If Neil can get an interview or two like this, a minister or opponent every week going forward, his programme (and his new channel) will add an awful lot of positives to the political discourse.
BoZo chickened out of being interviewed by Neil last time. No way he will do it.
Rishi's motives are unclear. Maybe he thought it was low risk given the viewing figures.
Rishi was best man to James Forsyth of the Speccie, of which Andy Neil is chairman. No doubt that was how it was arranged. It was also an interview that stuck squarely on the narrow brief of fiscal responsibility, with no tricks of curveballs. Nothing in there about the controversial elements of unlockdown and none of the tittle tattle about Cummings and Hancock, do you want to be PM etc… that we are used to getting from Marr and Kuensburg.
I have no idea why people are so obsessed with wanting this channel to fail, I don’t watch much current affairs but seemed a vast improvement on what I have seen in recent years. Give the politicians a chance to speak in detail about their brief and how they think about things. Sunak did ok but I think he was caught out hiding a few times, when the format actually allowed him to be a bit clearer and explain his thinking without being jumped on.
Any thought on the Australia trade deal? Will British farmers be protected from cheap Aussie imports or are Midwestern farmers thinking.. . "ah yes well have some of that as well please"?
The whole thing is a very minor footnote in our global trade, one way or the other. Looking at the actual product flows involved I don't see any evidence the UK market will be flooded and undermined by vast amounts of Australian agri imports, nor do I think the deal will benefit the UK on exports in any meaningful way. As you allude to, its most powerful impact is probably as a precedent for others.
I think it is inconsistent to simultaneously complain the Australia FTA is meaningless and that it is a terrible threat.
My view FWIW is that an Australia FTA is a good thing to do. UK interests haven't been competently pursued by Liz Truss. This may be a minor deal, but you should do things properly. The big issues are in Europe, the UK doesn't have a coherent Europe policy, it has lost 20% of its Europe trade and 10% of its total trade in the few months since Brexit, and there are big problems in Northern Ireland. Let's focus on what matters.
IMO those 20% and 10% numbers just can't be judged until both Brexit and COVID circumstances have stabilised.
Rather like the "plague island killing all those people" looks very different now to how it looked 12 months ago.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
The government got rather lucky in that regard. If there were no pandemic, politics this year would be very different, with daily headlines about brexit-related difficulties and teething problems.
I am not sure keeping the borders open to India because the PM wanted a trade deal necessarily made any difference to our case rate now, but the PM's apparent reason for doing so is outrageous.
What I don't get, as someone who has largely followed all the guidelines since this thing has started is how do 20000 people all justify "essential travel" to India ffs! That really does make me pretty angry.
Elderly sick relatives? Remember travel was probably booked well before this took off - and 20,000 is just over 1% of the Indian diaspora in the UK. Yes, some may have been on "a jolly" - but many could have had perfectly reasonable reasons for travel.
We were under lockdown, visiting the sick or relatives was supposed to be against the law. Especially if the sick you were visiting were sick because they had Covid.
That's one of the cruellest tragedies of the pandemic, not being allowed to see loved ones and not being able to say goodbye. So no, that wasn't or shouldn't have been essential overseas travel.
I am not sure keeping the borders open to India because the PM wanted a trade deal necessarily made any difference to our case rate now, but the PM's apparent reason for doing so is outrageous.
What I don't get, as someone who has largely followed all the guidelines since this thing has started is how do 20000 people all justify "essential travel" to India ffs! That really does make me pretty angry.
Elderly sick relatives? Remember travel was probably booked well before this took off - and 20,000 is just over 1% of the Indian diaspora in the UK. Yes, some may have been on "a jolly" - but many could have had perfectly reasonable reasons for travel.
I still don't buy that. There are many people (including someone close to me) who have lost relatives home and abroad who have not been able to visit them. The criteria were not tight enough. It would be interesting to know how easy it would be for an Australian to visit a sick relative in India in the same time period.
Regardless of any other merit, the Sunak interview got GB News into the papers, which was probably its main aim.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 8h This is the most uncomfortable I’ve seen Rishi Sunak in quite a while.
Sunak fans ould pause and watch the clip Dan Hodges has there. Looking well under pressure over £10K bill for new boilers for every family.
As Sunak says, what £10k bill? He rightly pointed out that (a) "costs" always get balanced against "opportunity" and whatever the cost is now won't be the cost by the time they are rolling it out.
