We are unilaterally doing transitions that suit us.
If the EU don't want to do the same transitions that is their choice.
We have taken back control of our decisions. Good.
We are unilaterally postponing a little of the disaster our government has led us into. Unfortunately, we can't 'take back control' of the other parts of the disaster. It is, as you say, entirely the EU's affair how they manage their borders, and they certainly don't owe us any favours. Indeed, as a rules-based organisation, they don't have much leeway to go beyond the letter of the various treaties.
How on earth, how in the name of haven, can you seriously not be appalled by this clusterfuck? The very same clusterfuck every sane observer warned of. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that we needed at least six months, or preferably even longer, between the trade agreement text being available, and implementing it. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that the computer systems weren't there, the forms not printed, the regulations not specified in detail, etc etc. We were insulted for pointing out these indisputable facts, and the government blundered in with giving business about eight days, over the Christmas period, in the middle of a pandemic, to prepare.
This is, by a country mile, the very worst government we have had since at least the second world war. Just staggering inept and ideologically bonkers. Even in their own terms, even if you accept the highly dubious argument that Brexit will be good in the long term, there is no possible excuse for the catastrophic implementation. If we'd wanted a twelve month implementation period - which we should have wanted - we should have negotiated one, not blundered into chaos and then retrospectively half-bake a partially mitigating fudge.
I think you're getting worked up about ......not a lot.
We are unilaterally doing transitions that suit us.
If the EU don't want to do the same transitions that is their choice.
We have taken back control of our decisions. Good.
We are unilaterally postponing a little of the disaster our government has led us into. Unfortunately, we can't 'take back control' of the other parts of the disaster. It is, as you say, entirely the EU's affair how they manage their borders, and they certainly don't owe us any favours. Indeed, as a rules-based organisation, they don't have much leeway to go beyond the letter of the various treaties.
How on earth, how in the name of haven, can you seriously not be appalled by this clusterfuck? The very same clusterfuck every sane observer warned of. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that we needed at least six months, or preferably even longer, between the trade agreement text being available, and implementing it. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that the computer systems weren't there, the forms not printed, the regulations not specified in detail, etc etc. We were insulted for pointing out these indisputable facts, and the government blundered in with giving business about eight days, over the Christmas period, in the middle of a pandemic, to prepare.
This is, by a country mile, the very worst government we have had since at least the second world war. Just staggering inept and ideologically bonkers. Even in their own terms, even if you accept the highly dubious argument that Brexit will be good in the long term, there is no possible excuse for the catastrophic implementation. If we'd wanted a twelve month implementation period - which we should have wanted - we should have negotiated one, not blundered into chaos and then retrospectively half-bake a partially mitigating fudge.
I think you're getting worked up about ......not a lot.
Certainly I'm worked up. So I should be. So should everyone else, most especially Brexit supporters, who are seeing exactly how chaotic the implementation is. It didn't have to be done so incompetently.
Isn't today the day we expect a serious surge in UK vax, or it the weekend, or next Monday?
The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
So far our performance this month has been a bit disappointing. Hopefully the second half will be better. My wife got her letter today because she is much, much older than me (well, 1 year) but at 59 I have still got nothing. It's frustrating.
She looks much younger of course, and far more attractive. *looks around nervously*
REPOST
On the 3rd of March the following letter was sent out -
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
The reporting we get is 2 days behind.
So the surge in vaccine availability will probably be reported on the 13th - 2 days from now.....
LOL
Right on cue
My interpretation of the dates in the letter is that it will be the numbers reported on the 17th that show the increased supply reaching people's arms.
Nearer the start of April than the start of 'Mega March'.
Just under half of March will be nearer to the start of April than the start of March, so a bit of a meaningless criticism.
It will be in time to keep up the pace on first doses while doing all the second doses.
Indeed, if it is delivered. As @Leon rightly says, there has been some subtle shuffling of the goalposts by the government. Let's hope they make up for the sluggish start.
