Pressure on governments post 2024 will turn to the vast trading opportunities across the world tariff free, and brexit will become a distant memory
Keep chasing that Unicorn...
+1 - those opportunities existed before Brexit, us leaving the EU hasn't made selling to the rest of the world any different from how it was last year.
Not really, a lot of the deal proposals on the table for the UK include liberalising trade in digital and other services as well as mutual recognition of qualifications for certain fields. Those kinds of deals have very high value for the UK as a leader in the services economy.
They are areas where the EU has pointedly refused to engage third parties that the UK has always silently gone along with. Out of the EU that's already changing.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
That's not fair, I think the mistake Richard has made is to assume that the EU wants to play ball and that the UK-EU relationship is as valuable as assumes.
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
I've no informed reason for posting this, but do we not feel that there might be an element of hurt feelings in Brussels at our Leaving. Particular when Johnson in particular seems to be at least on the edge of hypocritical when he talks about 'our European friends"?
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
That's not fair, I think the mistake Richard has made is to assume that the EU wants to play ball and that the UK-EU relationship is as valuable as assumes.
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
It's also possible that your own view is slightly skewed by the fact that Brexit doesn't affect your business ?
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
That's not fair, I think the mistake Richard has made is to assume that the EU wants to play ball and that the UK-EU relationship is as valuable as assumes.
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
They do have one very important reason to play ball: Ireland. You have to remember that all the red tape that is screwing up NI also badly hits the Republic. Admittedly Ursula von der Leyen seems to have forgotten about Ireland in her panic over her vaccinations fiasco, but you can be quite sure that the Irish government is lobbying very hard behind the scenes for something to be done, and they are very good at lobbying.
Some Scots clearly vote for Sturgeon as FM but do not back independence so we Tories will of course not allow you a legal indyref2 whatever happens in May and will respect the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Plus I expect SLab to take some SNP votes once their new leader is elected
This has been painfully obvious for 20 years but it's reassuring even Adonis has finally noticed. A case in point being the Chinese recolonisation of Africa using surplus funds earned from western consumers of cheap products made by slaves. What remedy does Adonis propose? A House of Lords debate perhaps? That will show them.
Biden's Indo-Pacific team largest in National Security Council https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Biden-s-Asia-policy/Biden-s-Indo-Pacific-team-largest-in-National-Security-Council ...Tarun Chhabra, a former Pentagon speechwriter, is the NSC coordinator for technology and national security. Last February, he co-authored a piece titled "The Left should play the China card" in Foreign Affairs, in which he and fellow authors Scott Moore and Dominic Tierney write, "Whereas the political right in the United States has leaned into competition with China, the left remains uncomfortable with the idea of geopolitical rivalry."
"The left needs to reconsider its traditional aversion to geopolitical competition," they write, because while "demographic and environmental headwinds will likely slow China's economic growth, ... they won't keep the Middle Kingdom from presenting a formidable threat to American interests for decades to come."...
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
Do second rate universities teach correct apostrophe usage, I wonder.
"Consistently, SNP supporters side with Sturgeon on matters that could divide the party, putting the current SNP leader in a continually strong position among voters and within her own party.”
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
LOL! See Part 1. My first principle: "1. No fantasy. This means forgetting about rejoining the EU "
Not very smart, are you?
It's the curious thing about the conversations over the last two days- and incidentally, thanks for such a sensible set of next steps to move the debate on.
There does seem to be a lot of
"I personally wouldn't have chosen this path, it still looks like a mistake, but we are where we are. Nobody[1] is talking about rejoining the EU, so how do we remove the worst of the pinch points?"
"Brexit is eternal, we are never going back to the EU. And if they want to remove the pinch points, that's up to them."
The irony is that, by refusing to give an inch now, the chances of having to concede a kilometre later increase.
[1] Maybe Andrew Adonis. But he's the dictionary definition of "nobody".
Yes has plunged on that poll, now on just 2% above the 45% it got in 2014 on 47% including undecideds
It didn't get 45% in 2014 including undecideds 🤦🏻♂️. They got 45% in 2014 excluding undecideds.
I'm sure Yes will be happier being 2% above 45% than No will be being 13% below the 55% they got in 2014. Wonder why you didn't say that?
As I am not an English nationalist like you with an ideological agenda to break up the Union
You think that adding the undecided to the No count will save the Union?
The Undecided are Undecided, they're neither Yes nor No.
That is what happened in Quebec in 1995, Yes to independence led final polls, the undecideds went No and No won with 51%
The nightmare for Unionists was that the polls which showed Indy at 58% were part of a trend that would soon break the 60% barrier, and stay there, which had been seen as a prerequisite for a second IndyRef. That clearly hasn't happened despite Nicola still being wall-to-wall on the TV and the "rally to the flag" phenomenon with Covid.
The nightmare for (some) nationalists is that Nicola has allowed the moment to slip. Already one ingredient - a desperately unpopular UK Labour Leader (Corbyn) who was ambivalent about the union - has gone. The fear is that after May we will see a minority SNP Govt limping along for another 5 years with no prospect of a second referendum. It's quite possible that SNP lead will shrink under the pressure of an election campaign. Happened to Theresa...
Ursula von der Leyen may have saved the union.
The UK's success with vaccinations - and thus Scotland ability to succeed within the UK - is just the sort of rare unmitigated good news story unionists needed to be able to sell.
Will likely make only a marginal difference ultimately but these things are decided by fine margins.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
That's not fair, I think the mistake Richard has made is to assume that the EU wants to play ball and that the UK-EU relationship is as valuable as assumes.
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
I've no informed reason for posting this, but do we not feel that there might be an element of hurt feelings in Brussels at our Leaving. Particular when Johnson in particular seems to be at least on the edge of hypocritical when he talks about 'our European friends"?
There is a definite element of hurt feelings from the EU side. The whole vaccine fiasco speaks to that. It's also why Richard's seemingly simple solutions in this part two are much less simple than he makes out. The EU needs to want to make some of these changes with us, it's quite obvious it doesn't and the answer isn't to beg them to change, it's to work on the basis of a deep freeze in our friendship with the EU and if anything ratchet up some of the hostility from our side and be prepared to make some decisions that will rankle in Brussels such as direct industry subsidies where we need a strategic manufacturing reserve or to ensure high value IP in our services economy can't easily be offshored, especially to the EU.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
I note you just pick one item and none of the others. Do you just want to ignore the EU and pretend it is not there or maybe we should trade with the EU and try and make that trading easier.
Does the publication of the Salmond material in England have any impact on the Scottish case. It can be read from Scotland (I assume) and would therefore be accessible there, but is published from London?
Does the Scottish Court have any relevant jurisdiction?
(Reminds me of the time when iirc Scottish newspapers were one of the possible routes to frustrate certain English court order.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
It is anything but.
Wake up, smell the coffee...oh wait the supermarket shelves are out of EU processed coffee.
