastrophic mess Boris has got us into, when we do eventually get a sane government again. I'm mulling an article on this question, which really hasn't received much attention. Watch this space!
Quarantine after travel was a simple policy. During the periods where non-essential travel abroad was restricted, insist that all incoming people quarantine in airport hotels. Collect them off the plane, onto a bus, into the hotel. We certainly had the ability to do so - surplus hotel space existed. So why didn't we? And why - even now with people having to go door to door to try and mop up this SA strain - aren't we doing it now?
Three possibilities, none of which are mutually exclusive: 1. "Global Britain, Open for Business". Politically it was so important post Brexit to have Britain open that it trumped all other considerations including public health 2. Pressure from Tory donors. We have watched agog at the brazen way the Tories have handed out vast amounts of public money to their friends. And we had that amazing announcement that travel restrictions would no longer apply to captains of industry like their friends. So rich Tory friends/benefactors/donors telling the cabinet not to do it would have been influential 3. Boris is crap. He has proven utterly incapable of taking tough decisions or doing anything unpopular until its absolutely unavoidable
A stupid, corrupt fool really isn't who we needed to be "leading" us through this crisis. Which is why so many of us have died or been badly infected unnecessarily.
Laughable. But idiocy like that gives comfort to me. It means Labour are not going to win anything. Especially with Raynor as deputy.
Of course Johnson nearly died of this virus. He realised why and decided to lose weight. It's it rocket science. I'll give you and others some free advice... cut out the booze and fat.
And of course Johnson is not cruel or inept... You are being typically hysterical. It was Johnson who got the vaccine programme going.
But do carry on swimmingly. You are wondering off into the mists of irrelevance.
Fat is a very unfairly maligned macronutrient. Healthy fats are an essential part of the human diet, and are key to many biological processes.
Quite right. Fat doesn't make you fat, sugar makes you fat.
The amount of 'low fat' foods that are stuffed full of sugar and assorted e-numbers is a British disease.
If you want to lose weight, reduce your sugar intake and reject processed foods.
Mr. Divvie, using jabs isn't the same as hoarding them.
By definition, when they're used, that vaccine dose is gone.
Hoarding them is what the SNP appears to be doing with their stockpiles.
How can you know that? Releasing numbers of vaccine stocks would be a breach of national security according to HMG.
TUD, you know we are brimming with Scotch experts on here. They like to pick their target shaming topic, they somehow never manage to select any topic where Scotland is way ahead, ie death rates , or positivity rates perhaps. Ponder endlessly on why we are a week at most behind on vaccines but not a care as to why we are 60% of the death rate, you would almost think it is deliberate. Selective memory is a wonderful thing.
I just heard about 25 posts ago that you had been banned.
Since you don't write any of your own words with the Tweet then all I can reasonably infer is you are saying that if the UK can negotiate tariff free trade with the USA then that would be a fantastic boost to the economy that wasn't possible while we were EU members.
There was some initial concern here over the speed of authorisation. Not, I hasten to add, concern which I particularly shared. MHRA is a pretty tough organisation.
Vaccinating the entire British/European/American/rich country population before releasing vaccines to other countries would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of additional deaths.
The UK represents less than 1% of the world's population and is moving at lightning speed relative to almost all other countries. Stopping halfway through our programme to chuck largesse at everybody else is not going to make a huge amount of difference to them in the grand scheme of things, but it will hurt us.
@Cyclefree is correct. And underlying all the good points she makes, especially with regard to young people, there is the fundamental issue of inter-generational equity. The younger people of the UK have been crushed under the weight of lockdown and its many implications in large part to save the lives of the old. Once the old have been protected from the virus, expecting the young to then keep playing a game of Russian roulette with it, whilst people abroad are inoculated at their expense, is indefensible.
The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm - both its territory and its citizenry. Britain can help the rest of the world too, but the rest of the world will have to wait until we are good and ready.
Yes - this header very strongly reflects what I've been hearing from my 3 children and their friends. They feel forgotten: all the focus is on the older people, which they understand, but the effects on them and their lives is just being ignored.
And while they are altruistic in general they react dismissively to the idea that they should continue to be ignored once the oldies have had their vaccinations so that those same oldies can feel good about helping people far away while ignoring the very real adverse consequences for them of the sacrifices they have made.
My wife, in her mid 40s, is very down about this this morning, for herself but mainly for our teenage children.
She is frightened that even when the over 50s are vaccinated pressure will remain on the government to refrain from restoring liberties because there is still some risk in the system.
When we become accustomed to authoritarian measures it is all the more difficult to free ourselves of them when we are in such a risk-averse frame of mine. Especially when there is financial support.
As I keep saying, we have to learn to live with this new threat in life at some level.
We're lucky that the successful vaccination of the elderly and vulnerable will coincide with the heavy suppression of the virus due to lockdown. We will therefore be able to open up a little whilst the vaccination drive continues, whilst hopefully keeping R below 1, or at the very least keeping hospitalisations and deaths low even if cases rise.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
The Brexit Derangement Syndrome guy is here to answer all you mental health enquiries.