They said there would be bumper days in March.
The letter sets out when the vaccines will arrive.
I think the rest is just impatience. The supply chain is long enough that what will happen for the next month in terms of actual vaccinations is now "written".
It is shockingly low, but I suppose the question needs to be asked whether they pose a risk to residents who are now vaccinated? If they do, they should consider their positions
There was a case yesterday reported in Andalucia of a resident who'd been twice Pfizered who'd contracted Covid. Unclear from who or whether the illness was serious. However, I guess it shows a risk.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
We are unilaterally doing transitions that suit us.
If the EU don't want to do the same transitions that is their choice.
We have taken back control of our decisions. Good.
So what happens when all the UK's non-EU trading partners start asking why the rules that are applied to them aren't being applied to the EU as well?
It is shockingly low, but I suppose the question needs to be asked whether they pose a risk to residents who are now vaccinated? If they do, they should consider their positions
There was a case yesterday reported in Andalucia of a resident who'd been twice Pfizered who'd contracted Covid. Unclear from who or whether the illness was serious. However, I guess it shows a risk.
Isn't today the day we expect a serious surge in UK vax, or it the weekend, or next Monday?
The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
So far our performance this month has been a bit disappointing. Hopefully the second half will be better. My wife got her letter today because she is much, much older than me (well, 1 year) but at 59 I have still got nothing. It's frustrating.
She looks much younger of course, and far more attractive. *looks around nervously*
REPOST
On the 3rd of March the following letter was sent out -
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
The reporting we get is 2 days behind.
So the surge in vaccine availability will probably be reported on the 13th - 2 days from now.....
LOL
Right on cue
My interpretation of the dates in the letter is that it will be the numbers reported on the 17th that show the increased supply reaching people's arms.
Nearer the start of April than the start of 'Mega March'.
Just under half of March will be nearer to the start of April than the start of March, so a bit of a meaningless criticism.
It will be in time to keep up the pace on first doses while doing all the second doses.
Indeed, if it is delivered. As @Leon rightly says, there has been some subtle shuffling of the goalposts by the government. Let's hope they make up for the sluggish start.
They said there would be bumper days in March.
The letter sets out when the vaccines will arrive.
I think the rest is just impatience. The supply chain is long enough that what will happen for the next month in terms of actual vaccinations is now "written".
March isn't terrible, just not as good as February was (Thus far)
Isn't today the day we expect a serious surge in UK vax, or it the weekend, or next Monday?
The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
So far our performance this month has been a bit disappointing. Hopefully the second half will be better. My wife got her letter today because she is much, much older than me (well, 1 year) but at 59 I have still got nothing. It's frustrating.
She looks much younger of course, and far more attractive. *looks around nervously*
REPOST
On the 3rd of March the following letter was sent out -
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
The reporting we get is 2 days behind.
So the surge in vaccine availability will probably be reported on the 13th - 2 days from now.....
LOL
Right on cue
My interpretation of the dates in the letter is that it will be the numbers reported on the 17th that show the increased supply reaching people's arms.
Nearer the start of April than the start of 'Mega March'.
Just under half of March will be nearer to the start of April than the start of March, so a bit of a meaningless criticism.
It will be in time to keep up the pace on first doses while doing all the second doses.
Indeed, if it is delivered. As @Leon rightly says, there has been some subtle shuffling of the goalposts by the government. Let's hope they make up for the sluggish start.
They said there would be bumper days in March.
The letter sets out when the vaccines will arrive.
I think the rest is just impatience. The supply chain is long enough that what will happen for the next month in terms of actual vaccinations is now "written".
It is shockingly low, but I suppose the question needs to be asked whether they pose a risk to residents who are now vaccinated? If they do, they should consider their positions
There was a case yesterday reported in Andalucia of a resident who'd been twice Pfizered who'd contracted Covid. Unclear from who or whether the illness was serious. However, I guess it shows a risk.