Biden's Indo-Pacific team largest in National Security Council https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Biden-s-Asia-policy/Biden-s-Indo-Pacific-team-largest-in-National-Security-Council ...Tarun Chhabra, a former Pentagon speechwriter, is the NSC coordinator for technology and national security. Last February, he co-authored a piece titled "The Left should play the China card" in Foreign Affairs, in which he and fellow authors Scott Moore and Dominic Tierney write, "Whereas the political right in the United States has leaned into competition with China, the left remains uncomfortable with the idea of geopolitical rivalry."
"The left needs to reconsider its traditional aversion to geopolitical competition," they write, because while "demographic and environmental headwinds will likely slow China's economic growth, ... they won't keep the Middle Kingdom from presenting a formidable threat to American interests for decades to come."...
Again showing how our interests from the EU will continue to diverge and that some of these attempts to put the UK back into its regulatory and foreign policy orbit are mistaken.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
That's not fair, I think the mistake Richard has made is to assume that the EU wants to play ball and that the UK-EU relationship is as valuable as assumes.
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
I've no informed reason for posting this, but do we not feel that there might be an element of hurt feelings in Brussels at our Leaving. Particular when Johnson in particular seems to be at least on the edge of hypocritical when he talks about 'our European friends"?
There is a definite element of hurt feelings from the EU side. The whole vaccine fiasco speaks to that. It's also why Richard's seemingly simple solutions in this part two are much less simple than he makes out. The EU needs to want to make some of these changes with us, it's quite obvious it doesn't and the answer isn't to beg them to change, it's to work on the basis of a deep freeze in our friendship with the EU and if anything ratchet up some of the hostility from our side and be prepared to make some decisions that will rankle in Brussels such as direct industry subsidies where we need a strategic manufacturing reserve or to ensure high value IP in our services economy can't easily be offshored, especially to the EU.
Absolutely. Richard and others seem to think that if we are "friendly" with the EU they will be friendly with us in return. Rather than perceiving us as weak pushovers.
Intriguingly while far from being a Brexiteer the reported remarks recently from Peter Mandelson apply here: the UK needs to approach the UK from a position of strength not weakness. We need to not be supplicants, we need to make things work for ourselves.
Does the publication of the Salmond material in England have any impact on the Scottish case. It can be read from Scotland (I assume) and would therefore be accessible there, but is published from London?
Does the Scottish Court have any relevant jurisdiction?
(Reminds me of the time when iirc Scottish newspapers were one of the possible routes to frustrate certain English court order.
The Scots Courts have no jurisdiction in England & Wales and visa versa. You could seek a remedy in Scotland and then ask the High Court in England to enforce it but that would be rather difficult.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
That's not fair, I think the mistake Richard has made is to assume that the EU wants to play ball and that the UK-EU relationship is as valuable as assumes.
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
I've no informed reason for posting this, but do we not feel that there might be an element of hurt feelings in Brussels at our Leaving. Particular when Johnson in particular seems to be at least on the edge of hypocritical when he talks about 'our European friends"?
There is a definite element of hurt feelings from the EU side. The whole vaccine fiasco speaks to that. It's also why Richard's seemingly simple solutions in this part two are much less simple than he makes out. The EU needs to want to make some of these changes with us, it's quite obvious it doesn't and the answer isn't to beg them to change, it's to work on the basis of a deep freeze in our friendship with the EU and if anything ratchet up some of the hostility from our side and be prepared to make some decisions that will rankle in Brussels such as direct industry subsidies where we need a strategic manufacturing reserve or to ensure high value IP in our services economy can't easily be offshored, especially to the EU.
Absolutely. Richard and others seem to think that if we are "friendly" with the EU they will be friendly with us in return. Rather than perceiving us as weak pushovers.
Intriguingly while far from being a Brexiteer the reported remarks recently from Peter Mandelson apply here: the UK needs to approach the UK from a position of strength not weakness. We need to not be supplicants, we need to make things work for ourselves.
Yes, I've read some of the stuff Mandelson was saying. It's very compelling, coupled with the US looking eastwards and our interests being different to those of the EU hitching the UK economy back to the EU train seems like a very poor idea.
I think one of the problems, and this applies to Richard's article too, is hysteresis.
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.
Your point on hysteresis is a very good one, but I don't think that's a reason for Labour not to make specific proposals as at today. Keir Starmer could easily give a speech where he points out some of the problems businesses are encountering and calls on the government to do X, Y and Z to fix them; this was my point about being a government-in-waiting, he needs to present Labour as an alternative to the government, not just a critic of it. You can't do that at the last minute, you need to build up that credibility over time.
The mistake would be to assume it is a permanent state of affairs.
Indeed.
The pressure on future Governments to unwind some of the madness of Brexit will be immense.
I think one of the problems, and this applies to Richard's article too, is hysteresis.
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.
Because the Johnson Government continues to dig deeper, that shouldn't prevent opposition parties trying to work out how to exit the hole.
Does the publication of the Salmond material in England have any impact on the Scottish case. It can be read from Scotland (I assume) and would therefore be accessible there, but is published from London?
Does the Scottish Court have any relevant jurisdiction?
(Reminds me of the time when iirc Scottish newspapers were one of the possible routes to frustrate certain English court order.
The Scots Courts have no jurisdiction in England & Wales and visa versa. You could seek a remedy in Scotland and then ask the High Court in England to enforce it but that would be rather difficult.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
It is anything but.
Wake up, smell the coffee...oh wait the supermarket shelves are out of EU processed coffee.
As it happens no the aren't. But carry on believing that if you want.
Some Scots clearly vote for Sturgeon as FM but do not back independence so we Tories will of course not allow you a legal indyref2 whatever happens in May and will respect the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Plus I expect SLab to take some SNP votes once their new leader is elected
Amazing* that you think the English voting for BJ & co reinforces no to Indy re II while Scots voting for Sturgeon & the SNP with Indy ref II IN THEIR FCUKING MANIFESTO means arglebarglefargle.
It's obvious nonsense because small companies will not cut office space by 50%
There's a bias in this "end of offices" thing towards people who can work from home easily. Broadband is best in the Cities, where there is less room to work from home, and worse in the Country, where there is more. People in low to medium income housing, people with kids, people who have no spare room at home for whatever other reason will need somewhere to work. There will be a decrease in demand, and commercial property is not an industry I want to be in for the forseeable, but 50% is too much.
This from @Richard_Nabavi is a bunch of good old-fashioned commonsense from a good old-fashioned Conservative who worries about how the economy will get on post Brexit. It's a brave header, imo, because it is much easier for a Tory these days, 80 seat majority in the tank, to wallow in throwback fantasies of a great great nation, unfettered from its chains and back in touch with its inner buccaneer, once more ruling the waves, the continent of Europe a minor irritant at best.
But, yes, back in the real world, having exited the EU with the chaotic, last minute "thin deal" whose sole purpose was to give good headline in the tabloids, there is now a need to plug the gaping holes. All the difficult stuff was skipped. God knows what "Frosty" & Co were doing all that time. Just trying to look the part, I suppose. Complete doss. Anyway, the hard work starts now and it hardly needs saying that a Boris Johnson government will not be doing it.