Isn't the problem with retrofitting heat pumps that the radiators need to be replaced by bigger ones too, because of the lower operating temperature of the system?
So, opportunity - British design and manufacturing of all these new pumps and radiators, British installation of them. Which will generate a bucket load of money for the economy.
Neil is a dinosaur, asking the tired "how much will it cost" question not interested in "how much will it save" and "how much will doing nothing cost".
The majority of voters, especially the working classes and the Red Wall, care very much about the cost.
It’s also fair to ask why the British consumer is being asked to contribute so much, when the same isn’t true of much larger countries such as the US and China.
Having spent 15 years in a red wall WC town I am aware of this. "We can't afford it" has been drilled into them by opportunistic Tories to destroy Labour as the party who wastes money. Job done, the red wall is blue. Now then, we need to hose the blue wall with money. But "we can't afford it" and "how much will it cost".
I've had punters arguing on Facebook against spending money regenerating their own high street. The more the regen progresses and the more it gets lauded by experts as the model for other towns the more they shriek about the costs.
We either invest in stuff or we stay broken and crap. There is no £10k per household bill and the people asking the question know this. As for "why us and not China" we don't live in China. Our kids don't go to school in China. People have benefited massively from various clean air measures yet so many of our kids still go to schools where they breathe polluted air. Time to do more for their sake and let China do their own thing.
I do sometimes wonder whether a form of self-hatred or Stockholm syndrome has taken over with elements of the English working class. It's like they don't think they deserve any better. Even Brexit - touted as the second peasants' revolt by folk on here, seems to be more about hurting other people (foreigners, Londoners, the 'metropolitan elite') than anything else.
I suspect a lot of them want "higher wages" and by removing a pool of cheap accessible labour from the market they may very well get them.
And people think they're thick....
Yes, indeed they ARE getting them. Wages for the C2s and Ds have risen in a way not seen in the last 20 years.
It's so simple, and has happened time and time again in British history. When there are fewer people to do the skilled labour and/or the grunt work, the wages commanded for that work increase and the lot of those workers improves.
There has been a lot of magical thinking in my lifetime that immigration makes us richer and to say otherwise is somehow taboo. It increases our GDP, sure, because there are more of us. And if you're trying to employ someone you can do it more cheaply. I remember a geography GCSE question in which I was invited to discuss the benefits to the UK of immigration - the drawbacks weren't to be mentioned. But in reality it doesn't do a lot for most individual Britons.
Wages are higher in certain sectors because of a shortage of labour. Thats only partially due to "forriners go home" Brexit effects - the logistics industry is suffering because of IR35 just as much.
The harsh light of day for the British worker is that there are a stack of jobs they just don't want to do. We had to open the door to EU staff in the first place because locals don't want to clean offices or serve coffee or look after the elderly or work in a factory.
Now that some EU workers have left there is a shortage which is driving wages higher - but isn't filling the shortages because people still don't want those jobs.
Living on the backs of cheap EU labour is over, and in the end the pay will have to increase to attract the workers
I think the government will have to come up with immigration schemes for care workers. They have a delivery obligation. Wages will find their own levels elsewhere in the economy. ie GDP will contract in relative terms, to match. Some wages will go up and some will go down, but likely better terms for the low paid at the expense of fewer higher paid jobs. Which may be a desirable thing...
Or how about they just pay care workers more than minimum wage?
Care workers looking after the vulnerable for 12 hours a day, wiping people's bums and dealing with dementia, incontinence, and generally tough work . . . how is it that is a minimum wage job earning less than what eg a waiter earns? Since a waiter will get minimum wage plus tips.
Even pre-pandemic, pre-Brexit ~83% of care staff in the UK were British and half the non-British staff were not EU either so the notion we're reliant upon immigration to fill these roles has never been true. Pay a decent wage for these jobs and they'll get filled.
Many care workers are not actually paid by their employers, but by the state. By this I mean that there are quite a few care companies, whether residential or home care, which rely on contracts or similar from Government (including Local) contracts. So until we, the state, are prepared to pay more in taxes to fund such contracts, wages for the staff cannot rise.
Absolutely.
Though we don't expect others in the healthcare sector like nurses or doctors to work for minimum wage. There is some overlap between the duties of a nurse and the duties of care workers, but the latter are working for minimum wage while the former are getting roughly twice as much.
