Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

BREXIT. Undoing (some of) the damage. Part 2: From Principles to Policies – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited February 11 in General
imageBREXIT. Undoing (some of) the damage. Part 2: From Principles to Policies – politicalbetting.com

pic YouTube

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • Test
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 39,354
    FPT:

    Former secretary of state: "if the document published on Feb 22 isn't a significant step back to normality then there is going to be real turmoil in the parliamentary party."

    ""What's the point in having a world-leading vaccinations programme if it doesn't result in easing the restrictions?"

    Telegraph
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,156
    Richard's proposals are No-Brainers as far as I am concerned. They seem to be Brainers for Johnson and Frost. Unless something changes with their mindset, they won't happen.

    I would say all proposals except the last two are ones the EU would welcome, providing we follow its rules in these areas. That's presumably the hangup.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769
    Hillman Minx becoming a serial bagger of firsts, I see.

    May have to become a Hillman hunter.....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,156
    edited February 11

    Morning all! 1st day in Scotland. Have bought what feels like a lottery win house. Can't quite believe we're here...

    Welcome to deepest Aberdeenshire. How are you coping with the Doric?

    Beautiful county. To look forward to in Spring:


  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 39,354
    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950
    Scott_xP said:
    Do try to hold back your orgasm, its early in the day.

    Here's hoping London bounces back.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999
    Scott_xP said:
    I have been posting links to articles for the past month describing exactly this.

    Why Amsterdam? Euronext headquarters - so all the repatriated EU names traded will be counted as being out of NL.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 39,354
    -7c just before dawn in the frozen midlands this morning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    That is a very good question from him. Its been shunted down the priorities and ignored for years, despite promises that plans are in the offing, because the NHS is more important. But it needs urgent attention.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 9,331
    "Covid: Prisoners like 'caged animals' in lockdown jails

    Prisoners in England's jails have been locked in their cells for more than 90% of the day to keep them safe from Covid-19, the prisons watchdog says."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55957048
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Do try to hold back your orgasm, its early in the day.

    Here's hoping London bounces back.
    London will try to capture other business - equivalence with the Swiss for example and dark volumes.

    But not being able to trade EU names though (only BATS hasn't moved to EU of the MTFs) is a significant and we shall see how permanent diminution in importance for the UK. We can't be a global trading hub if we're not even a European one.
  • Hillman Minx becoming a serial bagger of firsts, I see.

    May have to become a Hillman hunter.....

    How very Impish of you.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Do try to hold back your orgasm, its early in the day.

    Here's hoping London bounces back.
    How? The thing is that it can't, the business London did for European has moved to within the EU and with equivalence available between New York and Europe a lot more will shift away from London to New York.

    London just isn't the complete powerhouse it was prior to January, the other players have sensed a weakness and 2 of them are collaborating to make the most of it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 5,924
    Thanks for the piece.

    Slight typo on line 2. There are *seven* principles. :smile:
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999

    On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.

    The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.

    When it finally gets over that we can talk.

    Uh-oh. You're in one of your moods.

    Try not to get any spittle on the Union Flag you are currently swathed in.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    Because looking at Social care means actually recognising the complete mess it is.

    And once a Government does that it will need to find some money to fix it and that is what cost May her 2017 majority so no-one sane is going to go near it.
  • -7c just before dawn in the frozen midlands this morning.

    -21 in Braemar last night
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769
    Following on from news of the dump of three and half billion accounts and passwords overnight, I have used avast.com/hackcheck to check. Mine was OK, but the Wifey's came up as compromised, so she has spent this morning changing passwords. You might want to check too.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,850
    Disagree with almost all of this one.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,156
    edited February 11
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I have been posting links to articles for the past month describing exactly this.

    Why Amsterdam? Euronext headquarters - so all the repatriated EU names traded will be counted as being out of NL.
    I think there are other factors where Brexit is acting as a catalyst for change in a direction, which isn't favourable to the UK. This applies to financial services as well as sectors such as automotive:
    • Banks aim to be more customer focused. It's seen as more important that staff are near customers than near each other. They should at least be in the same jurisdiction as their clients. Speaking the same language is helpful. The pandemic has demonstrated you can successfully distribute staff.
    • London is expensive. You can save costs in A N Other city.
    • European banking is barely profitable. International banks can rationalise London to save costs without necessarily boosting EU resources to the same extent.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769
    TOPPING said:

    On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.

    The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.

    When it finally gets over that we can talk.

    Uh-oh. You're in one of your moods.

    Try not to get any spittle on the Union Flag you are currently swathed in.
    What is clearly annoying you is that he is right though....
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029

    Following on from news of the dump of three and half billion accounts and passwords overnight, I have used avast.com/hackcheck to check. Mine was OK, but the Wifey's came up as compromised, so she has spent this morning changing passwords. You might want to check too.

    Also get a password manager and use that to both generate and store the passwords so you don't have to remember them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_password_managers

    Lastpass, bitwarden, 1Password and Keeper are all good and will save you work longer term.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769

    Hillman Minx becoming a serial bagger of firsts, I see.

    May have to become a Hillman hunter.....

    How very Impish of you.
    When TSE realises his entitlement to firsts is at an end, he will become quite the Avenger....
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,534
    kle4 said:

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    That is a very good question from him. Its been shunted down the priorities and ignored for years, despite promises that plans are in the offing, because the NHS is more important. But it needs urgent attention.
    Yes, it's curious, not least because the funding issues in sorting social care, while large, are miniscule in the context of these times in which 100 bn here and 100 bn there are so readily available. It is a very good time to bury the extra funding and push that aspect into the future.

    The mystery is that the issue has already trashed and destroyed Mrs May, is a real concern to middling voters, is a real fairness issue, and could destroy a government any time. So why are they not throwing money at it while they can?



  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999
    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I have been posting links to articles for the past month describing exactly this.

    Why Amsterdam? Euronext headquarters - so all the repatriated EU names traded will be counted as being out of NL.
    I think there are other factors where Brexit is acting as a catalyst for change in a direction, which isn't favourable to the UK. This applies to financial services as well as sectors such as automotive:
    • Banks aim to be more customer focused. It's seen as more important that staff are near customers than near each other. They should at least be in the same jurisdiction. Speaking the same language is helpful. The pandemic has demonstrated you can successfully distribute staff.
    • London is expensive. You can save costs in A N Other city.
    • European banking is barely profitable. International banks can rationalise London to save costs without necessarily boosting EU resources to the same extent.
    All good points but regulatorily also, MiFID rules cover the customer, not the service provider location so it's simply not possible to service EU clients from outside the EU.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999

    TOPPING said:

    On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.

    The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.

    When it finally gets over that we can talk.

    Uh-oh. You're in one of your moods.

    Try not to get any spittle on the Union Flag you are currently swathed in.
    What is clearly annoying you is that he is right though....
    LOL.

    "...won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains..."

