Categories
BREXIT. Undoing (some of) the damage. Part 2: From Principles to Policies – politicalbetting.com
BREXIT. Undoing (some of) the damage. Part 2: From Principles to Policies – politicalbetting.com
pic YouTube
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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
As it is, you never hear from them in the media at all. They have been cruelly silenced.
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.
May have to become a Hillman hunter.....
Beautiful county. To look forward to in Spring:
Here's hoping London bounces back.
Why Amsterdam? Euronext headquarters - so all the repatriated EU names traded will be counted as being out of NL.
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.
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
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.
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.
Slight typo on line 2. There are *seven* principles.
Try not to get any spittle on the Union Flag you are currently swathed in.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_password_managers
Lastpass, bitwarden, 1Password and Keeper are all good and will save you work longer term.
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?
"...won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains..."
Oh yes without chains he is absolutely right.
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.
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.
Nothing controversial there
Er, why?
The scheme disproportionately benefitted EU students who sent (IIRC) twice as many students to the UK as the UK sent to the EU, the UK sends as many students abroad on other schemes as on Erasmus and the EU wanted to substantially increase the cost of the UK participating in a scheme which disproportionately benefits the EU. Classic imperial over-reach.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1359792145968877569?s=20
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.
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.
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.
Richard has outlined some practical steps that would improve our relationship with the EU, but you're still stuck in a futile blame game.
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.
https://www.newstatesman.com/international/places/2021/02/europe-s-vaccine-crisis-has-revealed-uk-and-ireland-true-nature
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.
However bad things are, they can always be worse.
Might end up being the Tory election slogan.
Like a warm day in Canada.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
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.
More realistically, this is the kind of stuff the LDs should be hammering on in the short term.
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.
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?]
Deform?
Unform?
Re-reform?
Try to put Humpty together again?
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
By Neil O'Brien MP"
https://capx.co/if-youre-an-ethnic-minority-conservative-you-just-cant-win/
I corrected you. You called it a 'strawman argument'.
And I suspect were we to ask for any or all of the above the response will be Nein / Non.
Or perhaps revert.
Lindsey Graham flatters himself if he thinks that the prosecution is any longer addressing him or the 40 or so Republican senators who are now bound to let Trump off the hook. Rather they are aimed at the wider US population, to reinforce their disgust at Trump's antics and to ensure that the Republicans pay a heavy price in coming years for falling into line behind him, rather than heeding the damning evidence presented. The use of videos including completely new footage is designed for a mass audience and will attract high ratings.
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,
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.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1359784673120051203?s=20
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".....
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.
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.
He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
https://twitter.com/MadsAlbertsen85/status/1359788645293715463?s=20
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.
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.
https://guernseypress.com/news/2021/02/11/dont-bank-on-going-anywhere-for-a-while/
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.
https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/1359804445870215169?s=20
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1359804850167513088?s=20
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.