Putting care staff on £12 per hour for instance would give them a 20% pay rise, make the job even more attractive for people in other sectors working minimum wage - and still leave care workers earning a fraction of others in the healthcare sector.
NHS Healthcare Assistants start on around 18k a year rising to 20k, which is probably the better comparison as nurses are required to have a nursing degree. That is £9 to £10.50 per hour (1950 hour year minus hols).
Generally agree with pushing up the wages by a chunk, but we need the politicians to get off their backsides and come up with a policy. I'm one for "implement Dilnot" and rejig inheritance and property taxes to pay for it.
Just under a million Romanians and a million Poles have chosen to obtain settled status, amongst others, which suggests that the alleged exodus is perhaps a little overdone.
Unfortunately, that requires a government who can either build bridges to get the opposition on board, or has the courage to take the inevitable short-term political hit. Preferably both.
Now look at the current occupant of No 10.
Even at current pay rates, social care is already heading for "reluctant Turkish stepmom" territory. (i.e. like you-know-what and the other you-know-what but combined.)
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
They seem untouchable, some institutions. Token words and superficial actions, and little done against individuals. It's remarkable more people are not angry about such things.
We have an increasingly untouchable establishment for all the bullshit of the Brexiteers; it has just shifted slightly, and in reality to a more entrenched and traditional form. That said I don't have a problem with "The Establishment" per se myself, all countries have them, but I have a major problem with them being unaccountable.
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
I missed it last night, too. I agree completely. Sir Ian Blair getting airtime yesterday to defend her as "the outstanding officer of her generation", in between deeply unconvincing defences of his own record, incensed me.
It's "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" syndrome. Very common in the police and one reason why corruption arises. Discussed in the report. One reason why the police need an outsider with balls of steel to prise open this culture and let in cleansing sunlight.
Were it not for the requirement to have "balls of steel", I would have recommended your good self.
I am not sure keeping the borders open to India because the PM wanted a trade deal necessarily made any difference to our case rate now, but the PM's apparent reason for doing so is outrageous.
What I don't get, as someone who has largely followed all the guidelines since this thing has started is how do 20000 people all justify "essential travel" to India ffs! That really does make me pretty angry.
Elderly sick relatives? Remember travel was probably booked well before this took off - and 20,000 is just over 1% of the Indian diaspora in the UK. Yes, some may have been on "a jolly" - but many could have had perfectly reasonable reasons for travel.
I still don't buy that. There are many people (including someone close to me) who have lost relatives home and abroad who have not been able to visit them. The criteria were not tight enough. It would be interesting to know how easy it would be for an Australian to visit a sick relative in India in the same time period.
It would be illegal. Australians are barred from leaving the country.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
I think that's a bit unfair. Here's Thomas-Symonds (I can't find the full speech):
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
When Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the red list on the 9th of April India had a higher cases per million rate?
I'm not imagining that right? India was at like double of Pakistan?
On 31 March Pakistan had a test positivity rate of 10.6% and cases per million of 26.45 On 31 March India had a test positivity rate of 6.0% and 44.94 cases per million. On 31 March France had a test positivity rate of 7.3% and 562.57 cases per million.
What would your priority be for a red list from that data Alistair?
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
I rudely forgot to comment, Cyclefree, but I wholeheartedly agree - it was excellent.
But now we don't have to dilute sovereignty to get them here.
Great Stuart Rose interview with @ITVJoel about Brexit. “It’s not the end of the world, nobody’s going to die, it’s just not as much fun and it’s not as easy. And what have we got for it? Sovereignty. WelI, I’m not quite sure yet what sovereignty means.” He was underused in 2016 https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1403737198432768006
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
Which top trumps anything you will ever retweet.
Instead of which you've Boris Johnson.
I suppose having both in positions of authority is very 'unfortunate'!
Monumental difference: there is a mechanism for booting Boris out of his position of authority.
I am not sure keeping the borders open to India because the PM wanted a trade deal necessarily made any difference to our case rate now, but the PM's apparent reason for doing so is outrageous.
What I don't get, as someone who has largely followed all the guidelines since this thing has started is how do 20000 people all justify "essential travel" to India ffs! That really does make me pretty angry.
Elderly sick relatives? Remember travel was probably booked well before this took off - and 20,000 is just over 1% of the Indian diaspora in the UK. Yes, some may have been on "a jolly" - but many could have had perfectly reasonable reasons for travel.