It won't prevent all infections. The hope is that it prevents severe infection for almost all people. I know of people in the UK who have contracted it four weeks after the first dose - both cases were mild (certainly not needing hospital).
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed straightaway.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
How you can look at the last few weeks absolute cringing, malignant idiocy from the EU and not say there has been a massive Brexit benefit is beyond me. Clearly you have become utterly deranged in your wish to see Brexit shamed if the EU's current behaviour has not changed your view.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Its true that the Yorkshire ripper enquiry was very poor. Sutcliffe was interviewed on multiple occasions. Its also true that he would have been caught far faster today as we have so much better resources (cross linked reports on the computer, DNA, CCTV everywhere, ANPR). Its easy to criticise the investigation, but policing was different then too.
So were attitudes towards certain types of women. Shamefully so.
At Sutcliffe's trial, prosecutor Sir Michael Havers, then attorney general, said: "Some were prostitutes but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women."
I am astonished that that could be said in my lifetime.
Father of Nigel Havers
It would not surprise me if there still some jurisdictions where prostitutes are deemed incapable of being raped.
There are still scores of countries where maritial rape is not a criminal offence. The dates when it became a criminal offence are recent even in many western jurisdictions.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed straightaway.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
How you can look at the last few weeks absolute cringing, malignant idiocy from the EU and not say there has been a massive Brexit benefit is beyond me. Clearly you have become utterly deranged in your wish to see Brexit shamed if the EU's current behaviour has not changed your view.
Even I would never have expected the leadership of the EU to have been acted in a matter so unhinged as they have done, in recent weeks.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed straightaway.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
How you can look at the last few weeks absolute cringing, malignant idiocy from the EU and not say there has been a massive Brexit benefit is beyond me. Clearly you have become utterly deranged in your wish to see Brexit shamed if the EU's current behaviour has not changed your view.
Even I would never have expected the leadership of the EU to have been acted in a matter so unhinged as they have done, in recent weeks.
"Senior MEP" Peter Liese is calling for a strict EU export ban unless the UK starts exporting AstraZeneca to them.
Racists have a long history of denying being racists.
So do non racists.
Most non-racists don't find themselves in situations where they have to deny being a racist.
That seems to imply we should presume someone accused of racism is racist as a matter of course. No smoke without fire I guess.
Good thing presuming innocence is only for courts of law.
Obviously racists deny being racist, which at least shows they know being racist is bad. But it's hardly controversial to note that people besides racists would deny it too, should it come up. I dont believe that is seriously contested.
It is shockingly low, but I suppose the question needs to be asked whether they pose a risk to residents who are now vaccinated? If they do, they should consider their positions
There was a case yesterday reported in Andalucia of a resident who'd been twice Pfizered who'd contracted Covid. Unclear from who or whether the illness was serious. However, I guess it shows a risk.
It is going to happen. Everyone's immune systems are different. There was a more recent case of an outbreak in an Israeli care home where a good number of them were infected after their Pfizer second dose but none of them showed any symptoms at all.
I think the claim that J&J were supposed to be ready to deliver as soon as approval by the EHA came through may well be a lie - just as was done with AZ.
If I recall, the delivery schedule that UVDL was flourishing back in mid-Feb identified the expected date as Q2.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed straightaway.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
How you can look at the last few weeks absolute cringing, malignant idiocy from the EU and not say there has been a massive Brexit benefit is beyond me. Clearly you have become utterly deranged in your wish to see Brexit shamed if the EU's current behaviour has not changed your view.
Don't be silly. Yes, of course some EU politicians, especially Ursula von der Leyen, have been idiotic over their vaccines cock-up. There's no excuse for that. Politicians, in all countries, often are, especially when as in this case they've cocked up and are trying to blame someone else.