    Oh yes without chains he is absolutely right.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,864
    eek said:

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hancock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    Because looking at Social care means actually recognising the complete mess it is.

    And once a Government does that it will need to find some money to fix it and that is what cost May her 2017 majority so no-one sane is going to go near it.
    Well quite. The central problem with social care is that, as time passes, the number of decrepit olds demanding it gets greater and greater, therefore so does the expense, but also so does the olds' voting power. Get the olds to contribute to having their drool wiped up and they eject you from office; make the shrinking working age population stump up the whole lot and you strangle the economy, and get ejected from office for that.

    This leaves the only politically viable route as rationing drool wiping services and hoping that not too many people notice or object, hence the fact that this has been established policy for many years.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    That is a very good question from him. Its been shunted down the priorities and ignored for years, despite promises that plans are in the offing, because the NHS is more important. But it needs urgent attention.
    Yes, it's curious, not least because the funding issues in sorting social care, while large, are miniscule in the context of these times in which 100 bn here and 100 bn there are so readily available. It is a very good time to bury the extra funding and push that aspect into the future.

    The mystery is that the issue has already trashed and destroyed Mrs May, is a real concern to middling voters, is a real fairness issue, and could destroy a government any time. So why are they not throwing money at it while they can?
    Because the issues aren't one-off financial problems during a pandemic - they require ongoing, recurring revenue even when we are back to normal.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999
    Fishing said:

    UK-EU relations are a very important subject, and kudos to Richard for addressing it. But I can't help reading it with the thought that this is a Remainer's guide to the Brexit that he wants, which shows a strange resemblance to our remaining. Some of the proposals have merit, some are more difficult. It's factually inaccurate in places (e.g. it's not true that granting EU ambassadors diplomatic status won't cost anything, as they'll get tax immunity, and rejoiing Erasmus at three times the expense when the net benefits were marginal anyway will certainly be controversial).

    But, more importantly, we should always bear in mind the transactional nature of the EU and its negotiating with non-members (and also, often, with members). Classic negotiating theory states that you never give something tangible away without something tangible in return. The EU always follows that rule. And if we're going to give their people diplomatic status, then we should demand something in return, partly for its own sake, but also to show that we are no longer susceptible to vague pressure to be "European", but instead will look to our own interests first.

    Yet the Brexiters seem to want stuff (on fishing, NI) from the EU because "we've always had it".
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,156
    edited February 11

    On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.

    The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.

    When it finally gets over that we can talk.

    The problem I have is that people are losing their livelihoods due to the government's refusal to engage with the EU on these points. Yet the government won't defend the principled stand they claim to be taking. They don't even accept the supposedly principled stand has consequences. They won't face up to those people and say, "I am sorry about your jobs and businesses but our principles are more important."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950
    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    That is a very good question from him. Its been shunted down the priorities and ignored for years, despite promises that plans are in the offing, because the NHS is more important. But it needs urgent attention.
    Yes, it's curious, not least because the funding issues in sorting social care, while large, are miniscule in the context of these times in which 100 bn here and 100 bn there are so readily available. It is a very good time to bury the extra funding and push that aspect into the future.

    The mystery is that the issue has already trashed and destroyed Mrs May, is a real concern to middling voters, is a real fairness issue, and could destroy a government any time. So why are they not throwing money at it while they can?
    Because the issues aren't one-off financial problems during a pandemic - they require ongoing, recurring revenue even when we are back to normal.
    They could make a start.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,608
    edited February 11

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    Personally I never agreed with the split for the DHSS - it seems obvious that the NHS and the care system are two sides of the same coin, and treating them as different leads to the sort of abomination that we've just seen of shunting infectious patients from one to the other.

    Convincing article by Richard N. The problem is that all these measures will be seen as slightly recanting on Brexit (cf. Max's answer, I assume, though he doesn't elaborate on why he disagrees), which annoys both Brexiteers and the "oh, do shut up about Europe" neutral faction, who between them are probably 60% of the population). I'd think that nearer 2024 it will seem a lot more sensible.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 5,066

    eek said:

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hancock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    Because looking at Social care means actually recognising the complete mess it is.

    And once a Government does that it will need to find some money to fix it and that is what cost May her 2017 majority so no-one sane is going to go near it.
    Well quite. The central problem with social care is that, as time passes, the number of decrepit olds demanding it gets greater and greater, therefore so does the expense, but also so does the olds' voting power. Get the olds to contribute to having their drool wiped up and they eject you from office; make the shrinking working age population stump up the whole lot and you strangle the economy, and get ejected from office for that.

    This leaves the only politically viable route as rationing drool wiping services and hoping that not too many people notice or object, hence the fact that this has been established policy for many years.
    Spot on.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,534
    A very interesting second article. All very sensible but it overlooks a difficult fact. How you wish to resolve each small(ish) issue is sensible in itself, but each one discloses the bigger totality of ideas behind the governments long term aims in Brexit. Obvs critics will say that there aren't any and only pragmatism will do. But putting that on one side, the suggestions taken as a whole suggest a policy of ever closer alignment. The more you do that, the more you tie your hands about other markets. And the more you do that the more obvious it is that government is saying Brexit was a mistake. Which neither Con nor Lab is going to do.

    RN's article points towards the clear truth that Norway for Now (my own view, but the bus has left) was the right answer until a better way forward was debated, agreed and decided (taking years if ever).

    Nothing in the article hints at what policy has to aim at: "Brexit is great, long term and totally different from the past. Trying to regain bits of the old order isn't what we are about." Whether that is true or possible of course I can't say.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,392
    edited February 11
    "Rejoin Erasmus."

    I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.

    (As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).

    The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,156
    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I have been posting links to articles for the past month describing exactly this.

    Why Amsterdam? Euronext headquarters - so all the repatriated EU names traded will be counted as being out of NL.
    I think there are other factors where Brexit is acting as a catalyst for change in a direction, which isn't favourable to the UK. This applies to financial services as well as sectors such as automotive:
    • Banks aim to be more customer focused. It's seen as more important that staff are near customers than near each other. They should at least be in the same jurisdiction. Speaking the same language is helpful. The pandemic has demonstrated you can successfully distribute staff.
    • London is expensive. You can save costs in A N Other city.
    • European banking is barely profitable. International banks can rationalise London to save costs without necessarily boosting EU resources to the same extent.
    All good points but regulatorily also, MiFID rules cover the customer, not the service provider location so it's simply not possible to service EU clients from outside the EU.
    Indeed. Compliance is as much an issue for the client as for the provider. And it's people and processes that are compliant or non compliant. They need to be in the jurisdiction.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 35,677
    Its an interesting list but the absolute key for future relationships with the EU is financial services. On that the governor had some interesting things to say on his virtual Mansion House speech: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56017419

    The headline is a bit misleading but his comments show that there are real issues between the UK and the EU that are not yet resolved and time is running out.