I still don't buy that. There are many people (including someone close to me) who have lost relatives home and abroad who have not been able to visit them. The criteria were not tight enough. It would be interesting to know how easy it would be for an Australian to visit a sick relative in India in the same time period.
It would be illegal. Australians are barred from leaving the country.
If Neil can get an interview or two like this, a minister or opponent every week going forward, his programme (and his new channel) will add an awful lot of positives to the political discourse.
BoZo chickened out of being interviewed by Neil last time. No way he will do it.
Rishi's motives are unclear. Maybe he thought it was low risk given the viewing figures.
Rishi was best man to James Forsyth of the Speccie, of which Andy Neil is chairman. No doubt that was how it was arranged. It was also an interview that stuck squarely on the narrow brief of fiscal responsibility, with no tricks of curveballs. Nothing in there about the controversial elements of unlockdown and none of the tittle tattle about Cummings and Hancock, do you want to be PM etc… that we are used to getting from Marr and Kuensburg.
I have no idea why people are so obsessed with wanting this channel to fail, I don’t watch much current affairs but seemed a vast improvement on what I have seen in recent years. Give the politicians a chance to speak in detail about their brief and how they think about things. Sunak did ok but I think he was caught out hiding a few times, when the format actually allowed him to be a bit clearer and explain his thinking without being jumped on.
Funnily enough, I think GB News would be more of a threat to people like me on the left if it ditched quickly the anti-woke trivia and stuck to serious-minded analysis from a right-wing perspective. The rants of Dan Wootton, and segments such as "Woke Watch" and "Crown Duels" (anti-Harry/Megan and wokery, obviously), when I watched it did the channel no favours.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Most people don't know who Cressida Dick is; those who do think it's a London issue and also they aren't sure who is ultimately responsible (Patel, Khan, or nobody). Khan would be well placed to demand her resignation if he wished to. I don't think Starmer is.
Come off it! England's leading political officer accused of obstructing an inquiry and not knowing what corruption is. If it happens at the Met it is happening in other police forces too - and the report does damn other police forces.
If this is what the police are doing here, how can anyone have any confidence at all that the police are not obstructing or lying to or making inadequate disclosure to other courts, tribunals? How can we trust them? This goes to the heart of the criminal justice system. The government has talked endlessly about hiring more policemen and law and order. Well, none of that amounts to a hill of beans if those who are hired, those who are responsible for law and order are a load of lying, untrustworthy so-and-so's whose word means nothing.
A competent Opposition leader would be able to make something of this. Trouble is Starmer is simply not up to it.
Huge congratulations to @peter_daly. He was brave where others were cowards. His ability & commitment to provide the highest standard of legal representation to women who were being refused representation elsewhere was a game changer. Bloody well done.
Infection rates from Indian travellers were in the same region as Pakistan / Bangladesh before April 9.
Also, the number of variants being tracked as being introduced from India was significant. 50 versus 12 in Bangladesh and 6 in Pakistan.
At the time of red listing P & B, the government suggested it was based in the volume of variants.
Even at the time (April 9) it was a head scratcher as to why India was excluded, even though we did not have Delta as a VOC. (WHO had it as a VOI though).
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I am not sure keeping the borders open to India because the PM wanted a trade deal necessarily made any difference to our case rate now, but the PM's apparent reason for doing so is outrageous.
What I don't get, as someone who has largely followed all the guidelines since this thing has started is how do 20000 people all justify "essential travel" to India ffs! That really does make me pretty angry.
Elderly sick relatives? Remember travel was probably booked well before this took off - and 20,000 is just over 1% of the Indian diaspora in the UK. Yes, some may have been on "a jolly" - but many could have had perfectly reasonable reasons for travel.
Family visits. Natural enough. Sadly a gross error.
Any thought on the Australia trade deal? Will British farmers be protected from cheap Aussie imports or are Midwestern farmers thinking.. . "ah yes well have some of that as well please"?
The whole thing is a very minor footnote in our global trade, one way or the other. Looking at the actual product flows involved I don't see any evidence the UK market will be flooded and undermined by vast amounts of Australian agri imports, nor do I think the deal will benefit the UK on exports in any meaningful way. As you allude to, its most powerful impact is probably as a precedent for others.
I think it is inconsistent to simultaneously complain the Australia FTA is meaningless and that it is a terrible threat.