Labour must however be careful. The Cons have smashed one Union Jack election and they'll be well up for another. Labour's pragmatic plans for some convergence with the Single Market could be painted by a populist charlatan with a gift for Rule Britannia tub-thumping as a betrayal of our 'back to the future yet newly minted' Global Britain destiny. "We are free. Don't let Labour take us back." I'd be concerned about this sort of messaging. Ok, so you'd hope the public would not fall for it again, but I think they might.
Labour having a policy and selling one are two different departments. PBers are quite interested in both, but not unless both are in place. At the moment Labour have neither, and I think this one is too important to fudge. They need to risk seeing the Brexit future as an opportunity and show us the direction of travel.
Yes, they will need to have a clear position. I think it will be the closest possible alignment with the EU as is compatible with not having free movement. There is a risk with this - the one I referred to - but there's a risk with everything and I can't think of a better alternative.
The nightmare for (some) nationalists is that Nicola has allowed the moment to slip. Already one ingredient - a desperately unpopular UK Labour Leader (Corbyn) who was ambivalent about the union - has gone. The fear is that after May we will see a minority SNP Govt limping along for another 5 years with no prospect of a second referendum. It's quite possible that SNP lead will shrink under the pressure of an election campaign. Happened to Theresa...
On the one hand, that is of course possible. On the other, Scotland does look suspiciously like a one-party state nowadays.
Essentially what's happening up there is that the First Minister and her predecessor are engaged in a bitter conflict over the failed prosecution of the latter, with allegations of cover-up, perjury and obstruction of Parliament flying left, right and centre. The wider governing party is engaged in open warfare over a niche culture wars topic that is of real consequence to less than 1% of the electorate. And, meanwhile, the opinion polls consistently predict a thumping SNP election victory, even in a system designed to frustrate majoritarian outcomes.
Consider what the equivalent might be in an English context. People often wonder how it is that Labour is only level-pegging, given all the mistakes that the Government has committed during the pandemic. But if it was anything like Scotland down here then Johnson would have something like a 20% polling lead and be on course for a 200 seat majority, all whilst fighting a court battle with Theresa May's lawyers over if or how his Government conspired to get her sent down for embezzlement, and with the Tory Party scratching each other's eyes out over whether or not to outlaw the wearing of niqabs.
Is the Scottish situation as it is because a large fraction of the electorate is totally fixated on getting independence to the exclusion of all else, or because they admire Nicola Sturgeon, or because the opposition parties are all completely and utterly useless, or some combination of all three? Whatever the exact cause, it's a remarkable state of affairs.
The EU isn't going to help us do that. You need to come to the realisation that the EU is nothing more than mercantilist organisation. It just signed an investment deal with China that allows Chinese state companies to invest in the EU so that EU countries get access to China's low cost worker base. Essentially it allows Siemens to get political dissident slave labour to make their dishwashers, import them to Germany screw on the casing and slap a made on Germany sticker on it.
That's the EU we're dealing with, not this idealised one you seem to think will stand up to human rights abuses in China or stand up to Russia for spurious prison sentences for political opposition leaders.
The value of a better EU deal falls everyday for the UK, in a decade our relationship with the EU is going to be completely different than what it is today and reflect the transactional nature of the EU. Westminster and Washington are learning now that the EU won't take any economic burden or hardship to further the cause of human rights reforms in China. They aren't our ally, that's the world we're living in.
Brexiteers before Jan 2021: "The EU is an overbearing would-be empire, insistent on establishing itself as a global foreign policy force, damaging British business through its pursuit of lofty ideals and human rights, never focusing on economic realities."
Brexiteers after Jan 2021: "The EU is a transactional collection of mercantilist states, willing to sell out all values of decency in the hope of making its widgets more cheaply."
Some Scots clearly vote for Sturgeon as FM but do not back independence so we Tories will of course not allow you a legal indyref2 whatever happens in May and will respect the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Plus I expect SLab to take some SNP votes once their new leader is elected
Amazing* that you think the English voting for BJ & co reinforces no to Indy re II while Scots voting for Sturgeon & the SNP with Indy ref II IN THEIR FCUKING MANIFESTO means arglebarglefargle.
*not amazing
Our UK constitution is based on Westminster supremacy and has been since 1707, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster.
As I have told you umpteen times it does not matter what happens in the Scottish Parliament elections in May, there will be no legal indyref2 and no change to the status of the Union allowed under this UK Tory government.
If you want a legal indyref2 you will not only have to get an SNP majority in May but get a UK PM Starmer in 2024 too
It's obvious nonsense because small companies will not cut office space by 50%
Chris Herd who wrote that thread has a vested interest and is over-egging it (he seems to run a business which helps companies move to remote working), but, making allowances for that, it is nonetheless a very interesting thread.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
It is anything but.
Wake up, smell the coffee...oh wait the supermarket shelves are out of EU processed coffee.
There's no coffee left?
Well that's it chaps, we gave indepedence a good go but its game over. If there's no coffee left its not worth continuing to have sovereignty. Time to rejoin. Can we be back in by lunchtime tomorrow if that means we get a new delivery of coffee beans in time?
What remedy can anybody propose? The Chicoms already don't give a fuck about anything the Anglosphere Alliance of Awesome or the EU can or will do. Soon they won't give a fuck about anything the US does.
I said the same last week. Au pairs, wine merchants and lobsters have all been featured recently. I'm sure other issues will come out but unless ithwy cut through in a conversation down the pub I doubt the Brexiteers will be bothered. If I didn't know better I would think that the BBC secretly supported Brexit
Yes has plunged on that poll, now on just 2% above the 45% it got in 2014 on 47% including undecideds
It didn't get 45% in 2014 including undecideds 🤦🏻♂️. They got 45% in 2014 excluding undecideds.
I'm sure Yes will be happier being 2% above 45% than No will be being 13% below the 55% they got in 2014. Wonder why you didn't say that?
As I am not an English nationalist like you with an ideological agenda to break up the Union
You think that adding the undecided to the No count will save the Union?
The Undecided are Undecided, they're neither Yes nor No.
That is what happened in Quebec in 1995, Yes to independence led final polls, the undecideds went No and No won with 51%
The nightmare for Unionists was that the polls which showed Indy at 58% were part of a trend that would soon break the 60% barrier, and stay there, which had been seen as a prerequisite for a second IndyRef. That clearly hasn't happened despite Nicola still being wall-to-wall on the TV and the "rally to the flag" phenomenon with Covid.
The nightmare for (some) nationalists is that Nicola has allowed the moment to slip. Already one ingredient - a desperately unpopular UK Labour Leader (Corbyn) who was ambivalent about the union - has gone. The fear is that after May we will see a minority SNP Govt limping along for another 5 years with no prospect of a second referendum. It's quite possible that SNP lead will shrink under the pressure of an election campaign. Happened to Theresa...