This, however, is irrelevant to the question of what is in the UK's interests, or whether we should have negotiated a transition period. I'm not defending Ursula von der Leyen, I'm attacking the fact that our British PM is so mind-blowingly incompetent, or, more likely, worse - I don't believe he's so stupid that he doesn't understand the disaster, so it must follow that he simply doesn't care.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed straightaway.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
How you can look at the last few weeks absolute cringing, malignant idiocy from the EU and not say there has been a massive Brexit benefit is beyond me. Clearly you have become utterly deranged in your wish to see Brexit shamed if the EU's current behaviour has not changed your view.
Even I would never have expected the leadership of the EU to have been acted in a matter so unhinged as they have done, in recent weeks.
"Senior MEP" Peter Liese is calling for a strict EU export ban unless the UK starts exporting AstraZeneca to them.
According to Comical Dave, Peter Liese said that he 'wants the EU to get tough with Joe Biden' (!)
Now Joe Biden may be a million years old, but the idea of some EU functionaries 'getting tough' with the President of the United States is not likely to end well for them...
I think the claim that J&J were supposed to be ready to deliver as soon as approval by the EHA came through may well be a lie - just as was done with AZ.
If I recall, the delivery schedule that UVDL was flourishing back in mid-Feb identified the expected date as Q2.
Here you go. Senior EU source saying that if all goes well J&J doses *may* be available in *April*, and Stella Kyriakides saying that she cannot commit.
It is shockingly low, but I suppose the question needs to be asked whether they pose a risk to residents who are now vaccinated? If they do, they should consider their positions
There was a case yesterday reported in Andalucia of a resident who'd been twice Pfizered who'd contracted Covid. Unclear from who or whether the illness was serious. However, I guess it shows a risk.
It won't prevent all infections. The hope is that it prevents severe infection for almost all people. I know of people in the UK who have contracted it four weeks after the first dose - both cases were mild (certainly not needing hospital).
Of course - but here in Spain these things are all over FB - even from otherwise sane Spanish friends. It's the kind of lunacy that shows no appreciation of relative risk.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Its true that the Yorkshire ripper enquiry was very poor. Sutcliffe was interviewed on multiple occasions. Its also true that he would have been caught far faster today as we have so much better resources (cross linked reports on the computer, DNA, CCTV everywhere, ANPR). Its easy to criticise the investigation, but policing was different then too.
So were attitudes towards certain types of women. Shamefully so.
At Sutcliffe's trial, prosecutor Sir Michael Havers, then attorney general, said: "Some were prostitutes but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women."
I am astonished that that could be said in my lifetime.
If you did an anonymous opinion poll today and asked people whether they thought being a prostitute was a respectable thing to do/be, what would the results be? Hopefully people have different attitudes today. Maybe that word is not acceptable today in itself.
The test isn't difficult: Would someone be pleased about their own child/sibling/grandchild/partner adopting such a career. Is it worthy of respect in such a way that people would talk about it like they would talk about a family member getting an apprenticeship, going to higher education, getting a job and so on.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed straightaway.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
How you can look at the last few weeks absolute cringing, malignant idiocy from the EU and not say there has been a massive Brexit benefit is beyond me. Clearly you have become utterly deranged in your wish to see Brexit shamed if the EU's current behaviour has not changed your view.
Richard, just for the record, I am not in favour of the UK rejoining, but it won't stop me pointing out the ridiculous pointlessness of Brexit. The EU commission has behaved stupidly over the vaccines, absolutely; their stupidity is of such magnitude it makes them look almost as daft as our PM, undoubtedly, and his is a hard act to follow.
This does not automatically make Brexit that is otherwise economically imbecilic worthwhile in the British short medium or long term interest. To claim so is laughable. The UK would have almost certainly have done its own thing on vaccines even if Cameron were still PM and we were still a truculent member of the EU club.
Very much looking forward to the Covid lockdown ending so that women can go out all night while men have stay at home from 6pm. To stop me from doing something I have never engaged in my entire life - being a sex pest. Or in any way being a threat to women, however paranoid the delusion. I am in that great majority of men that have been brought up to be respectful to women and not to invade their personal space without a clear and unambiguous invitation. Have I missed lots of sex as a result? Possibly. But I can live with that.