My view FWIW is that an Australia FTA is a good thing to do. UK interests haven't been competently pursued by Liz Truss. This may be a minor deal, but you should do things properly. The big issues are in Europe, the UK doesn't have a coherent Europe policy, it has lost 20% of its Europe trade and 10% of its total trade in the few months since Brexit, and there are big problems in Northern Ireland. Let's focus on what matters.
IMO those 20% and 10% numbers just can't be judged until both Brexit and COVID circumstances have stabilised.
Rather like the "plague island killing all those people" looks very different now to how it looked 12 months ago.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
There are several counterfactuals all pointing towards the same ca 20% fall in UK-EU trade. For example. UK imports and exports as a % of EU trade, that suddenly fell at the start of the year and only saw a partial rebound in February, static since. This can only be explained by Brexit, unless there is a specific reason why UK to EU trade should uniquely be affected by Covid, and not EU trade with other countries nor UK trade with RoW.
But agree that Covid usefully disguises the Brexit loss.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Most people don't know who Cressida Dick is; those who do think it's a London issue and also they aren't sure who is ultimately responsible (Patel, Khan, or nobody). Khan would be well placed to demand her resignation if he wished to. I don't think Starmer is.
Boris got Blair out.
It is not in Khan’s gift to fire Dick (that’s Patel), but he could be more vocal and say he simply has no faith in her.
I am not sure keeping the borders open to India because the PM wanted a trade deal necessarily made any difference to our case rate now, but the PM's apparent reason for doing so is outrageous.
What I don't get, as someone who has largely followed all the guidelines since this thing has started is how do 20000 people all justify "essential travel" to India ffs! That really does make me pretty angry.
Elderly sick relatives? Remember travel was probably booked well before this took off - and 20,000 is just over 1% of the Indian diaspora in the UK. Yes, some may have been on "a jolly" - but many could have had perfectly reasonable reasons for travel.
I still don't buy that. There are many people (including someone close to me) who have lost relatives home and abroad who have not been able to visit them. The criteria were not tight enough. It would be interesting to know how easy it would be for an Australian to visit a sick relative in India in the same time period.
Aussies still need exit permits, they pretty much have to have work abroad. The mandatory hotel quarantine on arrivals is also still in place with almost no exemptions given other than diplomats - they upset the professional tennis players, and F1 postponed the race there rather than quarantine themselves for a fortnight.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Very good piece, the sadly usual story of no accountability and failing upwards.
At the risk of sounding like Mr Eagles, we need a campaign to get Dick out now!
There are several themes quite obvious in this government.
Lack of accountability Mismanagement Petty corruption
Labour has not yet had the wit to crystallise them into clearly defined hammer blows as Blair did to Major.
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
I missed it last night, too. I agree completely. Sir Ian Blair getting airtime yesterday to defend her as "the outstanding officer of her generation", in between deeply unconvincing defences of his own record, incensed me.
It's "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" syndrome. Very common in the police and one reason why corruption arises. Discussed in the report. One reason why the police need an outsider with balls of steel to prise open this culture and let in cleansing sunlight.
Were it not for the requirement to have "balls of steel", I would have recommended your good self.
It's a figure of speech. (Though there is a good - if extremely rude - response to that which is too strong even for PB'ers)
On the whole - anecdotally and based on my experience - I think women are a load more courageous than men. We are - in so many professions - outsiders and that forces you to develop steel.
The problem is that people like Cressida Dick have to play the game to rise the ranks. Bolshie women who say it like it is get so far and no further.
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Lessons need to be learned.
Lessons have been learned, they're copying Britain. 👍
But now we don't have to dilute sovereignty to get them here.
Great Stuart Rose interview with @ITVJoel about Brexit. “It’s not the end of the world, nobody’s going to die, it’s just not as much fun and it’s not as easy. And what have we got for it? Sovereignty. WelI, I’m not quite sure yet what sovereignty means.” He was underused in 2016 https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1403737198432768006
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
Which top trumps anything you will ever retweet.
Instead of which you've Boris Johnson.
I suppose having both in positions of authority is very 'unfortunate'!
Monumental difference: there is a mechanism for booting Boris out of his position of authority.