Maybe check out my later post and I made a full apology for using BDS some time ago
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
Problems caused by Brexit are becoming apparent day by day. What will take longer is whether we now prosper as much as the EU. Certainly it will be more difficult to sell to the EU than before, so that won't help. It is up to those who wanted, worked for, voted for a won (just) Brexit to prove to the rest of us, who are now the majority, that it was worth it.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
I would say that on the vaccine issue, the important point is that is not a choice between
- vaccinate the UK - vaccinate the world.
We can, should and almost certainly will, do both.
The old pizza economic metaphor applies here - it's not how much pizza that is currently on the table, it's about ordering more pizza.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
What has MENSA got to do with mental health?
Big G confused it with Mencap, I guess?
Bit tough on Truss anyway, I'd suggest. Her brief is to get trade deals/join trade blocs and she's barred from joining the adjacent trade bloc.
Bit tough on anyone to group them with Williamson!
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
The logic is actually very simple, the UK will happily join any trade agreement that is about trade and doesn't impose additional requirements.
All the EU options insist on Freedom of Movement and that's a problem
Freedom of Movement is a red herring though. There was 48% of the population who didn't care about Freedom of Movement and if the EU identity politics endures all bets are off. All it takes is one big recession or sustained period of misery and suddenly you have a majority for rejoin or at the very least membership of EEA.
I'm not saying that's going to happen but it's a possibility. We just don't know. Being a member of CPTPP is not going to change that.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
I don't think this is right at all. Sure the elite Brexit supporters want free trade but the Brexit core in the red wall wants protectionism. They want their jobs protected and manufacturing brought back to the UK.
We aren't going to have protectionism.
It's overly simplistic for you and HYUFD to say the red wall wants protectionism or they want a halt to migration.
People want to be listened to, respected and have their lives improve. How that happens isn't as significant as that it does. Most people aren't political extremist obsessives one way or another.
It is the "That it does" bit I have my doubts about. I see no great evidence of it.
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
Problems caused by Brexit are becoming apparent day by day. What will take longer is whether we now prosper as much as the EU. Certainly it will be more difficult to sell to the EU than before, so that won't help. It is up to those who wanted, worked for, voted for a won (just) Brexit to prove to the rest of us, who are now the majority, that it was worth it.
Which Liz Truss in particular is working her socks off to do.
Quite frankly her department is doing a better job and is more important at the moment than the Foreign Office. Who is doing a better job to represent the UK on the world stage - her or Raab?
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
As I keep repeating, the rejoin question is not about the EU, its about the EEA. The EU ship has sailed, and I can't see how any serious politician will be able to muster mass support for joining fully the EU and all the things we'd opted out of like the Euro.
The EEA? That's different. We need to be able to trade, and its clear that the CTA shat that particular bed. With a comprehensive lack of viable solutions other than "set up abroad" we're going to have to renegotiate sooner or later. OK later, as we know Shagger does nothing that might make him unpopular until he absolutely can't avoid it.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
Giving away vaccines: it is not enough that "UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen".
Younger people do die, albeit rarely, and long-Covid in the younger is a danger. I cannot believe that the government would risk giving away or selling the fruits of its vaccine procurement programme in the knowledge that UK citizens will die or incur long-Covid because their vaccines had been given away. Not going to happen.
Probably not. No diversion until every adult here who wants a jab has had a jab - that does seem the easiest sell in the book. But there are people in government with more internationalist leanings. It could be a non-issue anyway if we get it all done quickly.
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
More selfish arguments for sending vaccines overseas might include:- - increasing British influence or soft power - stopping the developing world becoming reliant on Russia or China - slowing the evolution of new, more dangerous variants in unvaccinated populations - allowing British holidaymakers, influencers and business people to travel - reopening export markets - reopening British borders (if we ever get round to closing them).
I think we should send them to Francophone Africa, so Mr Macron goes even loopier.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
I don't think this is right at all. Sure the elite Brexit supporters want free trade but the Brexit core in the red wall wants protectionism. They want their jobs protected and manufacturing brought back to the UK.
We aren't going to have protectionism.
It's overly simplistic for you and HYUFD to say the red wall wants protectionism or they want a halt to migration.
People want to be listened to, respected and have their lives improve. How that happens isn't as significant as that it does. Most people aren't political extremist obsessives one way or another.
It is the "That it does" bit I have my doubts about. I see no great evidence of it.
What evidence are you looking for?
We've been out of the Single Market for 32 days so far. What exactly where you expecting in the first 32 days to convince you?
When even German newspapers have been running stories about "the best advert for Brexit" in the past month, perhaps you shouldn't be so down in the dumps? People are starting to wake up to the fact that it isn't a case of big > small, what actually counts is that nimble > sclerotic.
Oh, and which of us didn't predict exactly this - weeks back?
The EU seem to only just be waking up to the fact there are two communities in Northern Ireland to worry about.
I don't recall the EU placing an intra-UK border down the Irish Sea. They had a proposal to get around the whole issue which was rejected massively and repeatedly by the 2017 parliament.
Vaccinating the entire British/European/American/rich country population before releasing vaccines to other countries would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of additional deaths.