Ursula von der Leyen may have saved the union.
The UK's success with vaccinations - and thus Scotland ability to succeed within the UK - is just the sort of rare unmitigated good news story unionists needed to be able to sell.
Will likely make only a marginal difference ultimately but these things are decided by fine margins.
During the next IndyRef (if there is one), the Yes campaign will have the challenge of explaining how Scotland will be better off leaving one union (UK) - spending several years in no-man's-land while reducing its deficit and introducing its own currency - in order to join another one (EU).
Not impossible, but a pretty tough call, surely.
And by the time that happens, the blond punchbag will have long gone as. most likely, will Nicola.
The EU isn't going to help us do that. You need to come to the realisation that the EU is nothing more than mercantilist organisation. It just signed an investment deal with China that allows Chinese state companies to invest in the EU so that EU countries get access to China's low cost worker base. Essentially it allows Siemens to get political dissident slave labour to make their dishwashers, import them to Germany screw on the casing and slap a made on Germany sticker on it.
That's the EU we're dealing with, not this idealised one you seem to think will stand up to human rights abuses in China or stand up to Russia for spurious prison sentences for political opposition leaders.
The value of a better EU deal falls everyday for the UK, in a decade our relationship with the EU is going to be completely different than what it is today and reflect the transactional nature of the EU. Westminster and Washington are learning now that the EU won't take any economic burden or hardship to further the cause of human rights reforms in China. They aren't our ally, that's the world we're living in.
Brexiteers before Jan 2021: "The EU is an overbearing would-be empire, insistent on establishing itself as a global foreign policy force, damaging British business through its pursuit of lofty ideals and human rights, never focusing on economic realities."
Brexiteers after Jan 2021: "The EU is a transactional collection of mercantilist states, willing to sell out all values of decency in the hope of making its widgets more cheaply."
Actually most brexit supporters have been very consistent in the latter view. Look at how lots of leading remainers were (rightly) fretting over the UK leaving the EU negatively impacting the EU's foreign policy outlook. Outside of the EU our relationship with it can be properly transactional as many of us who voted to leave have said it should always have been.
I have mixed feelings about the SPS regime. As I said in the last thread in discussions with Philip Thompson, it should have been an easy one to sort and it was down to the idiocy of our own side being unwilling to make any concessions that it wasn't agreed.
But - and this is a serious point for me - as with veterinary and animal welfare standards, the UK is actually well ahead of the EU (a large in part because we are an island) and I am not sure we want to have mutual recognition which would lower our own standards, or at least the standards we accept of material coming in from outside the UK. A number of the diseases affecting our trees over the last couple of decades have been as the result of the importing of plant material from the EU for garden centres etc and although we have been able to put temporary, species limited bans in effect after the event that is always too late. What we have not been allowed to do is demand importers meet our own PS standards and have our own checks on plants in advance of an outbreak.
Of course this is a balance and it may be that as a country we decide that the economic benefits of the SPS regime are more important than the ability to stop importing diseases but I am not personally convinced of that and so don't think that SPS alignment is necessarily the unalloyed good thing people - including Richard in the thread header - make it out to be.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
That's not fair, I think the mistake Richard has made is to assume that the EU wants to play ball and that the UK-EU relationship is as valuable as assumes.
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
I've no informed reason for posting this, but do we not feel that there might be an element of hurt feelings in Brussels at our Leaving. Particular when Johnson in particular seems to be at least on the edge of hypocritical when he talks about 'our European friends"?
There is a definite element of hurt feelings from the EU side. The whole vaccine fiasco speaks to that. It's also why Richard's seemingly simple solutions in this part two are much less simple than he makes out. The EU needs to want to make some of these changes with us, it's quite obvious it doesn't and the answer isn't to beg them to change, it's to work on the basis of a deep freeze in our friendship with the EU and if anything ratchet up some of the hostility from our side and be prepared to make some decisions that will rankle in Brussels such as direct industry subsidies where we need a strategic manufacturing reserve or to ensure high value IP in our services economy can't easily be offshored, especially to the EU.
Absolutely. Richard and others seem to think that if we are "friendly" with the EU they will be friendly with us in return. Rather than perceiving us as weak pushovers.
Intriguingly while far from being a Brexiteer the reported remarks recently from Peter Mandelson apply here: the UK needs to approach the UK from a position of strength not weakness. We need to not be supplicants, we need to make things work for ourselves.
Unfortunately, being weak pushovers in Brussels is what the Foreign Office specialised in, at least in my (limited but formative) experience of dealing with them. It was also Theresa May's disastrous policy (not helped by the fact that she was in a very weak position at home).
As a country, in dealing with Europeans, we tend to be weak pushovers until we snap, where a firmer attitude earlier would have saved us. Contrary to what many people think, we are often more assertive in dealing with the Americans, and can get more out of our relationship as a result.
I'm retired now so this doesn't matter, but today I received my very first ever notification (if you ignore all those annoying ads telling you to prepare, but not how) from BEIS, via Companies House, about what I need to do to send my good to the EU. I mean 6 weeks after we have left!
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
LOL! See Part 1. My first principle: "1. No fantasy. This means forgetting about rejoining the EU "
That's a positivity rate of 0.4%, and the government's own estimate of the false positivity rate (link below) is 0.32% - frankly if these published figures are right, assymptomatic testing is borderline pointless.
That's a positivity rate of 0.4%, and the government's own estimate of the false positivity rate (link below) is 0.32% - frankly if these published figures are right, assymptomatic testing is borderline pointless.
I think one of the problems, and this applies to Richard's article too, is hysteresis.
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.
Your point on hysteresis is a very good one, but I don't think that's a reason for Labour not to make specific proposals as at today. Keir Starmer could easily give a speech where he points out some of the problems businesses are encountering and calls on the government to do X, Y and Z to fix them; this was my point about being a government-in-waiting, he needs to present Labour as an alternative to the government, not just a critic of it. You can't do that at the last minute, you need to build up that credibility over time.
There's a fine judgement; one one hand, if you think a mistake is being made, the right thing is to seek to correct it as soon as possible. However, with this issue and this government, going too fast with the critique will let Bozza and co wheel out the "Brexit Is In Peril, Only I Can Defend It" shtick that he enjoys and uses so effectively.
The low political calculation is that things probably have to get worse before enough people are going to be interested in making them better. The ways that could well happen are utterly predictable, and it would be nice to avoid them, but I don't think that is where the government or a large chunk of the country are.
So I can understand Starmer not going public on this for a bit. He'd better have someone working out what to say at the right moment, though.
That's a positivity rate of 0.4%, and the government's own estimate of the false positivity rate (link below) is 0.32% - frankly if these published figures are right, assymptomatic testing is borderline pointless.
Do people testing positive with a lateral flow test go on to get a PCR test to verify it?
One would hope so, although I understand the results text people receive simply says they must then isolate, rather than say go out for another test. Given these tests are now 2/3rds of all being carried out, and on the most charitable interpretation possible, half the positives it generates will be false, they really need to start reporting the 2 sets of data separately.