    My view, FWIW, is that relations between the UK and the EU are still too bruised to achieve too much right now. My expectation is that the EU will be a much, much smaller part of our trade this year for both imports and exports. Where we go from there depends upon whether relations can be improved. It is possible, particularly if we join CPTPP, that our trade will significantly and permanently reorientate away from the EU. I suspect that would do neither party any good and unnecessary harm but if we do not get a sensible agreement on financial services we may have little choice. The EU needs to appreciate that the option is there and they are not in a position to dictate terms without consequences.

    Personally, I think it was a serious error to sign a deal at all without mutual recognition of financial services being a part of it. I found the priorities of our negotiators bewildering and poorly focused. I do agree that there is no point indulging in unnecessary and childish aggravation such as the ambassador thing but I suspect some of the other proposals may take some time.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,881
    Excellent article again Richard with sensible suggestions. I particularly like the reciprocal rights and carnet points. Carnets are a bug bear of mine. I have argued with @Philip_Thompson about these in the past. Philip makes the valid point that only a small subset of lorries are getting stopped, but I am guessing with the return of carnets then it will be a 100% for anyone having to use a carnets, which was my previous experience and which makes sense for obvious reasons. This was a pain for me, but I can't imagine what is involved for a Rolling Stones Tour or F1. I mean the quantity of equipment involved, the stuff that is replaced mid tour, the smashed up cars, the worn tyres, the stuff that gets left behind.

    ideally we need the rules really loosened up for tourists and business travel as it really only immigration and 'foreigners taking our jobs' that seems to be the issue that people are concerned about.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 2,770
    edited February 11

    On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.

    The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.

    When it finally gets over that we can talk.

    If you want to get serious about protecting the country from the likes of China then you have to stop being childish about your relationship with countries that can help you with that.

    Richard has outlined some practical steps that would improve our relationship with the EU, but you're still stuck in a futile blame game.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 39,354

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    Personally I never agreed with the split for the DHSS - it seems obvious that the NHS and the care system are two sides of the same coin, and treating them as different leads to the sort of abomination that we've just seen of shunting infectious patients from one to the other.

    Convincing article by Richard N. The problem is that all these measures will be seen as slightly recanting on Brexit (cf. Max's answer, I assume, though he doesn't elaborate on why he disagrees), which annoys both Brexiteers and the "oh, do shut up about Europe" neutral faction, who between them are probably 60% of the population). I'd think that nearer 2024 it will seem a lot more sensible.
    Will anything be left of Lansley's reforms in a few years time? I gather they have already been chipped at over the years.

    Another complete waste of time and money. Cameron must take a lot of the blame - he just left Lansley to get on with it, never asked any question as to what the hell he was up to and never understood the overview never mind details.

    iirc Lansley was his first boss, so I guess Cameron was reluctant to question him. What a way to run a country.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 46,532
    For Ireland, the real EU – with its internal hierarchies of power as well as geopolitical problems relating to the UK – has re-entered national politics, too. The idealised EU, one that protects small member states and abhors borders, was nowhere to be seen when the Commission failed to notify the Irish government that it was planning to construct a vaccine border between the EU and the UK. Although the Commission dropped the idea hours after announcing it on 30 January, the message was clear to all in Ireland: in Brussels, Berlin and Paris, Northern Ireland was little more than leverage against Britain in the Brexit negotiations.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/international/places/2021/02/europe-s-vaccine-crisis-has-revealed-uk-and-ireland-true-nature
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,420
    A more sensible and practical short/medium term prospectus I am yet to read anywhere else.

    I hope senior Labour party movers and shakers still read PB. If I were Starmer and someone brought Mr Navabi's manifesto to my attention, I would invite him to explore his ideas further.

    Still, I suspect that current opposition inertia remains on the cards for the moment at least.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 9,331

    -7c just before dawn in the frozen midlands this morning.

    -21 in Braemar last night
    Newmarket was -11 I think.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029

    "Rejoin Erasmus."

    I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.

    (As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).

    The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.

    But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 2,770
    DavidL said:

    Its an interesting list but the absolute key for future relationships with the EU is financial services.
    ...
    Personally, I think it was a serious error to sign a deal at all without mutual recognition of financial services being a part of it. I found the priorities of our negotiators bewildering and poorly focused. I do agree that there is no point indulging in unnecessary and childish aggravation such as the ambassador thing but I suspect some of the other proposals may take some time.

    Given the trouble many in the fishing industry are having at the moment, despite the focus of British negotiators on that sector, perhaps the neglect of the financial services industry in the negotiations will prove to be a blessing in disguise.

    However bad things are, they can always be worse.

    Might end up being the Tory election slogan.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,156

    "Rejoin Erasmus."

    I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.

    (As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).

    The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.

    As I didn't contest that point, your last statement is actually untrue. I'm not quite sure why you do this stuff. Why not stick to discussing facts and arguments?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,455

    I see Jon Ashworth has raised a good question: Why is Hanock wittering on about yet another reform of the management of the NHS when still nothing has been done about the appalling crisis in social care?

    Is not some at least reform of social care arrangements included in the 'new' proposals. Of course Ashworth is right, but the root and branch review of social care should be all-party.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 13,257

    -7c just before dawn in the frozen midlands this morning.

    -21 in Braemar last night
    Now updated to -22.9degC.

    Like a warm day in Canada.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,288
    Scott_xP said:
    The desperate tweets of a desperate man. Poor Scotty.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 46,532
    In absolute numbers better day from France & Germany, in proportion to population, Malta, apart from...

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,455
    edited February 11
    eek said:

    "Rejoin Erasmus."

    I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.

    (As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).

    The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.

    But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
    Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is!
    Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 1,074
    algarkirk said:

    A very interesting second article. All very sensible but it overlooks a difficult fact. How you wish to resolve each small(ish) issue is sensible in itself, but each one discloses the bigger totality of ideas behind the governments long term aims in Brexit. Obvs critics will say that there aren't any and only pragmatism will do. But putting that on one side, the suggestions taken as a whole suggest a policy of ever closer alignment. The more you do that, the more you tie your hands about other markets. And the more you do that the more obvious it is that government is saying Brexit was a mistake. Which neither Con nor Lab is going to do.

    RN's article points towards the clear truth that Norway for Now (my own view, but the bus has left) was the right answer until a better way forward was debated, agreed and decided (taking years if ever).

    Nothing in the article hints at what policy has to aim at: "Brexit is great, long term and totally different from the past. Trying to regain bits of the old order isn't what we are about." Whether that is true or possible of course I can't say.

    This is true. I back everything in the article, but then, I'd rather we'd stayed in or at least gone Norway for Now. Ideologically, this has to be a non-starter for the government. As Richard correctly points out, it could be more plausible for Labour - there's no point them trying to out-Brexit the government, but this is all probably far enough from rejoining (for FoM for example) to not put off many pro-Brexit Labour supporters and could bring disaffected moderates from the Conservatives on board, depending on Labour's other economic policies

    More realistically, this is the kind of stuff the LDs should be hammering on in the short term.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 35,677

    DavidL said:

    Its an interesting list but the absolute key for future relationships with the EU is financial services.
    ...
    Personally, I think it was a serious error to sign a deal at all without mutual recognition of financial services being a part of it. I found the priorities of our negotiators bewildering and poorly focused. I do agree that there is no point indulging in unnecessary and childish aggravation such as the ambassador thing but I suspect some of the other proposals may take some time.