Anyway, the headlines would suggest restricting the curfew to politicians and footballers cures much of the problem.
Oh do stop whingeing. So you're not a sex pest. Great. But welcome to women's world. We have always had our lives restricted and limited not because of our own failings or crimes or pestilential behaviour but because of others. We have been blamed when men have been sex pests - for wearing the wrong things or being out too late or not behaving in a womanly way, whatever that means. And even when we haven't been blamed we've been the ones told to stay at home or limit what we do or get help. The thought of asking men to change their behaviour, to behave decently, to call out those who don't instead of tolerating it or admiring it or seeing it as boys being a bit laddish but hey he's my president / favourite footballer or whatever never seems to occur to those so quick to tell women how to behave.
Now the moment men are asked to limit themselves so that women can go around freely and not in fear apparently it's some sort of outrage and unfair. Well of course it is. But it's been happening to us for centuries and, frankly, we're sick of hearing your complaints at something you barely experience when you were more than happy to dish it out to us. So, you know, a bit less of the outrage and a bit more focus on improving male behaviour towards women would not go amiss.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Its true that the Yorkshire ripper enquiry was very poor. Sutcliffe was interviewed on multiple occasions. Its also true that he would have been caught far faster today as we have so much better resources (cross linked reports on the computer, DNA, CCTV everywhere, ANPR). Its easy to criticise the investigation, but policing was different then too.
So were attitudes towards certain types of women. Shamefully so.
At Sutcliffe's trial, prosecutor Sir Michael Havers, then attorney general, said: "Some were prostitutes but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women."
I am astonished that that could be said in my lifetime.
Father of Nigel Havers
Just watched him in Finding Alice. Nice little performance. He was probably my favourite character. Bit disappointed with the show as a whole though. The mix of comedy and pathos didn't quite work for me. And I will risk causing shock and surprise by saying that what also didn't quite work for me was how they crowbarred in every minority grouping under the sun for what seemed to me to be little other than virtue-signalling reasons.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Its true that the Yorkshire ripper enquiry was very poor. Sutcliffe was interviewed on multiple occasions. Its also true that he would have been caught far faster today as we have so much better resources (cross linked reports on the computer, DNA, CCTV everywhere, ANPR). Its easy to criticise the investigation, but policing was different then too.
So were attitudes towards certain types of women. Shamefully so.
At Sutcliffe's trial, prosecutor Sir Michael Havers, then attorney general, said: "Some were prostitutes but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women."
I am astonished that that could be said in my lifetime.
Father of Nigel Havers
Just watched him in Finding Alice. Nice little performance. He was probably my favourite character. Bit disappointed with the show as a whole though. The mix of comedy and pathos didn't quite work for me. And I will risk causing shock and surprise by saying that what also didn't quite work for me was how they crowbarred in every minority grouping under the sun for what seemed to me to be little other than virtue-signalling reasons.
We are unilaterally doing transitions that suit us.
If the EU don't want to do the same transitions that is their choice.
We have taken back control of our decisions. Good.
We are unilaterally postponing a little of the disaster our government has led us into. Unfortunately, we can't 'take back control' of the other parts of the disaster. It is, as you say, entirely the EU's affair how they manage their borders, and they certainly don't owe us any favours. Indeed, as a rules-based organisation, they don't have much leeway to go beyond the letter of the various treaties.
How on earth, how in the name of haven, can you seriously not be appalled by this clusterfuck? The very same clusterfuck every sane observer warned of. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that we needed at least six months, or preferably even longer, between the trade agreement text being available, and implementing it. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that the computer systems weren't there, the forms not printed, the regulations not specified in detail, etc etc. We were insulted for pointing out these indisputable facts, and the government blundered in with giving business about eight days, over the Christmas period, in the middle of a pandemic, to prepare.