It seems to me that the biggest risk from Brexit is a reduction in tax take from the City of London. The problem Labour has is that they've spent the last decade bashing bankers.
What remedy can anybody propose? The Chicoms already don't give a fuck about anything the Anglosphere Alliance of Awesome or the EU can or will do. Soon they won't give a fuck about anything the US does.
I think one of the problems, and this applies to Richard's article too, is hysteresis.
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.
Your point on hysteresis is a very good one, but I don't think that's a reason for Labour not to make specific proposals as at today. Keir Starmer could easily give a speech where he points out some of the problems businesses are encountering and calls on the government to do X, Y and Z to fix them; this was my point about being a government-in-waiting, he needs to present Labour as an alternative to the government, not just a critic of it. You can't do that at the last minute, you need to build up that credibility over time.
There's a fine judgement; one one hand, if you think a mistake is being made, the right thing is to seek to correct it as soon as possible. However, with this issue and this government, going too fast with the critique will let Bozza and co wheel out the "Brexit Is In Peril, Only I Can Defend It" shtick that he enjoys and uses so effectively.
The low political calculation is that things probably have to get worse before enough people are going to be interested in making them better. The ways that could well happen are utterly predictable, and it would be nice to avoid them, but I don't think that is where the government or a large chunk of the country are.
So I can understand Starmer not going public on this for a bit. He'd better have someone working out what to say at the right moment, though.
[Usual disclaimers...]
The longer he sits on his hands, though, the more traction the 'what's the point of Starmer' critique gets.
That's a positivity rate of 0.4%, and the government's own estimate of the false positivity rate (link below) is 0.32% - frankly if these published figures are right, assymptomatic testing is borderline pointless.
My wife is a part-time teacher and has done 3 of these tests in the last week (all negative). Let's imagine she was positive and had not been tested. She would have gone into school and potentially passed it on to kids who could then pass it on to family. How many extra infections do those tests prevent? It isn't pointless, it does help remove potential links in the chain of transmission. As to how much of a difference overall it makes then that is certainly up for debate.
No comment on the story, but was saying "Almost 40 per cent (37 per cent)" really necessary.
It’s a bit dumb, 37% supporting a proposition with 26% against wins elections and referendums with landslides without gilding the figure.
It's a bugbear of mine in general when people say "more than x%" or "just over x%" when a specific figure is available. Here it has been taken to the extreme of ridiculousness.
What remedy can anybody propose? The Chicoms already don't give a fuck about anything the Anglosphere Alliance of Awesome or the EU can or will do. Soon they won't give a fuck about anything the US does.
Might nick that one. 50p every play. Trust basis.
On a serious note - an idea for the left. Tarrifs based on social and environmental issues.
So, products from a liberal social democracy with excellent human right, workers rights protection etc. 0%
That's a positivity rate of 0.4%, and the government's own estimate of the false positivity rate (link below) is 0.32% - frankly if these published figures are right, assymptomatic testing is borderline pointless.
Do people testing positive with a lateral flow test go on to get a PCR test to verify it?
One would hope so, although I understand the results text people receive simply says they must then isolate, rather than say go out for another test. Given these tests are now 2/3rds of all being carried out, and on the most charitable interpretation possible, half the positives it generates will be false, they really need to start reporting the 2 sets of data separately.
There was a requirement, but that has been temporarily removed on the 27th Jan. As numbers fall you can imagine it being reintroduced. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n287
I think one of the problems, and this applies to Richard's article too, is hysteresis.
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.
Your point on hysteresis is a very good one, but I don't think that's a reason for Labour not to make specific proposals as at today. Keir Starmer could easily give a speech where he points out some of the problems businesses are encountering and calls on the government to do X, Y and Z to fix them; this was my point about being a government-in-waiting, he needs to present Labour as an alternative to the government, not just a critic of it. You can't do that at the last minute, you need to build up that credibility over time.
There's a fine judgement; one one hand, if you think a mistake is being made, the right thing is to seek to correct it as soon as possible. However, with this issue and this government, going too fast with the critique will let Bozza and co wheel out the "Brexit Is In Peril, Only I Can Defend It" shtick that he enjoys and uses so effectively.
The low political calculation is that things probably have to get worse before enough people are going to be interested in making them better. The ways that could well happen are utterly predictable, and it would be nice to avoid them, but I don't think that is where the government or a large chunk of the country are.
So I can understand Starmer not going public on this for a bit. He'd better have someone working out what to say at the right moment, though.
[Usual disclaimers...]
The longer he sits on his hands, though, the more traction the 'what's the point of Starmer' critique gets.
True. It's a fine, tricky judgement. At the moment, I'd say Starmer is politically right to stay away from the subject- but he can't do it forever. The artful thing will be to hear the bandwagon coming over the hill, so he can step out at its lead.
What remedy can anybody propose? The Chicoms already don't give a fuck about anything the Anglosphere Alliance of Awesome or the EU can or will do. Soon they won't give a fuck about anything the US does.
Might nick that one. 50p every play. Trust basis.
On a serious note - an idea for the left. Tarrifs based on social and environmental issues.
So, products from a liberal social democracy with excellent human right, workers rights protection etc. 0%
Products made in coal fuelled slave camps. lots%
I think the Chinese would notice that........
But then how do Siemens import 95% complete dishwashers made by dissidents in labour camps?
That's a positivity rate of 0.4%, and the government's own estimate of the false positivity rate (link below) is 0.32% - frankly if these published figures are right, assymptomatic testing is borderline pointless.
My wife is a part-time teacher and has done 3 of these tests in the last week (all negative). Let's imagine she was positive and had not been tested. She would have gone into school and potentially passed it on to kids who could then pass it on to family. How many extra infections do those tests prevent? It isn't pointless, it does help remove potential links in the chain of transmission. As to how much of a difference overall it makes then that is certainly up for debate.
What if your wife is positive, and busy spreading the virus now believing she is negative due to taking a test with a sensitivity barely above 50% when carried out by a non-healthcare professional (as is the case for all school tests).
The numbers involved are nugatory either way when compared to the ludicrous scale of the testing going on. Mixing them in with the real testing numbers prevent any real analysis of the figures - you have posters on here celebrating a return to 2% positivity rate, but it now seems that has just been achieved by a massive ramp up of this noddy testing with as many false negatives and positives as correctly identified cases, and a decline in the volume of PCR.
It was at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament that Ed Miliband's Labour Party led David Cameron's Tories by 6 points in the average of all the polls...
I'm sure the result in Scotland will dominate the news, justifiably so, but I wonder if a strong showing by the Greens will be an important development to consider after the elections this May.
I think one of the problems, and this applies to Richard's article too, is hysteresis.
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.
Your point on hysteresis is a very good one, but I don't think that's a reason for Labour not to make specific proposals as at today. Keir Starmer could easily give a speech where he points out some of the problems businesses are encountering and calls on the government to do X, Y and Z to fix them; this was my point about being a government-in-waiting, he needs to present Labour as an alternative to the government, not just a critic of it. You can't do that at the last minute, you need to build up that credibility over time.