    Given the trouble many in the fishing industry are having at the moment, despite the focus of British negotiators on that sector, perhaps the neglect of the financial services industry in the negotiations will prove to be a blessing in disguise.

    However bad things are, they can always be worse.

    Might end up being the Tory election slogan.
    The problem with shellfish, as it has been explained to me, is that they can store dangerous toxins and become poisonous. This means that they need to be thoroughly washed out before they are consumed. Whilst we were in the EU SM there was no problem with this being done in Spain etc and we never bothered to set up washing facilities in this country on the scale needed for our export market in live shellfish (presumably we washed those consumed in the UK).

    Once we became a third country unwashed shellfish cannot be admitted to the SM. The solution to this was to set up facilities in the UK in advance (the rules were pretty clear in advance) rather than assuming that we would get some sort of exemption but we didn't do that.

    Until we do or the EU relents live shellfish will not be being exported to the EU.

    Its a simple example of us failing to prepare for life outside the EU. The May government is primarily responsible for this but so are others who, unfortunately, seem more interested in making political points than fixing the problem.
  • Fishing said:

    UK-EU relations are a very important subject, and kudos to Richard for addressing it. But I can't help reading it with the thought that this is a Remainer's guide to the Brexit that he wants, which shows a strange resemblance to our remaining. Some of the proposals have merit, some are more difficult. It's factually inaccurate in places (e.g. it's not true that granting EU ambassadors diplomatic status won't cost anything, as they'll get tax immunity, and rejoiing Erasmus at three times the expense when the net benefits were marginal anyway will certainly be controversial).

    But, more importantly, we should always bear in mind the transactional nature of the EU and its negotiating with non-members (and also, often, with members). Classic negotiating theory states that you never give something tangible away without something tangible in return. The EU always follows that rule. And if we're going to give their people diplomatic status, then we should demand something in return, partly for its own sake, but also to show that we are no longer susceptible to vague pressure to be "European", but instead will look to our own interests first.

    Is it a Remainer's Brexit? No FoM, no wholesale following of Single Market rules, nothing to make the trade borders less sticky, not paying into the kitty. A much more distant relationship than Norway or Switzerland. It's still a pretty adamantine hard Brexit.

    What it does is get rid of some of the obvious absurdities; there really isn't a need to have a distinctively British set of chemical safety sheets and it will cost loads. It also makes some gestures like treating the EU diplomat as a pukka ambassador- if not quite cost-free, that's a bargain compared with the No 10 photography service. And yes the cost of Erasmus appears to have gone up (though we never actually saw the numbers, did we?) On the other hand, the UK has jacked up university fees to all EU students by a factor of about three- and having foreigners who have spent formative years in the UK is an soft power investment that I'm sure pays off massively.

    So why the fear of tweaking the deal in a less dickish direction? Is it the knowledge that, despite vaccinegeddon, despite the fact that Brexit-for-imports hasn't really happened yet so the shelves are still full, a large chunk of the public think we're making a mistake? Because if the UK government wants this settlement to stick for the years, a too-rigid stance, not even conceding on the low-cost easy wins, is not the way to do it.

    [And, to save everyone the trouble... None of this is about Rejoin. I'm not in a stage of grief about the EU. Democracy requires us to do this, but it need not be in this damn silly nasty way. The EU isn't a Nivarna, but it is large, does exist and has the right to order its affairs in the way it wants. OK?]
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 13,257
    What word or phrase should be used to describe the reversal of a 'Reform'?

    Deform?
    Unform?
    Re-reform?
    Try to put Humpty together again?

  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 1,922

    Scott_xP said:
    Whinge whinge whinge.

    Kemi was entirely justified to call out a journalist who was muckraking about a pro vaccination drive.

    If she didn't want to be called out for muckraking, perhaps she shouldn't have been muckraking? Why should journalists be entitled to do that but not be called out on it? What an absurd self entitled ridiculous notion.
    Having been away and reviewed the news articles I do think the MP has a point. The news article referred to is OK. There is a semblance of balance including extensive quotes from the minister, however as they do not provide sufficient detriment the most controversial point does come without evidence. It also frames a sponsoring minister for an enquiry refusing to pre-judge the enquiry as racism.

    It is the comment piece where she states that Badenoch does not believe racism exists that is very poor.

    Firstly the author seems to equate organisations ignoring her requests for comment (during a pandemic) to racism - she actually writes silence is violence. Now imagine Nadine White was a white journalist - I've got to admit I didn't know before looking her up - if she asked for comment on various issues and didn't get any comment it would reflect on her ability as a journalist or the ability of the Huffington post to be taken seriously.

    Secondly the comment piece is one long whine about how people don't take black issues seriously whilst offering evidence as that within 24 hours during s pandemic noone had a response to an enquiry in various government departments, and that 13 out of 163 deaths in custody over the last 10 years were black people, and statistically it should be half that (nevermind that statistically the sample size might be too small)

    To be honest I don't know why the minister and MP have engaged with the journalist - she is hardly going to win any awards for her wotk
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 9,331
    "If you’re an ethnic minority Conservative, you just can’t win
    By Neil O'Brien MP"

    https://capx.co/if-youre-an-ethnic-minority-conservative-you-just-cant-win/
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,392
    FF43 said:

    "Rejoin Erasmus."

    I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.

    (As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).

    The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.

    As I didn't contest that point, your last statement is actually untrue. I'm not quite sure why you do this stuff. Why not stick to discussing facts and arguments?
    Your postings a few days ago were based on a misunderstanding of the costs of Erasmus.

    I corrected you. You called it a 'strawman argument'.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029

    Fishing said:

    UK-EU relations are a very important subject, and kudos to Richard for addressing it. But I can't help reading it with the thought that this is a Remainer's guide to the Brexit that he wants, which shows a strange resemblance to our remaining. Some of the proposals have merit, some are more difficult. It's factually inaccurate in places (e.g. it's not true that granting EU ambassadors diplomatic status won't cost anything, as they'll get tax immunity, and rejoiing Erasmus at three times the expense when the net benefits were marginal anyway will certainly be controversial).

    But, more importantly, we should always bear in mind the transactional nature of the EU and its negotiating with non-members (and also, often, with members). Classic negotiating theory states that you never give something tangible away without something tangible in return. The EU always follows that rule. And if we're going to give their people diplomatic status, then we should demand something in return, partly for its own sake, but also to show that we are no longer susceptible to vague pressure to be "European", but instead will look to our own interests first.