This is, by a country mile, the very worst government we have had since at least the second world war. Just staggering inept and ideologically bonkers. Even in their own terms, even if you accept the highly dubious argument that Brexit will be good in the long term, there is no possible excuse for the catastrophic implementation. If we'd wanted a twelve month implementation period - which we should have wanted - we should have negotiated one, not blundered into chaos and then retrospectively half-bake a partially mitigating fudge.
I think you're getting worked up about ......not a lot.
Certainly I'm worked up. So I should be. So should everyone else, most especially Brexit supporters, who are seeing exactly how chaotic the implementation is. It didn't have to be done so incompetently.
Johnson just wanted his Christmas Eve headlines. Last minute deal magicked up in a climate of fearful expectation of No Deal and "WTO". This required chaos and brinkmanship and furious spin rather the sort of approach that might have led to a smooth implementation of whatever was agreed. It was bang on brand for him.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed straightaway.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
How you can look at the last few weeks absolute cringing, malignant idiocy from the EU and not say there has been a massive Brexit benefit is beyond me. Clearly you have become utterly deranged in your wish to see Brexit shamed if the EU's current behaviour has not changed your view.
Richard, just for the record, I am not in favour of the UK rejoining, but it won't stop me pointing out the ridiculous pointlessness of Brexit. The EU commission has behaved stupidly over the vaccines, absolutely; their stupidity is of such magnitude it makes them look almost as daft as our PM, undoubtedly, and his is a hard act to follow.
This does not automatically make Brexit that is otherwise economically imbecilic worthwhile in the British short medium or long term interest. To claim so is laughable. The UK would have almost certainly have done its own thing on vaccines even if Cameron were still PM and we were still a truculent member of the EU club.
Agree with most of that except the last phrase. We almost certainly would have fallen in line with Germany, France, Spain and Italy on the vaccine policy were we still in the EU. I accept we would have had the theoretical option to go our own way even within the EU, but in practical politics, I think that wiggle room was close to 0%
Comments
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1370019871489101828
The letter sets out when the vaccines will arrive.
I think the rest is just impatience. The supply chain is long enough that what will happen for the next month in terms of actual vaccinations is now "written".
Daily averages.
Mar 331395
Feb 403596
Jan 138087
Dec 51216
But, he's besotted with her and wants to please her, so he did.
There are still scores of countries where maritial rape is not a criminal offence. The dates when it became a criminal offence are recent even in many western jurisdictions.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1369925156383117312?s=19
https://twitter.com/LukeSmithF1/status/1370027914104770561
Good thing presuming innocence is only for courts of law.
Obviously racists deny being racist, which at least shows they know being racist is bad. But it's hardly controversial to note that people besides racists would deny it too, should it come up. I dont believe that is seriously contested.
If I recall, the delivery schedule that UVDL was flourishing back in mid-Feb identified the expected date as Q2.
This, however, is irrelevant to the question of what is in the UK's interests, or whether we should have negotiated a transition period. I'm not defending Ursula von der Leyen, I'm attacking the fact that our British PM is so mind-blowingly incompetent, or, more likely, worse - I don't believe he's so stupid that he doesn't understand the disaster, so it must follow that he simply doesn't care.
Now Joe Biden may be a million years old, but the idea of some EU functionaries 'getting tough' with the President of the United States is not likely to end well for them...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccine-eu-johnson-idUSKBN29I1EM
Obligation to start immediately my arse.
This does not automatically make Brexit that is otherwise economically imbecilic worthwhile in the British short medium or long term interest. To claim so is laughable. The UK would have almost certainly have done its own thing on vaccines even if Cameron were still PM and we were still a truculent member of the EU club.
Now the moment men are asked to limit themselves so that women can go around freely and not in fear apparently it's some sort of outrage and unfair. Well of course it is. But it's been happening to us for centuries and, frankly, we're sick of hearing your complaints at something you barely experience when you were more than happy to dish it out to us. So, you know, a bit less of the outrage and a bit more focus on improving male behaviour towards women would not go amiss.