There's a fine judgement; one one hand, if you think a mistake is being made, the right thing is to seek to correct it as soon as possible. However, with this issue and this government, going too fast with the critique will let Bozza and co wheel out the "Brexit Is In Peril, Only I Can Defend It" shtick that he enjoys and uses so effectively.
The low political calculation is that things probably have to get worse before enough people are going to be interested in making them better. The ways that could well happen are utterly predictable, and it would be nice to avoid them, but I don't think that is where the government or a large chunk of the country are.
So I can understand Starmer not going public on this for a bit. He'd better have someone working out what to say at the right moment, though.
[Usual disclaimers...]
The longer he sits on his hands, though, the more traction the 'what's the point of Starmer' critique gets.
True. It's a fine, tricky judgement. At the moment, I'd say Starmer is politically right to stay away from the subject- but he can't do it forever. The artful thing will be to hear the bandwagon coming over the hill, so he can step out at its lead.
Kneeling in front of bandwagons? What could possibly go wrong?
What remedy can anybody propose? The Chicoms already don't give a fuck about anything the Anglosphere Alliance of Awesome or the EU can or will do. Soon they won't give a fuck about anything the US does.
Might nick that one. 50p every play. Trust basis.
On a serious note - an idea for the left. Tarrifs based on social and environmental issues.
So, products from a liberal social democracy with excellent human right, workers rights protection etc. 0%
Products made in coal fuelled slave camps. lots%
I think the Chinese would notice that........
But then how do Siemens import 95% complete dishwashers made by dissidents in labour camps?
That's the point.
I am well aware that my proposal is "impossible" in diplomatic terms. Even considering it would probably kick off a trade war with China....
The reality is that... people are split on the issue?
Or does this person think that 37% in favour translates to an overwhelming majority viewpoint?
More likely that 26% against on a single issue translates as a minority viewpoint. As it does.
Given the number of "don't knows" and "no opinions", could just be one that isn't much in the public eye at the moment. The question is what happens if this becomes a major issue, say if the governing party has a massive internal spat over it during an election campaign, and it turns out that support or opposition doesn't break down neatly along pre-existing party lines.
So we have the happy situation where Salmond successfully judicially reviews the Scottish government on a disciplinary procedure that was not in force when he was in office or even, apparently, at the time when the complaints were made. Scottish government concedes and pays over £500k of costs.
We then have a trial following which Salmond is acquitted.
We then have an inquiry into how the government lost the JR.
We have threats from Crown Office, whose prosecution had failed, to Salmond to stop him giving evidence. They also threaten the Committee who say they won't publish the affidavit evidence. The Spectator does publish it and Crown Office are now seeking to prosecute them. Crown Office are also prosecuting another journalist who reported on the trial. An earlier prosecution of a different journalist has been dismissed on the basis that there was no case to answer.
Has someone here lost the plot or what? The affidavits are about the JR procedure and the utter incompetence of the investigation. They are not about the trial. They do not name witnesses relevant to the sexual complainants at the trial. I am genuinely lost.
So we have the happy situation where Salmond successfully judicially reviews the Scottish government on a disciplinary procedure that was not in force when he was in office or even, apparently, at the time when the complaints were made. Scottish government concedes and pays over £500k of costs.
We then have a trial following which Salmond is acquitted.
We then have an inquiry into how the government lost the JR.
We have threats from Crown Office, whose prosecution had failed, to Salmond to stop him giving evidence. They also threaten the Committee who say they won't publish the affidavit evidence. The Spectator does publish it and Crown Office are now seeking to prosecute them. Crown Office are also prosecuting another journalist who reported on the trial. An earlier prosecution of a different journalist has been dismissed on the basis that there was no case to answer.
Has someone here lost the plot or what? The affidavits are about the JR procedure and the utter incompetence of the investigation. They are not about the trial. They do not name witnesses relevant to the sexual complainants at the trial. I am genuinely lost.
Its hard to feel sorry for Salmond but when you put it like that ...
If that's what they're prepared to do to one of their own its really concerning about what could happen to a "dissident". This isn't civilised.
Who is listening outside PB? I'd vote for them but I reckon neither main party is in the market for these ideas just yet. Starmer might just move in that direction but not much sign of it yet.
Boris will follow the herd, but it isn't yet clear which herd.
I think one of the problems, and this applies to Richard's article too, is hysteresis.
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.
Your point on hysteresis is a very good one, but I don't think that's a reason for Labour not to make specific proposals as at today. Keir Starmer could easily give a speech where he points out some of the problems businesses are encountering and calls on the government to do X, Y and Z to fix them; this was my point about being a government-in-waiting, he needs to present Labour as an alternative to the government, not just a critic of it. You can't do that at the last minute, you need to build up that credibility over time.
There's a fine judgement; one one hand, if you think a mistake is being made, the right thing is to seek to correct it as soon as possible. However, with this issue and this government, going too fast with the critique will let Bozza and co wheel out the "Brexit Is In Peril, Only I Can Defend It" shtick that he enjoys and uses so effectively.
The low political calculation is that things probably have to get worse before enough people are going to be interested in making them better. The ways that could well happen are utterly predictable, and it would be nice to avoid them, but I don't think that is where the government or a large chunk of the country are.
So I can understand Starmer not going public on this for a bit. He'd better have someone working out what to say at the right moment, though.
[Usual disclaimers...]
The longer he sits on his hands, though, the more traction the 'what's the point of Starmer' critique gets.
True. It's a fine, tricky judgement. At the moment, I'd say Starmer is politically right to stay away from the subject- but he can't do it forever. The artful thing will be to hear the bandwagon coming over the hill, so he can step out at its lead.
There is also a danger that SKS will both wait too long and fall into the trap of being all things to all persons, vagueness and hand waving instead of a clear direction of travel. On most issues you can do this but not with Brexit and Labour now and in the future.
This is a really interesting article re. UK and Japan. Fascinating to see such a swift switch in strategy away from China..
When China made a largely unexpected gambit just before Biden's inauguration to reach a basic agreement with the EU on an investment pact, it was hailed as a major diplomatic victory. The deal drove a wedge between the U.S. and Europe ahead of the incoming Biden administration.
But China overlooked one thing: The U.K. had already left the EU and was heading to Asia, China's own backyard.
So we have the happy situation where Salmond successfully judicially reviews the Scottish government on a disciplinary procedure that was not in force when he was in office or even, apparently, at the time when the complaints were made. Scottish government concedes and pays over £500k of costs.
We then have a trial following which Salmond is acquitted.
We then have an inquiry into how the government lost the JR.
We have threats from Crown Office, whose prosecution had failed, to Salmond to stop him giving evidence. They also threaten the Committee who say they won't publish the affidavit evidence. The Spectator does publish it and Crown Office are now seeking to prosecute them. Crown Office are also prosecuting another journalist who reported on the trial. An earlier prosecution of a different journalist has been dismissed on the basis that there was no case to answer.