    Is it a Remainer's Brexit? No FoM, no wholesale following of Single Market rules, nothing to make the trade borders less sticky, not paying into the kitty. A much more distant relationship than Norway or Switzerland. It's still a pretty adamantine hard Brexit.

    What it does is get rid of some of the obvious absurdities; there really isn't a need to have a distinctively British set of chemical safety sheets and it will cost loads. It also makes some gestures like treating the EU diplomat as a pukka ambassador- if not quite cost-free, that's a bargain compared with the No 10 photography service. And yes the cost of Erasmus appears to have gone up (though we never actually saw the numbers, did we?) On the other hand, the UK has jacked up university fees to all EU students by a factor of about three- and having foreigners who have spent formative years in the UK is an soft power investment that I'm sure pays off massively.

    So why the fear of tweaking the deal in a less dickish direction? Is it the knowledge that, despite vaccinegeddon, despite the fact that Brexit-for-imports hasn't really happened yet so the shelves are still full, a large chunk of the public think we're making a mistake? Because if the UK government wants this settlement to stick for the years, a too-rigid stance, not even conceding on the low-cost easy wins, is not the way to do it.

    [And, to save everyone the trouble... None of this is about Rejoin. I'm not in a stage of grief about the EU. Democracy requires us to do this, but it need not be in this damn silly nasty way. The EU isn't a Nivarna, but it is large, does exist and has the right to order its affairs in the way it wants. OK?]
    My concern with all the suggestions is that except for us being arsy about the Ambassador being called an Ambassador everything else requires both sides to compromise.

    And I suspect were we to ask for any or all of the above the response will be Nein / Non.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,129

    What word or phrase should be used to describe the reversal of a 'Reform'?

    Deform?
    Unform?
    Re-reform?
    Try to put Humpty together again?

    Counter-reform if you follow the church.

    Or perhaps revert.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029
    edited February 11

    eek said:

    "Rejoin Erasmus."

    I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.

    (As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).

    The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.

    But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
    Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is!
    Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
    I suspect the £90,000 or so without kickback incentives makes selling a UK university hard work.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,455
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Its an interesting list but the absolute key for future relationships with the EU is financial services.
    ...
    Personally, I think it was a serious error to sign a deal at all without mutual recognition of financial services being a part of it. I found the priorities of our negotiators bewildering and poorly focused. I do agree that there is no point indulging in unnecessary and childish aggravation such as the ambassador thing but I suspect some of the other proposals may take some time.

    Given the trouble many in the fishing industry are having at the moment, despite the focus of British negotiators on that sector, perhaps the neglect of the financial services industry in the negotiations will prove to be a blessing in disguise.

    However bad things are, they can always be worse.

    Might end up being the Tory election slogan.
    The problem with shellfish, as it has been explained to me, is that they can store dangerous toxins and become poisonous. This means that they need to be thoroughly washed out before they are consumed. Whilst we were in the EU SM there was no problem with this being done in Spain etc and we never bothered to set up washing facilities in this country on the scale needed for our export market in live shellfish (presumably we washed those consumed in the UK).

    Once we became a third country unwashed shellfish cannot be admitted to the SM. The solution to this was to set up facilities in the UK in advance (the rules were pretty clear in advance) rather than assuming that we would get some sort of exemption but we didn't do that.

    Until we do or the EU relents live shellfish will not be being exported to the EU.

    Its a simple example of us failing to prepare for life outside the EU. The May government is primarily responsible for this but so are others who, unfortunately, seem more interested in making political points than fixing the problem.
    Very interesting, and very credible. Thanks, Mr L. Basically what is required is for the Fishing Minister to stop worrying about her Parent-Teacher activities and obtain a grant from the Treasury for the industry to set up the washing facilities.
    Although dimly at the back of my mind is a need for shellfish to be washed shortly before they are eaten. That may be wrong, of course,
  • I think this thread shows that its much easier to come with vague general principles that can be agreed upon than actual policies to put those principles into practice.

    Nabavi's supposedly uncontroversial policies here, scratch beneath the surface and they're actually pretty controversial.

    Many others have already responded on why Erasmus was bad value for the UK and its successor scheme could be more suited to our needs. Mr Nabavi hasn't actually given a reason why rejoining Erasmus would be a good idea just taken it as granted.

    Similarly with REACH. Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔

    The arguments for having our own chemical regulations mirror those for having our own medical agency. Our ability to be nimble, to innovate, to lead the world in developments and not to be dragged to the slowest movement of Europe is not restricted to just vaccines. There's perfectly good reasons to be able to innovate with chemicals too and for other chemicals then an effectively copy and pasta method to get approval can work too as it will with medicines.

    Mutual recognition, trusted trader, de-dramatised border, mutual recognition of SPS (similar to EU's with Aus and NZ perhaps not just Switzerland) etc are all ideas the EU not the UK have been rejecting.

    So what practically are we left with? Perhaps GDPR? Maybe, though I know many hate that, I'm not sure how or if we'll diverge but its certainly not uncontroversial.

    The only practical suggestion I see left is musicians and carnets. This is a good idea I think, this is the only one that I agree with unequivocally.

    Then there's just the petty debate over the EU ambassador. This probably should and will be granted eventually, but right now its part of a silly petty tit-for-tat. Its puerile and petty but if we're going to have puerile and petty nonsense let it be over stuff that doesn't actually matter to anyone.
  • Very good article @Richard_Nabavi . All of these suggestions could and should also be embraced by a future more serious Conservative government once The Clown and his circus are hopefully ignominiously removed .
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,727

    Fishing said:

    UK-EU relations are a very important subject, and kudos to Richard for addressing it. But I can't help reading it with the thought that this is a Remainer's guide to the Brexit that he wants, which shows a strange resemblance to our remaining. Some of the proposals have merit, some are more difficult. It's factually inaccurate in places (e.g. it's not true that granting EU ambassadors diplomatic status won't cost anything, as they'll get tax immunity, and rejoiing Erasmus at three times the expense when the net benefits were marginal anyway will certainly be controversial).

    But, more importantly, we should always bear in mind the transactional nature of the EU and its negotiating with non-members (and also, often, with members). Classic negotiating theory states that you never give something tangible away without something tangible in return. The EU always follows that rule. And if we're going to give their people diplomatic status, then we should demand something in return, partly for its own sake, but also to show that we are no longer susceptible to vague pressure to be "European", but instead will look to our own interests first.

    Is it a Remainer's Brexit? No FoM, no wholesale following of Single Market rules, nothing to make the trade borders less sticky, not paying into the kitty. A much more distant relationship than Norway or Switzerland. It's still a pretty adamantine hard Brexit.

    What it does is get rid of some of the obvious absurdities; there really isn't a need to have a distinctively British set of chemical safety sheets and it will cost loads. It also makes some gestures like treating the EU diplomat as a pukka ambassador- if not quite cost-free, that's a bargain compared with the No 10 photography service. And yes the cost of Erasmus appears to have gone up (though we never actually saw the numbers, did we?) On the other hand, the UK has jacked up university fees to all EU students by a factor of about three- and having foreigners who have spent formative years in the UK is an soft power investment that I'm sure pays off massively.