The UK represents less than 1% of the world's population and is moving at lightning speed relative to almost all other countries. Stopping halfway through our programme to chuck largesse at everybody else is not going to make a huge amount of difference to them in the grand scheme of things, but it will hurt us.
@Cyclefree is correct. And underlying all the good points she makes, especially with regard to young people, there is the fundamental issue of inter-generational equity. The younger people of the UK have been crushed under the weight of lockdown and its many implications in large part to save the lives of the old. Once the old have been protected from the virus, expecting the young to then keep playing a game of Russian roulette with it, whilst people abroad are inoculated at their expense, is indefensible.
The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm - both its territory and its citizenry. Britain can help the rest of the world too, but the rest of the world will have to wait until we are good and ready.
Yes - this header very strongly reflects what I've been hearing from my 3 children and their friends. They feel forgotten: all the focus is on the older people, which they understand, but the effects on them and their lives is just being ignored.
And while they are altruistic in general they react dismissively to the idea that they should continue to be ignored once the oldies have had their vaccinations so that those same oldies can feel good about helping people far away while ignoring the very real adverse consequences for them of the sacrifices they have made.
My wife, in her mid 40s, is very down about this this morning, for herself but mainly for our teenage children.
She is frightened that even when the over 50s are vaccinated pressure will remain on the government to refrain from restoring liberties because there is still some risk in the system.
When we become accustomed to authoritarian measures it is all the more difficult to free ourselves of them when we are in such a risk-averse frame of mine. Especially when there is financial support.
As I keep saying, we have to learn to live with this new threat in life at some level.
This is my great fear. I have been shocked and saddened by the number of people on PB, for example, who are very comfortable with authoritarian measures (to the point where the current measures are seemingly too weak for them!).
I mean, Winter Flu Crisis (this happens every year) – what will prevent the health authoritarian lobby from calling for mask-wearing every winter, now we have become used to what was just a year ago anathema?
One of the very few things I like about Boris is that his instincts are generally towards liberty. He is almost uniquely unsuited to managing a crisis like this except in that regard: I hope he will push back against the authoritarian, curtain-twitching voices that have come to dominate national discourse in recent times.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
I, for one, am greatly looking forwrd to frictionless ebay trading in Porsche parts with Vietnam and Chile. A bright future awaits us all if only we are fucking stupid enough to believe in it.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
Yes, one of the most (!) frequent PB contributors is a complex melange of Global Britain and Britain First, I rather think.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
Oh gosh. I hope your son is better soon Big G
Thanks Gin but it is a long process
Presently he is very ill but we have to trust the Canadian doctors to help him recover his mental health and wellbeing
Mr. Gate, I'd strongly caution against taking 48% to not care about freedom of movement, or assume that 52% were dead against it.
I voted to Leave. Free movement and immigration generally had nothing to do with my vote.
Well it's undeniable that 48% voted with the view that Freedom of Movement was worth it compared to the perceived benefits of being in the EU. That's unlikely to change in this scenario.
It's more realistic that growth will be good, which it will be post COVID anyway, and that we settle into our post-EU position, but who knows? Like I said, one big recession or sustained period of economic misery and all bets are off. Especially if Labour can weaponise Brexit as being the cause of all ills.
Like I said though, I don't think Labour are capable of weaponising anything right now.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
I don't think this is right at all. Sure the elite Brexit supporters want free trade but the Brexit core in the red wall wants protectionism. They want their jobs protected and manufacturing brought back to the UK.
We aren't going to have protectionism.
It's overly simplistic for you and HYUFD to say the red wall wants protectionism or they want a halt to migration.
People want to be listened to, respected and have their lives improve. How that happens isn't as significant as that it does. Most people aren't political extremist obsessives one way or another.
It is the "That it does" bit I have my doubts about. I see no great evidence of it.
What evidence are you looking for?
We've been out of the Single Market for 32 days so far. What exactly where you expecting in the first 32 days to convince you?
When even German newspapers have been running stories about "the best advert for Brexit" in the past month, perhaps you shouldn't be so down in the dumps? People are starting to wake up to the fact that it isn't a case of big > small, what actually counts is that nimble > sclerotic.
Wasn't thinking in terms of the EU at all. Not everyone automatically does.
Oh, and which of us didn't predict exactly this - weeks back?
The EU seem to only just be waking up to the fact there are two communities in Northern Ireland to worry about.
I don't recall the EU placing an intra-UK border down the Irish Sea. They had a proposal to get around the whole issue which was rejected massively and repeatedly by the 2017 parliament.
Because the 2017 solution was even worse. The NI Protocol subjugating NI to rules they don't vote for is bad and the solution is to find a way out of that mess for NI.
Instead the 2017 solution was to apply the bad protocol for NI to the entire UK simultaneously. That's worse.
That's like saying the solution for one person being sick is to make everyone sick.
GB is out of the Protocol now, good, so now we need to find a way to extract NI out of it too.
How many % of Tories voted for Blair in 1997 mate?
In England Labour and the LDs are the Tories main opponent so obviously you always vote Tory there, in Wales Labour are the Tories main opponent so obviously you vote Tory there, in Scotland however the main objective is beating the SNP.