Has someone here lost the plot or what? The affidavits are about the JR procedure and the utter incompetence of the investigation. They are not about the trial. They do not name witnesses relevant to the sexual complainants at the trial. I am genuinely lost.
Its hard to feel sorry for Salmond but when you put it like that ...
If that's what they're prepared to do to one of their own its really concerning about what could happen to a "dissident". This isn't civilised.
I may have got a bit of this wrong. I don't think that this is a prosecution per se. It is an attempt by the Spectator to vary the Contempt of Court order (which might be thought to indicate that they are at least concerned that they may have breached it).
The reality is that... people are split on the issue?
Or does this person think that 37% in favour translates to an overwhelming majority viewpoint?
More likely that 26% against on a single issue translates as a minority viewpoint. As it does.
Given the number of "don't knows" and "no opinions", could just be one that isn't much in the public eye at the moment. The question is what happens if this becomes a major issue, say if the governing party has a massive internal spat over it during an election campaign, and it turns out that support or opposition doesn't break down neatly along pre-existing party lines.
It’s definitely been out of the public eye, have heard nary a mention of the GRA up here.
I'm sure the result in Scotland will dominate the news, justifiably so, but I wonder if a strong showing by the Greens will be an important development to consider after the elections this May.
No.
There have been occasional discussions of whether or not the Greens' time has come at intervals since the 1980s. The reality is that they're a fringe far-left party (basically peddling something like Corbynism, minus much of the foreign policy baggage but plus a deliberate drive to end economic growth) that's mainly of interest to the most eco-conscious segment of the electorate.
A party that appeals to a thinly spread cohort like that which cannot give it an advantage in any single constituency (Brighton Pavilion being a unique exception, which may very well revert to Labour in any case whenever Dr Lucas decides to retire) leaves the Greens with very little hope under the present electoral system. For the record, their number one target in terms of swing required to capture is Bristol West, which is currently held by Labour with in excess of a 28,000 majority.
PR is essential if the Greens are ever to prosper - otherwise their only relevance is that they may be a net drain on Labour and Lib Dem vote shares (and that's only the case if we assume that none of the Green vote are actually right-of-centre people, registering a symbolic protest about the state of the planet as distinct from endorsing any of the Greens' solutions, who might otherwise revert to the Tories if the Greens didn't exist.)
This is a really interesting article re. UK and Japan. Fascinating to see such a swift switch in strategy away from China..
People who read PB will know a lot of this already, it's been pointed out by myself and others that the UK is looking eastwards just as Biden is doing the same. Our presence in the Pacific will be a huge disruption to Chinese ambitions and ideally we can bring Biden to the table for the CPTPP on the basis of cock blocking China in APAC to help him prove to Americans that he is serious about halting China.
No matter that this may well be the first signs of a kick back against the SNP internecine war that seems to be making daily headlines
SNP +1 is a kick back against the SNP?
The increase in the conservative vote seems to be against the trend
And we do not agree on Independence, but then my family have deep ties to our Scottish family and the union
The increase in the Tory vote seems to be primarily coming at the expense of other unionists not nationalists.
Plus its a bit of bouncing around at numbers that we're familiar with for years now.
There's no evidence yet of a nationalist collapse happening. I would imagine the SNP would be quite satisfied, not upset, to get 54% of the FPTP vote in May.
Previously the vaccines were being kept superchilled in freezers - now they can just be taken outside in the Scottish weather and used without concern.
Comments
They are areas where the EU has pointedly refused to engage third parties that the UK has always silently gone along with. Out of the EU that's already changing.
Plus I expect SLab to take some SNP votes once their new leader is elected
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Biden-s-Asia-policy/Biden-s-Indo-Pacific-team-largest-in-National-Security-Council
...Tarun Chhabra, a former Pentagon speechwriter, is the NSC coordinator for technology and national security. Last February, he co-authored a piece titled "The Left should play the China card" in Foreign Affairs, in which he and fellow authors Scott Moore and Dominic Tierney write, "Whereas the political right in the United States has leaned into competition with China, the left remains uncomfortable with the idea of geopolitical rivalry."
"The left needs to reconsider its traditional aversion to geopolitical competition," they write, because while "demographic and environmental headwinds will likely slow China's economic growth, ... they won't keep the Middle Kingdom from presenting a formidable threat to American interests for decades to come."...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-backed-majority-snp-support-over-joanna-cherry-sacking-says-poll-3130975
There does seem to be a lot of
"I personally wouldn't have chosen this path, it still looks like a mistake, but we are where we are. Nobody[1] is talking about rejoining the EU, so how do we remove the worst of the pinch points?"
"Brexit is eternal, we are never going back to the EU. And if they want to remove the pinch points, that's up to them."
The irony is that, by refusing to give an inch now, the chances of having to concede a kilometre later increase.
[1] Maybe Andrew Adonis. But he's the dictionary definition of "nobody".
The UK's success with vaccinations - and thus Scotland ability to succeed within the UK - is just the sort of rare unmitigated good news story unionists needed to be able to sell.
Will likely make only a marginal difference ultimately but these things are decided by fine margins.
Does the publication of the Salmond material in England have any impact on the Scottish case. It can be read from Scotland (I assume) and would therefore be accessible there, but is published from London?
Does the Scottish Court have any relevant jurisdiction?
(Reminds me of the time when iirc Scottish newspapers were one of the possible routes to frustrate certain English court order.
Wake up, smell the coffee...oh wait the supermarket shelves are out of EU processed coffee.
Intriguingly while far from being a Brexiteer the reported remarks recently from Peter Mandelson apply here: the UK needs to approach the UK from a position of strength not weakness. We need to not be supplicants, we need to make things work for ourselves.
*not amazing
Essentially what's happening up there is that the First Minister and her predecessor are engaged in a bitter conflict over the failed prosecution of the latter, with allegations of cover-up, perjury and obstruction of Parliament flying left, right and centre. The wider governing party is engaged in open warfare over a niche culture wars topic that is of real consequence to less than 1% of the electorate. And, meanwhile, the opinion polls consistently predict a thumping SNP election victory, even in a system designed to frustrate majoritarian outcomes.
Consider what the equivalent might be in an English context. People often wonder how it is that Labour is only level-pegging, given all the mistakes that the Government has committed during the pandemic. But if it was anything like Scotland down here then Johnson would have something like a 20% polling lead and be on course for a 200 seat majority, all whilst fighting a court battle with Theresa May's lawyers over if or how his Government conspired to get her sent down for embezzlement, and with the Tory Party scratching each other's eyes out over whether or not to outlaw the wearing of niqabs.
Is the Scottish situation as it is because a large fraction of the electorate is totally fixated on getting independence to the exclusion of all else, or because they admire Nicola Sturgeon, or because the opposition parties are all completely and utterly useless, or some combination of all three? Whatever the exact cause, it's a remarkable state of affairs.