    So why the fear of tweaking the deal in a less dickish direction? Is it the knowledge that, despite vaccinegeddon, despite the fact that Brexit-for-imports hasn't really happened yet so the shelves are still full, a large chunk of the public think we're making a mistake? Because if the UK government wants this settlement to stick for the years, a too-rigid stance, not even conceding on the low-cost easy wins, is not the way to do it.

    [And, to save everyone the trouble... None of this is about Rejoin. I'm not in a stage of grief about the EU. Democracy requires us to do this, but it need not be in this damn silly nasty way. The EU isn't a Nivarna, but it is large, does exist and has the right to order its affairs in the way it wants. OK?]
    I agree, there's nothing at all wrong with many of the proposals, but what I was arguing is that we should have a clear idea of our national interests, and only give things to the EU if we get something back in return, and now rather than later.

    The classic example of the cynical EU (and the French) completely trouncing the naive British was, in my mind, Blair's disastrous negotiation over our rebate (around 2004 I think) where he give a large chunk of it in response to a vague promise of a "review" of the CAP, which, of course, yielded us nothing. Whereas the best example of a British victory was Mrs Thatcher's triumph over the rebate. Hard-nosed transactionalism vs soft idealism - the former works better in Brussels than the latter.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,156

    FF43 said:

    "Rejoin Erasmus."

    I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.

    (As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).

    The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.

    As I didn't contest that point, your last statement is actually untrue. I'm not quite sure why you do this stuff. Why not stick to discussing facts and arguments?
    Your postings a few days ago were based on a misunderstanding of the costs of Erasmus.

    I corrected you. You called it a 'strawman argument'.
    I did indeed call it a strawman. Because you created an argument predicated on me having made a claim I didn't actually make. That time too.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Its an interesting list but the absolute key for future relationships with the EU is financial services.
    ...
    Personally, I think it was a serious error to sign a deal at all without mutual recognition of financial services being a part of it. I found the priorities of our negotiators bewildering and poorly focused. I do agree that there is no point indulging in unnecessary and childish aggravation such as the ambassador thing but I suspect some of the other proposals may take some time.

    Given the trouble many in the fishing industry are having at the moment, despite the focus of British negotiators on that sector, perhaps the neglect of the financial services industry in the negotiations will prove to be a blessing in disguise.

    However bad things are, they can always be worse.

    Might end up being the Tory election slogan.
    The problem with shellfish, as it has been explained to me, is that they can store dangerous toxins and become poisonous. This means that they need to be thoroughly washed out before they are consumed. Whilst we were in the EU SM there was no problem with this being done in Spain etc and we never bothered to set up washing facilities in this country on the scale needed for our export market in live shellfish (presumably we washed those consumed in the UK).

    Once we became a third country unwashed shellfish cannot be admitted to the SM. The solution to this was to set up facilities in the UK in advance (the rules were pretty clear in advance) rather than assuming that we would get some sort of exemption but we didn't do that.

    Until we do or the EU relents live shellfish will not be being exported to the EU.

    Its a simple example of us failing to prepare for life outside the EU. The May government is primarily responsible for this but so are others who, unfortunately, seem more interested in making political points than fixing the problem.
    The people who are responsible are the liars who said it was going to be the easiest trade deal in history. They knew it was a lie, and they knew there were enough gullible fools to swallow it. They also knew there would be a lot of people that would suffer, but they knew it wasn't going to be them.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 46,532
    edited February 11
    Vaccine War Dave on the case:



    Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,160
    -22 C in Braemar last night - colder than a domestic freezer and the coldest temp recorded in the UK since winter 1995
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,534
    edited February 11


    ...
    Convincing article by Richard N. The problem is that all these measures will be seen as slightly recanting on Brexit (cf. Max's answer, I assume, though he doesn't elaborate on why he disagrees), which annoys both Brexiteers and the "oh, do shut up about Europe" neutral faction, who between them are probably 60% of the population). I'd think that nearer 2024 it will seem a lot more sensible.

    How an opposition party should frame policy on this is an interesting conundrum. I take the point about 'slightly recanting on Brexit', but that is to fall into government's spin that any cooperation with our EU friends is somehow a rejection of the referendum result, which is obvious nonsense (just look at the Vote Leave website, which promised us tariff-free, barrier-free trade with the EU). So Labour's position on this needs to be carefully presented as pragmatic but respecting the referendum result. After all, nothing in what I've suggested re-introduces freedom of movement, or the role of the ECJ in UK domestic law, or 'ever-closer union', or the 'EU Army' and 'EU foreign policy' and all that nonsense, so Brexit would still be Brexit.

    Labour's position at the moment falls between two stools. Keir Starmer and other Labour figures complain about Boris' thin deal, but don't actually suggest how it could be improved starting from here. I think that's a big mistake, it's what I characterised in part 1 as Starmer's 'forensic whingeing', which impresses no-one.
    What is Labour's policy on Brexit is going to be a central political question for some time. They can't avoid it, because having a woolly or lack of policy is itself a clear decision; the choices are therefore quite uncomfortable (closer to EU as RN suggests today or striking out in a distinctive direction etc). But I can't see them making much progress until they take courage and start regarding this as a major opportunity to win votes. Labour's risk is that just waiting for the Tories to lose isn't going to be enough. If it were I think the polls would not be where they are now.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,160
    We should add to Richard's list, restoring mutual recognition for the pet passport. An easily solved annoyance and unnecessary expense for people travelling with pets in both directions.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029

    Vaccine War Dave on the case:



    Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
    I've muted Dave on twitter for he is an idiot that doesn't seem to understand anything and yet I see the same rubbish here.

    The issue here is that production quality isn't what it could be, so the batch can produce x/2 doses rather than the x doses it will be able to provide once things are fully operational.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 35,677

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Its an interesting list but the absolute key for future relationships with the EU is financial services.
    ...
    Personally, I think it was a serious error to sign a deal at all without mutual recognition of financial services being a part of it. I found the priorities of our negotiators bewildering and poorly focused. I do agree that there is no point indulging in unnecessary and childish aggravation such as the ambassador thing but I suspect some of the other proposals may take some time.

    Given the trouble many in the fishing industry are having at the moment, despite the focus of British negotiators on that sector, perhaps the neglect of the financial services industry in the negotiations will prove to be a blessing in disguise.

    However bad things are, they can always be worse.

    Might end up being the Tory election slogan.
    The problem with shellfish, as it has been explained to me, is that they can store dangerous toxins and become poisonous. This means that they need to be thoroughly washed out before they are consumed. Whilst we were in the EU SM there was no problem with this being done in Spain etc and we never bothered to set up washing facilities in this country on the scale needed for our export market in live shellfish (presumably we washed those consumed in the UK).