As today's ConHome poll confirms most Tories despise Sturgeon and the SNP so much they would even tactically vote SLab if they were the best hope of beating the SNP in for example a central belt constituency.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
I would say that on the vaccine issue, the important point is that is not a choice between
- vaccinate the UK - vaccinate the world.
We can, should and almost certainly will, do both.
The old pizza economic metaphor applies here - it's not how much pizza that is currently on the table, it's about ordering more pizza.
Yes, the EU has decided it wants to have more slices of one pizza, the US and UK have decided to simply order more pizzas.
The contrast of those approaches is why the EU programme is stuck at 2-3% in similarly sized countries while we're at 14% and the US is at 9%.
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
The logic is actually very simple, the UK will happily join any trade agreement that is about trade and doesn't impose additional requirements.
All the EU options insist on Freedom of Movement and that's a problem
Freedom of Movement is a red herring though. There was 48% of the population who didn't care about Freedom of Movement and if the EU identity politics endures all bets are off. All it takes is one big recession or sustained period of misery and suddenly you have a majority for rejoin or at the very least membership of EEA.
I'm not saying that's going to happen but it's a possibility. We just don't know. Being a member of CPTPP is not going to change that.
As we announce our joining of EFTA and the EEA "on our terms" we state very clearly that forrin no longer has the rights to come into our country and sponge. They MUST be able to demonstrate they can sustain themselves through either a job or savings, and after 3 months if they fail to do so, out they go.
A great win for Priti, Boris and Britain! Huzzah! That the "new" power already existed will be pointed out by the remoaner press and told to shut up.
Incidentally, why haven't we applied to rejoin EFTA yet? We want to join a Free Trade Area on the other side of the world but not the one on our doorstep which we helped found.
How many % of Tories voted for Blair in 1997 mate?
In England Labour and the LDs are the Tories main opponent so obviously you always vote Tory there, in Wales Labour are the Tories main opponent so obviously you vote Tory there, in Scotland however the main objective is beating the SNP.
As today's ConHome poll confirms most Tories despise Sturgeon and the SNP so much they would even tactically vote SLab if they were the best hope of beating the SNP in for example a central belt constituency.
What a silly thing to say. Of course a big % of Tories voted for Blair in 1997 in England because otherwise there wouldn't have been a big swing towards Labour.
Mr. Gate, I'd strongly caution against taking 48% to not care about freedom of movement, or assume that 52% were dead against it.
I voted to Leave. Free movement and immigration generally had nothing to do with my vote.
Well it's undeniable that 48% voted with the view that Freedom of Movement was worth it compared to the perceived benefits of being in the EU. That's unlikely to change in this scenario.
It's more realistic that growth will be good, which it will be post COVID anyway, and that we settle into our post-EU position, but who knows? Like I said, one big recession or sustained period of economic misery and all bets are off. Especially if Labour can weaponise Brexit as being the cause of all ills.
Like I said though, I don't think Labour are capable of weaponising anything right now.
Not with Starmer in charge. He should be putting the boot into Johnson 24/7 instead of occupying the bleak hinterland between anxious and bored.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
I don't think it does. If rejoining the EU is popular he will simply say "yes". If it isn't, he will say "no". Nobody has any attachment to CPTPP and neither does it actually mean anything to ordinary people.
It doesn't yet. It remains to be seen how valuable this new agreement will be (if we accede successfully).
On the surface it does look great for the service industries though. Proximity doesn't matter for services that can be delivered digitally. If we look therefore at ease of doing business - language, culture, legal and political systems, we find a lot more potential there. As an example, NZ, Aus, Canada all speak English as their first language (Québec as the exception), and it is the language of business in Brunei and Singapore.
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
The logic is actually very simple, the UK will happily join any trade agreement that is about trade and doesn't impose additional requirements.
All the EU options insist on Freedom of Movement and that's a problem
Freedom of Movement is a red herring though. There was 48% of the population who didn't care about Freedom of Movement and if the EU identity politics endures all bets are off. All it takes is one big recession or sustained period of misery and suddenly you have a majority for rejoin or at the very least membership of EEA.
I'm not saying that's going to happen but it's a possibility. We just don't know. Being a member of CPTPP is not going to change that.
As we announce our joining of EFTA and the EEA "on our terms" we state very clearly that forrin no longer has the rights to come into our country and sponge. They MUST be able to demonstrate they can sustain themselves through either a job or savings, and after 3 months if they fail to do so, out they go.
A great win for Priti, Boris and Britain! Huzzah! That the "new" power already existed will be pointed out by the remoaner press and told to shut up.
Incidentally, why haven't we applied to rejoin EFTA yet? We want to join a Free Trade Area on the other side of the world but not the one on our doorstep which we helped found.
Because EFTA has the word "Europe" in the name and we hate those vaccine stealing dickheads, or something.
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
The logic is actually very simple, the UK will happily join any trade agreement that is about trade and doesn't impose additional requirements.