Brexiteers after Jan 2021: "The EU is a transactional collection of mercantilist states, willing to sell out all values of decency in the hope of making its widgets more cheaply."
As I have told you umpteen times it does not matter what happens in the Scottish Parliament elections in May, there will be no legal indyref2 and no change to the status of the Union allowed under this UK Tory government.
If you want a legal indyref2 you will not only have to get an SNP majority in May but get a UK PM Starmer in 2024 too
Well that's it chaps, we gave indepedence a good go but its game over. If there's no coffee left its not worth continuing to have sovereignty. Time to rejoin. Can we be back in by lunchtime tomorrow if that means we get a new delivery of coffee beans in time?
Reality:
https://twitter.com/shirkerism/status/1359807299762667521?s=21
Not impossible, but a pretty tough call, surely.
And by the time that happens, the blond punchbag will have long gone as. most likely, will Nicola.
https://twitter.com/seanbgoneill/status/1359518333536714757
I have mixed feelings about the SPS regime. As I said in the last thread in discussions with Philip Thompson, it should have been an easy one to sort and it was down to the idiocy of our own side being unwilling to make any concessions that it wasn't agreed.
But - and this is a serious point for me - as with veterinary and animal welfare standards, the UK is actually well ahead of the EU (a large in part because we are an island) and I am not sure we want to have mutual recognition which would lower our own standards, or at least the standards we accept of material coming in from outside the UK. A number of the diseases affecting our trees over the last couple of decades have been as the result of the importing of plant material from the EU for garden centres etc and although we have been able to put temporary, species limited bans in effect after the event that is always too late. What we have not been allowed to do is demand importers meet our own PS standards and have our own checks on plants in advance of an outbreak.
Of course this is a balance and it may be that as a country we decide that the economic benefits of the SPS regime are more important than the ability to stop importing diseases but I am not personally convinced of that and so don't think that SPS alignment is necessarily the unalloyed good thing people - including Richard in the thread header - make it out to be.
As a country, in dealing with Europeans, we tend to be weak pushovers until we snap, where a firmer attitude earlier would have saved us. Contrary to what many people think, we are often more assertive in dealing with the Americans, and can get more out of our relationship as a result.
That's a positivity rate of 0.4%, and the government's own estimate of the false positivity rate (link below) is 0.32% - frankly if these published figures are right, assymptomatic testing is borderline pointless.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-on-the-accuracy-of-lateral-flow-device-testing/evidence-summary-for-lateral-flow-devices-lfd-in-relation-to-care-homes
The low political calculation is that things probably have to get worse before enough people are going to be interested in making them better. The ways that could well happen are utterly predictable, and it would be nice to avoid them, but I don't think that is where the government or a large chunk of the country are.
So I can understand Starmer not going public on this for a bit. He'd better have someone working out what to say at the right moment, though.
[Usual disclaimers...]
Or does this person think that 37% in favour translates to an overwhelming majority viewpoint?
I missed that sleight of hand in my first reading.
#confused.
https://twitter.com/gordonguthrie/status/1359833120430817281?s=21
https://twitter.com/mgoldenmsp/status/1359805128472158209?s=20
So, products from a liberal social democracy with excellent human right, workers rights protection etc. 0%
Products made in coal fuelled slave camps. lots%
I think the Chinese would notice that........
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1359834361361805312?s=19
The numbers involved are nugatory either way when compared to the ludicrous scale of the testing going on. Mixing them in with the real testing numbers prevent any real analysis of the figures - you have posters on here celebrating a return to 2% positivity rate, but it now seems that has just been achieved by a massive ramp up of this noddy testing with as many false negatives and positives as correctly identified cases, and a decline in the volume of PCR.
As it does.
It was at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament that Ed Miliband's Labour Party led David Cameron's Tories by 6 points in the average of all the polls...
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1359826475835412484?s=19
I'm sure the result in Scotland will dominate the news, justifiably so, but I wonder if a strong showing by the Greens will be an important development to consider after the elections this May.
Unbelievable. How can we even think about having more than just a simple trading agreement with the EU.
This is a really interesting article re. UK and Japan. Fascinating to see such a swift switch in strategy away from China..
https://twitter.com/AntonSpisak/status/1359571994065444865?s=20
I am well aware that my proposal is "impossible" in diplomatic terms. Even considering it would probably kick off a trade war with China....
A triumph.
We then have a trial following which Salmond is acquitted.
We then have an inquiry into how the government lost the JR.
We have threats from Crown Office, whose prosecution had failed, to Salmond to stop him giving evidence. They also threaten the Committee who say they won't publish the affidavit evidence. The Spectator does publish it and Crown Office are now seeking to prosecute them. Crown Office are also prosecuting another journalist who reported on the trial. An earlier prosecution of a different journalist has been dismissed on the basis that there was no case to answer.
Has someone here lost the plot or what? The affidavits are about the JR procedure and the utter incompetence of the investigation. They are not about the trial. They do not name witnesses relevant to the sexual complainants at the trial. I am genuinely lost.
The gas issue has been going on since long before the Wall fell. Russian gas pipelines to Europe have a long history...
If that's what they're prepared to do to one of their own its really concerning about what could happen to a "dissident". This isn't civilised.
Who is listening outside PB? I'd vote for them but I reckon neither main party is in the market for these ideas just yet. Starmer might just move in that direction but not much sign of it yet.
Boris will follow the herd, but it isn't yet clear which herd.
But China overlooked one thing: The U.K. had already left the EU and was heading to Asia, China's own backyard.
And we do not agree on Independence, but then my family have deep ties to our Scottish family and the union
There have been occasional discussions of whether or not the Greens' time has come at intervals since the 1980s. The reality is that they're a fringe far-left party (basically peddling something like Corbynism, minus much of the foreign policy baggage but plus a deliberate drive to end economic growth) that's mainly of interest to the most eco-conscious segment of the electorate.
A party that appeals to a thinly spread cohort like that which cannot give it an advantage in any single constituency (Brighton Pavilion being a unique exception, which may very well revert to Labour in any case whenever Dr Lucas decides to retire) leaves the Greens with very little hope under the present electoral system. For the record, their number one target in terms of swing required to capture is Bristol West, which is currently held by Labour with in excess of a 28,000 majority.
PR is essential if the Greens are ever to prosper - otherwise their only relevance is that they may be a net drain on Labour and Lib Dem vote shares (and that's only the case if we assume that none of the Green vote are actually right-of-centre people, registering a symbolic protest about the state of the planet as distinct from endorsing any of the Greens' solutions, who might otherwise revert to the Tories if the Greens didn't exist.)
https://twitter.com/adambalfourlang/status/1359609700292186121?s=21
https://twitter.com/marcuscarslaw1/status/1359839830272802821?s=21
Plus its a bit of bouncing around at numbers that we're familiar with for years now.
There's no evidence yet of a nationalist collapse happening. I would imagine the SNP would be quite satisfied, not upset, to get 54% of the FPTP vote in May.