    Once we became a third country unwashed shellfish cannot be admitted to the SM. The solution to this was to set up facilities in the UK in advance (the rules were pretty clear in advance) rather than assuming that we would get some sort of exemption but we didn't do that.

    Until we do or the EU relents live shellfish will not be being exported to the EU.

    Its a simple example of us failing to prepare for life outside the EU. The May government is primarily responsible for this but so are others who, unfortunately, seem more interested in making political points than fixing the problem.
    Very interesting, and very credible. Thanks, Mr L. Basically what is required is for the Fishing Minister to stop worrying about her Parent-Teacher activities and obtain a grant from the Treasury for the industry to set up the washing facilities.
    Although dimly at the back of my mind is a need for shellfish to be washed shortly before they are eaten. That may be wrong, of course,
    You may be right about that which may well be why the washing was done in Spain in the first place but unless they are washed they don't get in.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 29,456
    Selebian said:

    algarkirk said:

    A very interesting second article. All very sensible but it overlooks a difficult fact. How you wish to resolve each small(ish) issue is sensible in itself, but each one discloses the bigger totality of ideas behind the governments long term aims in Brexit. Obvs critics will say that there aren't any and only pragmatism will do. But putting that on one side, the suggestions taken as a whole suggest a policy of ever closer alignment. The more you do that, the more you tie your hands about other markets. And the more you do that the more obvious it is that government is saying Brexit was a mistake. Which neither Con nor Lab is going to do.

    RN's article points towards the clear truth that Norway for Now (my own view, but the bus has left) was the right answer until a better way forward was debated, agreed and decided (taking years if ever).

    Nothing in the article hints at what policy has to aim at: "Brexit is great, long term and totally different from the past. Trying to regain bits of the old order isn't what we are about." Whether that is true or possible of course I can't say.

    This is true. I back everything in the article, but then, I'd rather we'd stayed in or at least gone Norway for Now. Ideologically, this has to be a non-starter for the government. As Richard correctly points out, it could be more plausible for Labour - there's no point them trying to out-Brexit the government, but this is all probably far enough from rejoining (for FoM for example) to not put off many pro-Brexit Labour supporters and could bring disaffected moderates from the Conservatives on board, depending on Labour's other economic policies

    More realistically, this is the kind of stuff the LDs should be hammering on in the short term.
    Agreed.
    As comments in this thread make clear, the response of the ideologically committed to problems resulting from Brexit, rather than consider how they might be ameliorated, is to attack those pointing them out.
  • I think this thread shows that its much easier to come with vague general principles that can be agreed upon than actual policies to put those principles into practice.

    Nabavi's supposedly uncontroversial policies here, scratch beneath the surface and they're actually pretty controversial.

    Many others have already responded on why Erasmus was bad value for the UK and its successor scheme could be more suited to our needs. Mr Nabavi hasn't actually given a reason why rejoining Erasmus would be a good idea just taken it as granted.

    Similarly with REACH. Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔

    The arguments for having our own chemical regulations mirror those for having our own medical agency. Our ability to be nimble, to innovate, to lead the world in developments and not to be dragged to the slowest movement of Europe is not restricted to just vaccines. There's perfectly good reasons to be able to innovate with chemicals too and for other chemicals then an effectively copy and pasta method to get approval can work too as it will with medicines.

    Mutual recognition, trusted trader, de-dramatised border, mutual recognition of SPS (similar to EU's with Aus and NZ perhaps not just Switzerland) etc are all ideas the EU not the UK have been rejecting.

    So what practically are we left with? Perhaps GDPR? Maybe, though I know many hate that, I'm not sure how or if we'll diverge but its certainly not uncontroversial.

    The only practical suggestion I see left is musicians and carnets. This is a good idea I think, this is the only one that I agree with unequivocally.

    Then there's just the petty debate over the EU ambassador. This probably should and will be granted eventually, but right now its part of a silly petty tit-for-tat. Its puerile and petty but if we're going to have puerile and petty nonsense let it be over stuff that doesn't actually matter to anyone.

    Our medicines agency was nimble before and after Brexit. The MHRA led Europe as the foremost Competent Authority in the bloc. Your post is, as usual, full of uninformed chauvinistic opinion and light on facts.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,392
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    "Rejoin Erasmus."

    I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.

    (As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).

    The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.

    As I didn't contest that point, your last statement is actually untrue. I'm not quite sure why you do this stuff. Why not stick to discussing facts and arguments?
    Your postings a few days ago were based on a misunderstanding of the costs of Erasmus.

    I corrected you. You called it a 'strawman argument'.
    I did indeed call it a strawman. Because you created an argument predicated on me having made a claim I didn't actually make. That time too.
    You did not understand how Erasmus was priced & I corrected you. Period.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,420

    Very good article @Richard_Nabavi . All of these suggestions could and should also be embraced by a future more serious Conservative government once The Clown and his circus are hopefully ignominiously removed .

    The Conservative Party need to taste defeat, a Corbyn style spanking, to purge themselves of Johnson AND his entourage. There are plenty of sage Conservative politicians. None of them are anywhere near either the levers of government or their party at the moment.
  • Vaccine War Dave on the case:



    Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
    LOL obviously. 😂

    He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
  • Vaccine War Dave on the case:



    Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
    LOL obviously. 😂

    He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
    I thought you held that title? Maybe it is a club you can both be members of? Your defence of the stupidity known as Brexit and the idiot incompetent known as Bozo the Clown would put Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf to shame lol.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 29,456


    ...
    Convincing article by Richard N. The problem is that all these measures will be seen as slightly recanting on Brexit (cf. Max's answer, I assume, though he doesn't elaborate on why he disagrees), which annoys both Brexiteers and the "oh, do shut up about Europe" neutral faction, who between them are probably 60% of the population). I'd think that nearer 2024 it will seem a lot more sensible.

    How an opposition party should frame policy on this is an interesting conundrum. I take the point about 'slightly recanting on Brexit', but that is to fall into the government's spin that any cooperation with our EU friends is somehow a rejection of the referendum result, which is obvious nonsense (just look at the Vote Leave website, which promised us tariff-free, barrier-free trade with the EU). So Labour's position on this needs to be carefully presented as pragmatic but respecting the referendum result. After all, nothing in what I've suggested re-introduces freedom of movement, or the role of the ECJ in UK domestic law, or 'ever-closer union', or the 'EU Army' and 'EU foreign policy' and all that nonsense, so Brexit would still be Brexit.

    Labour's position at the moment falls between two stools. Keir Starmer and other Labour figures complain about Boris' thin deal, but don't actually suggest how it could be improved starting from here. I think that's a big mistake, it's what I characterised in part 1 as Starmer's 'forensic whingeing', which impresses no-one.
    There's no point in Labour trying to out-Brexit the Tories, so pragmatism ought to be an obvious approach. What's-the-point-of Starmer is taking his time to work that out.