All the EU options insist on Freedom of Movement and that's a problem
Freedom of Movement is a red herring though. There was 48% of the population who didn't care about Freedom of Movement and if the EU identity politics endures all bets are off. All it takes is one big recession or sustained period of misery and suddenly you have a majority for rejoin or at the very least membership of EEA.
I'm not saying that's going to happen but it's a possibility. We just don't know. Being a member of CPTPP is not going to change that.
Are you saying no-one who voted Remain cares about FoM? That seems a bit reductive - like saying 52% of people didn't know or care about possible economic difficulties. In practice, there will have been a large number of people in the middle who had to weigh both sides up, and decide which was more important in a forced binary choice.
Me, for one (although less about FoM and more to do with enforced political integration). In practice, there aren't that many people who'd want to rejoin the EU solely for the sake of access to FoM.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
I don't think it does. If rejoining the EU is popular he will simply say "yes". If it isn't, he will say "no". Nobody has any attachment to CPTPP and neither does it actually mean anything to ordinary people.
It doesn't yet. It remains to be seen how valuable this new agreement will be (if we accede successfully).
On the surface it does look great for the service industries though. Proximity doesn't matter for services that can be delivered digitally. If we look therefore at ease of doing business - language, culture, legal and political systems, we find a lot more potential there. As an example, NZ, Aus, Canada all speak English as their first language (Québec as the exception), and it is the language of business in Brunei and Singapore.
I don't have any knowledge on what CPTPP changes in regards to services to be honest. Care to explain?
Language is a red herring though. Almost every European professional speaks English enough to do business.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
Yes, one of the most (!) frequent PB contributors is a complex melange of Global Britain and Britain First, I rather think.
I believe in Global Britain and I think we should help vaccinate the world.
I don't believe it is helpful for the world, the UK or anyone to only offer a couple of million vaccine doses to the rest of the world though. That kind of gesturism will do nothing to end the pandemic.
To end the pandemic the world needs not a few million doses, not tens of millions of doses, not even hundreds of millions of doses. The world needs billions of doses of vaccine.
So the question is how do we ensure the world gets billions of doses of vaccine quickly. Not vaccinating the British population doesn't help one jot with that.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
The logic is actually very simple, the UK will happily join any trade agreement that is about trade and doesn't impose additional requirements.
All the EU options insist on Freedom of Movement and that's a problem
Freedom of Movement is a red herring though. There was 48% of the population who didn't care about Freedom of Movement and if the EU identity politics endures all bets are off. All it takes is one big recession or sustained period of misery and suddenly you have a majority for rejoin or at the very least membership of EEA.
I'm not saying that's going to happen but it's a possibility. We just don't know. Being a member of CPTPP is not going to change that.
As we announce our joining of EFTA and the EEA "on our terms" we state very clearly that forrin no longer has the rights to come into our country and sponge. They MUST be able to demonstrate they can sustain themselves through either a job or savings, and after 3 months if they fail to do so, out they go.
A great win for Priti, Boris and Britain! Huzzah! That the "new" power already existed will be pointed out by the remoaner press and told to shut up.
Incidentally, why haven't we applied to rejoin EFTA yet? We want to join a Free Trade Area on the other side of the world but not the one on our doorstep which we helped found.
Because EFTA has the word "Europe" in the name and we hate those vaccine stealing dickheads, or something.
I think I remember reading that Norway was not to keen on the idea.
We are where we are. We should seek the best deals wherever they may be. Joining the CPTPP makes perfect sense. We have much in common with several of the parties.
Joining the EU single market would be even better!
We have much in common with several of the parties.
Tell that to antivax Macron or Article 16 smashing Ursula.................
Vaccinating the entire British/European/American/rich country population before releasing vaccines to other countries would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of additional deaths.
The UK represents less than 1% of the world's population and is moving at lightning speed relative to almost all other countries. Stopping halfway through our programme to chuck largesse at everybody else is not going to make a huge amount of difference to them in the grand scheme of things, but it will hurt us.
@Cyclefree is correct. And underlying all the good points she makes, especially with regard to young people, there is the fundamental issue of inter-generational equity. The younger people of the UK have been crushed under the weight of lockdown and its many implications in large part to save the lives of the old. Once the old have been protected from the virus, expecting the young to then keep playing a game of Russian roulette with it, whilst people abroad are inoculated at their expense, is indefensible.
The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm - both its territory and its citizenry. Britain can help the rest of the world too, but the rest of the world will have to wait until we are good and ready.
Yes - this header very strongly reflects what I've been hearing from my 3 children and their friends. They feel forgotten: all the focus is on the older people, which they understand, but the effects on them and their lives is just being ignored.
And while they are altruistic in general they react dismissively to the idea that they should continue to be ignored once the oldies have had their vaccinations so that those same oldies can feel good about helping people far away while ignoring the very real adverse consequences for them of the sacrifices they have made.
My wife, in her mid 40s, is very down about this this morning, for herself but mainly for our teenage children.
She is frightened that even when the over 50s are vaccinated pressure will remain on the government to refrain from restoring liberties because there is still some risk in the system.
When we become accustomed to authoritarian measures it is all the more difficult to free ourselves of them when we are in such a risk-averse frame of mine. Especially when there is financial support.