    As for 'respecting the referendum result', I would prefer never to encounter that injunction ever again. We have left, so it has been 'respected'. The force of that vote is now extinct.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 6,864

    On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.

    The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.

    When it finally gets over that we can talk.

    If you want to get serious about protecting the country from the likes of China then you have to stop being childish about your relationship with countries that can help you with that.

    Richard has outlined some practical steps that would improve our relationship with the EU, but you're still stuck in a futile blame game.
    Of course, the UK isn't (currently) the partner in the relationship that's sucking up to China, but that's by the by.

    All that arguments over the EU's behaviour do is provide confirmation bias for both sides of the boring and exhausted leaver/remainer argument. Leavers point to the EU's desire to bind the UK in chains; remainers castigate the leavers for displaying a destructive lack of pragmatism.

    The problem is, of course, that it is perfectly possible to argue that both are correct at the same time. Brexit has only brought into sharp relief those fundamental realities that existed before the EU referendum happened. Europe as a whole is in long-term decline, both in absolute terms and relative to Asia. How is this, from Britain's point of view, to be best addressed? By circling the wagons with the rest of the EU or by sailing off into the sunset? One route leaves the country stuck in a sclerotic and unresponsive bloc but one which at least enables all of the members to pool their remaining strength. The other offers the prospect of reinvention and dynamism but also of sinking and drowning.

    Personally I think that, having gone to all the trouble of both leaving the EU and its economic area, there is no point in being the perma-dithering Vicky Pollard of Europe and trying to build a close relationship with the EU and other parts of the world at the same time, because the former necessarily precludes the latter. This is not to say that nothing can be done at all to help things along - the ambassador spat was unnecessary and could be easily fixed - but the scope for rapprochement is limited and will remain so.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,881

    I think this thread shows that its much easier to come with vague general principles that can be agreed upon than actual policies to put those principles into practice.

    Nabavi's supposedly uncontroversial policies here, scratch beneath the surface and they're actually pretty controversial.

    Many others have already responded on why Erasmus was bad value for the UK and its successor scheme could be more suited to our needs. Mr Nabavi hasn't actually given a reason why rejoining Erasmus would be a good idea just taken it as granted.

    Similarly with REACH. Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔

    The arguments for having our own chemical regulations mirror those for having our own medical agency. Our ability to be nimble, to innovate, to lead the world in developments and not to be dragged to the slowest movement of Europe is not restricted to just vaccines. There's perfectly good reasons to be able to innovate with chemicals too and for other chemicals then an effectively copy and pasta method to get approval can work too as it will with medicines.

    Mutual recognition, trusted trader, de-dramatised border, mutual recognition of SPS (similar to EU's with Aus and NZ perhaps not just Switzerland) etc are all ideas the EU not the UK have been rejecting.

    So what practically are we left with? Perhaps GDPR? Maybe, though I know many hate that, I'm not sure how or if we'll diverge but its certainly not uncontroversial.

    The only practical suggestion I see left is musicians and carnets. This is a good idea I think, this is the only one that I agree with unequivocally.

    Then there's just the petty debate over the EU ambassador. This probably should and will be granted eventually, but right now its part of a silly petty tit-for-tat. Its puerile and petty but if we're going to have puerile and petty nonsense let it be over stuff that doesn't actually matter to anyone.

    I am glad you agree on the carnet issue Philip because it isn't just a case of wasting hours filling out forms and twiddling your thumbs at customs, but the delays put you at a competitive disadvantage. Often you are in a pre sales environment when the issue of carnets arises where you need some demo kit sent out NOW, or say in the case of F1 a time period that can not be delayed. The only solution to that is moving European operations or depots from the UK to Europe.
  • I think this thread shows that its much easier to come with vague general principles that can be agreed upon than actual policies to put those principles into practice.

    Nabavi's supposedly uncontroversial policies here, scratch beneath the surface and they're actually pretty controversial.

    Many others have already responded on why Erasmus was bad value for the UK and its successor scheme could be more suited to our needs. Mr Nabavi hasn't actually given a reason why rejoining Erasmus would be a good idea just taken it as granted.

    Similarly with REACH. Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔

    The arguments for having our own chemical regulations mirror those for having our own medical agency. Our ability to be nimble, to innovate, to lead the world in developments and not to be dragged to the slowest movement of Europe is not restricted to just vaccines. There's perfectly good reasons to be able to innovate with chemicals too and for other chemicals then an effectively copy and pasta method to get approval can work too as it will with medicines.

    Mutual recognition, trusted trader, de-dramatised border, mutual recognition of SPS (similar to EU's with Aus and NZ perhaps not just Switzerland) etc are all ideas the EU not the UK have been rejecting.

    So what practically are we left with? Perhaps GDPR? Maybe, though I know many hate that, I'm not sure how or if we'll diverge but its certainly not uncontroversial.

    The only practical suggestion I see left is musicians and carnets. This is a good idea I think, this is the only one that I agree with unequivocally.

    Then there's just the petty debate over the EU ambassador. This probably should and will be granted eventually, but right now its part of a silly petty tit-for-tat. Its puerile and petty but if we're going to have puerile and petty nonsense let it be over stuff that doesn't actually matter to anyone.

    Our medicines agency was nimble before and after Brexit. The MHRA led Europe as the foremost Competent Authority in the bloc. Your post is, as usual, full of uninformed chauvinistic opinion and light on facts.
    It was a leading Competent Authority, it was not the only one. The UK is able to move faster now than it could before across a whole swathe of areas.

    But congratulations for missing the point entirely. The UK has gained tremendously in the past six weeks from having first mover advantage on the vaccine front.

    For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
  • Very good article @Richard_Nabavi . All of these suggestions could and should also be embraced by a future more serious Conservative government once The Clown and his circus are hopefully ignominiously removed .

    The Conservative Party need to taste defeat, a Corbyn style spanking, to purge themselves of Johnson AND his entourage. There are plenty of sage Conservative politicians. None of them are anywhere near either the levers of government or their party at the moment.
    I have to agree. Unfortunately for those of us that prefer Conservative government to urban-centric Labour, that means years of Labour big-state meddling. Sadly, it may be the price we have to pay for Boris Johnson's ego trip and Labour's stupidity in making Mr Thicky Corbyn their leader that handed and easy victory to Johnson's populists
  • Vaccine War Dave on the case:



    Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
    LOL obviously. 😂

    He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
    I thought you held that title? Maybe it is a club you can both be members of? Your defence of the stupidity known as Brexit and the idiot incompetent known as Bozo the Clown would put Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf to shame lol.
    Boris is leading a good government, far superior to May's, with a much better Cabinet.

    I acknowledge the cons as well as the pros as life is shades of grey not all black and white. I just think on balance that the pros outweigh the cons. You're either too petty and smallminded or just plain too thick to acknowledge the pros whatsoever and only see cons everywhere.

    Being incapable of acknowledging when the other side has a point, being incapable of seeing both side, just makes you a fool Nigel it doesn't make you a sage.
Sign In or Register to comment.