As I keep saying, we have to learn to live with this new threat in life at some level.
We're lucky that the successful vaccination of the elderly and vulnerable will coincide with the heavy suppression of the virus due to lockdown. We will therefore be able to open up a little whilst the vaccination drive continues, whilst hopefully keeping R below 1, or at the very least keeping hospitalisations and deaths low even if cases rise.
I`m not interested in opening up a little. We want proper life back.
I want my daughters to meet friends in pubs and go to discos (or whatever they call them these days) and start meeting and kissing boys.
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
The logic is actually very simple, the UK will happily join any trade agreement that is about trade and doesn't impose additional requirements.
All the EU options insist on Freedom of Movement and that's a problem
Freedom of Movement is a red herring though. There was 48% of the population who didn't care about Freedom of Movement and if the EU identity politics endures all bets are off. All it takes is one big recession or sustained period of misery and suddenly you have a majority for rejoin or at the very least membership of EEA.
I'm not saying that's going to happen but it's a possibility. We just don't know. Being a member of CPTPP is not going to change that.
Are you saying no-one who voted Remain cares about FoM? That seems a bit reductive - like saying 52% of people didn't know or care about possible economic difficulties. In practice, there will have been a large number of people in the middle who had to weigh both sides up, and decide which was more important in a forced binary choice.
Me, for one (although less about FoM and more to do with enforced political integration). In practice, there aren't that many people who'd want to rejoin the EU solely for the sake of access to FoM.
Whilst you are correct it doesn't change anything. @eek's point was that FoM was political dog poo however my point was that 48% still believed that FoM was worth the upsides of being in the EU on the whole, like you say.
How many % of Tories voted for Blair in 1997 mate?
In England Labour and the LDs are the Tories main opponent so obviously you always vote Tory there, in Wales Labour are the Tories main opponent so obviously you vote Tory there, in Scotland however the main objective is beating the SNP.
As today's ConHome poll confirms most Tories despise Sturgeon and the SNP so much they would even tactically vote SLab if they were the best hope of beating the SNP in for example a central belt constituency.
I’m sure I’ve seen a wee Tory sockpuppet on here berating others for not being real Tories cos they voted once for lol Blair.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
I don't think it does. If rejoining the EU is popular he will simply say "yes". If it isn't, he will say "no". Nobody has any attachment to CPTPP and neither does it actually mean anything to ordinary people.
It doesn't yet. It remains to be seen how valuable this new agreement will be (if we accede successfully).
On the surface it does look great for the service industries though. Proximity doesn't matter for services that can be delivered digitally. If we look therefore at ease of doing business - language, culture, legal and political systems, we find a lot more potential there. As an example, NZ, Aus, Canada all speak English as their first language (Québec as the exception), and it is the language of business in Brunei and Singapore.
I don't have any knowledge on what CPTPP changes in regards to services to be honest. Care to explain?
Language is a red herring though. Almost every European professional speaks English enough to do business.
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
This whole idea of it being a marathon is bullshit. It's a sprint all the way. People who say it are covering up for rubbish schemes or terrible purchasing and capacity.
Hmm I'd say it is a marathon, Israel in the lead pushing for 2 hrs 20, the UK trying for sub 3 hours and the EU haven't done sufficient training and are finding it tough after a mile or so, wondering if they'll finish in front of the road close time of 8 hours.
It takes a long time, so it looks like a marathon, but the key difference between a marathon and a sprint for the purposes of this analogy is not length. It's pacing.
For a marathon a runner has to hold themselves back from going too fast early on, otherwise they will tire themselves out, and may not be able to complete.
For Covid this doesn't really apply unless you take things to ridiculous extremes. So, for example, we shouldn't expect individual vaccinators to attempt to work 16 hour days, because they will quickly become burned out and make mistakes.
But as a country as a whole we can simply have more individuals working 8 hour days, and we can sprint vaccinations as fast as possible. There's no downside. No requirement to pace ourselves.
How many % of Tories voted for Blair in 1997 mate?
In England Labour and the LDs are the Tories main opponent so obviously you always vote Tory there, in Wales Labour are the Tories main opponent so obviously you vote Tory there, in Scotland however the main objective is beating the SNP.
As today's ConHome poll confirms most Tories despise Sturgeon and the SNP so much they would even tactically vote SLab if they were the best hope of beating the SNP in for example a central belt constituency.
I’m sure I’ve seen a wee Tory sockpuppet on here berating others for not being real Tories cos they voted once for lol Blair.
In England in 1997 and 2001 Labour were the Tories main opponents, in Scotland now the SNP are the Tories main opponents and a threat to the UK, totally different scenario
Vaccinating the entire British/European/American/rich country population before releasing vaccines to other countries would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of additional deaths.
The UK represents less than 1% of the world's population and is moving at lightning speed relative to almost all other countries. Stopping halfway through our programme to chuck largesse at everybody else is not going to make a huge amount of difference to them in the grand scheme of things, but it will hurt us.
@Cyclefree is correct. And underlying all the good points she makes, especially with regard to young people, there is the fundamental issue of inter-generational equity. The younger people of the UK have been crushed under the weight of lockdown and its many implications in large part to save the lives of the old. Once the old have been protected from the virus, expecting the young to then keep playing a game of Russian roulette with it, whilst people abroad are inoculated at their expense, is indefensible.
The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm - both its territory and its citizenry. Britain can help the rest of the world too, but the rest of the world will have to wait until we are good and ready.
Yes - this header very strongly reflects what I've been hearing from my 3 children and their friends. They feel forgotten: all the focus is on the older people, which they understand, but the effects on them and their lives is just being ignored.
And while they are altruistic in general they react dismissively to the idea that they should continue to be ignored once the oldies have had their vaccinations so that those same oldies can feel good about helping people far away while ignoring the very real adverse consequences for them of the sacrifices they have made.
My wife, in her mid 40s, is very down about this this morning, for herself but mainly for our teenage children.
She is frightened that even when the over 50s are vaccinated pressure will remain on the government to refrain from restoring liberties because there is still some risk in the system.
When we become accustomed to authoritarian measures it is all the more difficult to free ourselves of them when we are in such a risk-averse frame of mine. Especially when there is financial support.
As I keep saying, we have to learn to live with this new threat in life at some level.
We're lucky that the successful vaccination of the elderly and vulnerable will coincide with the heavy suppression of the virus due to lockdown. We will therefore be able to open up a little whilst the vaccination drive continues, whilst hopefully keeping R below 1, or at the very least keeping hospitalisations and deaths low even if cases rise.
I`m not interested in opening up a little. We want proper life back.
I want my daughters to meet friends in pubs and go to discos (or whatever they call them these days) and start meeting and kissing boys.
And I never thought I`d ever say that.
Don't get me wrong I want that too, but you have to open up a little first before you open up a lot.
There's been no "rule of 6" in the North East since the start of September. I've not been able to see any friends in the pub or even at their houses since September. It's killing me to be honest.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
Comments
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/02/our-survey-conservative-activists-back-the-labour-party.html
The world doesn't need a couple of million extra doses of vaccine from us. The world needs billions of doses of vaccine.
The UK is funding vaccinations for the rest of the world as a parallel track to our own vaccinations but that doesn't mean stopping our own vaccination scheme. Our own vaccines are for ourselves first and the only logical way to use them is domestically.
The simple fact of the matter is that the pandemic is costing us economically about £6 billion per week. If we could end the pandemic one week sooner in the UK then we would generate a saving of £6 billion for that week. Money that could go towards buying more vaccines for the entire world.
If you want two ways of looking at it then the choices are:
- Stop vaccinating Brits, keep restrictions, keep economic support going for Brits, have low taxes due to a lack of domestic trade, continue to have deaths, send a few million vaccines overseas.
- Finish vaccinating Brits, lift restrictions, gain taxes due to trade resurging, stop having deaths, have a Treasury billions of pounds per week better off, spend billions procuring hundreds of millions of vaccines overseas.
It is literally a no-brainer. One of those options is a win/win/win/win for everyone including the third world.So of course we should look to join this thing. Thats not the daft idea, its the suggestion that it will replace the loss of trade from departing the EEA that is daft.
The point is "where we are today" and "what we could do better". Which you don't want to engage with. Lets hope the new "super centres" in Aberdeen & Edinburgh pick up the pace, but there's a lot of pace to pick up.
There is a wider and much more important point here, which is what the UK should do about the catastrophic mess Boris has got us into, when we do eventually get a sane government again. I'm mulling an article on this question, which really hasn't received much attention. Watch this space!
Spoiler: I won't be recommending Rejoin.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
As an occasional visitor to the Vicar of Bath's website, I have you down as comparatively rational.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
I'm not suggesting this will happen but it's a possibility. I quite frankly doubt Labour have the ability to successfully weaponise anything right now.
She is frightened that even when the over 50s are vaccinated pressure will remain on the government to refrain from restoring liberties because there is still some risk in the system.
When we become accustomed to authoritarian measures it is all the more difficult to free ourselves of them when we are in such a risk-averse frame of mine. Especially when there is financial support.
As I keep saying, we have to learn to live with this new threat in life at some level.
The amount of 'low fat' foods that are stuffed full of sugar and assorted e-numbers is a British disease.
If you want to lose weight, reduce your sugar intake and reject processed foods.
Welcome back
All the EU options insist on Freedom of Movement and that's a problem
Since you don't write any of your own words with the Tweet then all I can reasonably infer is you are saying that if the UK can negotiate tariff free trade with the USA then that would be a fantastic boost to the economy that wasn't possible while we were EU members.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
It is up to those who wanted, worked for, voted for a won (just) Brexit to prove to the rest of us, who are now the majority, that it was worth it.
- vaccinate the UK
- vaccinate the world.
We can, should and almost certainly will, do both.
The old pizza economic metaphor applies here - it's not how much pizza that is currently on the table, it's about ordering more pizza.
Bit tough on Truss anyway, I'd suggest. Her brief is to get trade deals/join trade blocs and she's barred from joining the adjacent trade bloc.
Bit tough on anyone to group them with Williamson!
I'm not saying that's going to happen but it's a possibility. We just don't know. Being a member of CPTPP is not going to change that.
I see no great evidence of it.
Quite frankly her department is doing a better job and is more important at the moment than the Foreign Office. Who is doing a better job to represent the UK on the world stage - her or Raab?
The EEA? That's different. We need to be able to trade, and its clear that the CTA shat that particular bed. With a comprehensive lack of viable solutions other than "set up abroad" we're going to have to renegotiate sooner or later. OK later, as we know Shagger does nothing that might make him unpopular until he absolutely can't avoid it.
My best wishes to you and your family
We've been out of the Single Market for 32 days so far. What exactly where you expecting in the first 32 days to convince you?
When even German newspapers have been running stories about "the best advert for Brexit" in the past month, perhaps you shouldn't be so down in the dumps? People are starting to wake up to the fact that it isn't a case of big > small, what actually counts is that nimble > sclerotic.
I voted to Leave. Free movement and immigration generally had nothing to do with my vote.
I mean, Winter Flu Crisis (this happens every year) – what will prevent the health authoritarian lobby from calling for mask-wearing every winter, now we have become used to what was just a year ago anathema?
One of the very few things I like about Boris is that his instincts are generally towards liberty. He is almost uniquely unsuited to managing a crisis like this except in that regard: I hope he will push back against the authoritarian, curtain-twitching voices that have come to dominate national discourse in recent times.
I, for one, am greatly looking forwrd to frictionless ebay trading in Porsche parts with Vietnam and Chile. A bright future awaits us all if only we are fucking stupid enough to believe in it.
Presently he is very ill but we have to trust the Canadian doctors to help him recover his mental health and wellbeing
It's more realistic that growth will be good, which it will be post COVID anyway, and that we settle into our post-EU position, but who knows? Like I said, one big recession or sustained period of economic misery and all bets are off. Especially if Labour can weaponise Brexit as being the cause of all ills.
Like I said though, I don't think Labour are capable of weaponising anything right now.
As others are now realising for many UK workers freedom of movement was essential.
And now they are fucked.
Not everyone automatically does.
Instead the 2017 solution was to apply the bad protocol for NI to the entire UK simultaneously. That's worse.
That's like saying the solution for one person being sick is to make everyone sick.
GB is out of the Protocol now, good, so now we need to find a way to extract NI out of it too.
As today's ConHome poll confirms most Tories despise Sturgeon and the SNP so much they would even tactically vote SLab if they were the best hope of beating the SNP in for example a central belt constituency.
The contrast of those approaches is why the EU programme is stuck at 2-3% in similarly sized countries while we're at 14% and the US is at 9%.
A great win for Priti, Boris and Britain! Huzzah! That the "new" power already existed will be pointed out by the remoaner press and told to shut up.
Incidentally, why haven't we applied to rejoin EFTA yet? We want to join a Free Trade Area on the other side of the world but not the one on our doorstep which we helped found.
Your logic has huge gaping holes.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1356571713148977152?s=20
Zero respect.
On the surface it does look great for the service industries though. Proximity doesn't matter for services that can be delivered digitally. If we look therefore at ease of doing business - language, culture, legal and political systems, we find a lot more potential there. As an example, NZ, Aus, Canada all speak English as their first language (Québec as the exception), and it is the language of business in Brunei and Singapore.
https://twitter.com/chrismceleny/status/1356556011868459008?s=21
Me, for one (although less about FoM and more to do with enforced political integration). In practice, there aren't that many people who'd want to rejoin the EU solely for the sake of access to FoM.
Language is a red herring though. Almost every European professional speaks English enough to do business.
I don't believe it is helpful for the world, the UK or anyone to only offer a couple of million vaccine doses to the rest of the world though. That kind of gesturism will do nothing to end the pandemic.
To end the pandemic the world needs not a few million doses, not tens of millions of doses, not even hundreds of millions of doses. The world needs billions of doses of vaccine.
So the question is how do we ensure the world gets billions of doses of vaccine quickly. Not vaccinating the British population doesn't help one jot with that.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1356568428312690689?s=20
I want my daughters to meet friends in pubs and go to discos (or whatever they call them these days) and start meeting and kissing boys.
And I never thought I`d ever say that.
https://twitter.com/LucidTalk/status/1356572987781185538?s=20
The CPTPP really opens up a lot of potential, without adding politics to the mix.
If the EU was a European CPTPP we wouldn't have left it.
For a marathon a runner has to hold themselves back from going too fast early on, otherwise they will tire themselves out, and may not be able to complete.
For Covid this doesn't really apply unless you take things to ridiculous extremes. So, for example, we shouldn't expect individual vaccinators to attempt to work 16 hour days, because they will quickly become burned out and make mistakes.
But as a country as a whole we can simply have more individuals working 8 hour days, and we can sprint vaccinations as fast as possible. There's no downside. No requirement to pace ourselves.
There's been no "rule of 6" in the North East since the start of September. I've not been able to see any friends in the pub or even at their houses since September. It's killing me to be honest.