If anyone can explain why it is in the national interest to have a mobility chapter in a trade deal with a country on the other side of the world covering these issues but not an equivalent chapter in the trade deal with our immediate neighbours, I’d be interested to hear it.https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1405450710330793984/photo/1
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Most people don't know who Cressida Dick is; those who do think it's a London issue and also they aren't sure who is ultimately responsible (Patel, Khan, or nobody). Khan would be well placed to demand her resignation if he wished to. I don't think Starmer is.
Everybody with a role in appointing Cressida Dick in place and keeping her there know who she is.
You need to look a little deeper into her political cover....
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Lessons need to be learned.
Does anyone know why we aren't opening up to the 12+ cohort? Are we likely to at any stage?
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Most people don't know who Cressida Dick is; those who do think it's a London issue and also they aren't sure who is ultimately responsible (Patel, Khan, or nobody). Khan would be well placed to demand her resignation if he wished to. I don't think Starmer is.
Everybody with a role in appointing Cressida Dick in place and keeping her there know who she is.
You need to look a little deeper into her political cover....
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Lessons need to be learned.
Does anyone know why we aren't opening up to the 12+ cohort? Are we likely to at any stage?
And for the next few weeks we know exactly where the vast majority of them are.........
If anyone can explain why it is in the national interest to have a mobility chapter in a trade deal with a country on the other side of the world covering these issues but not an equivalent chapter in the trade deal with our immediate neighbours, I’d be interested to hear it.https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1405450710330793984/photo/1
They can probably get away with it for Australians as it is so far away, it costs a lot to travel here and Australian gdp per capita is higher than UK gdp per capita so there is less incentive to come here.
If they did it for an Indian FTA though then there would be much more opposition I would expect as you would expect far more Indian workers to take advantage of it than Australian as Indian gdp per capita is significantly lower than ours
If anyone can explain why it is in the national interest to have a mobility chapter in a trade deal with a country on the other side of the world covering these issues but not an equivalent chapter in the trade deal with our immediate neighbours, I’d be interested to hear it.https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1405450710330793984/photo/1
Because the country in the other side of the world is the one that citizens of this country want to be mobile with.
Because the country in the other side of the world has more Britons there than the entirety of the European Union excluding Ireland (whom we have a common travel area with) combined.
Are you too incapable of understanding that Scott?
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
A chunk of the relative fall in GDP from my understanding comes from higher prices. If we are paying higher prices for the same the same thing without commensurate increases in income, we end up poorer.
A further point. Services trade is unlikely to less affected by Brexit than goods trade as it relies heavily on FoM and regulatory alignment.
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Lessons need to be learned.
Does anyone know why we aren't opening up to the 12+ cohort? Are we likely to at any stage?
Pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12+ in the UK, I’d have assumed they’ll move onto kids once the over-18s have been done. Maybe do at school in September?
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
If anyone can explain why it is in the national interest to have a mobility chapter in a trade deal with a country on the other side of the world covering these issues but not an equivalent chapter in the trade deal with our immediate neighbours, I’d be interested to hear it.https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1405450710330793984/photo/1
Because UK-AU mobility works both ways, isn’t undercutting wages and isn’t a drain on infrastructure and public services.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Wasn't it determined fairly recently that Texas, or any other of the United States of America, once joined, cannot leave.
I seem to recall, too, that sometime ago there was a war about it!
If Neil can get an interview or two like this, a minister or opponent every week going forward, his programme (and his new channel) will add an awful lot of positives to the political discourse.
BoZo chickened out of being interviewed by Neil last time. No way he will do it.
Rishi's motives are unclear. Maybe he thought it was low risk given the viewing figures.
Rishi was best man to James Forsyth of the Speccie, of which Andy Neil is chairman. No doubt that was how it was arranged. It was also an interview that stuck squarely on the narrow brief of fiscal responsibility, with no tricks of curveballs. Nothing in there about the controversial elements of unlockdown and none of the tittle tattle about Cummings and Hancock, do you want to be PM etc… that we are used to getting from Marr and Kuensburg.
I have no idea why people are so obsessed with wanting this channel to fail, I don’t watch much current affairs but seemed a vast improvement on what I have seen in recent years. Give the politicians a chance to speak in detail about their brief and how they think about things. Sunak did ok but I think he was caught out hiding a few times, when the format actually allowed him to be a bit clearer and explain his thinking without being jumped on.
Funnily enough, I think GB News would be more of a threat to people like me on the left if it ditched quickly the anti-woke trivia and stuck to serious-minded analysis from a right-wing perspective. The rants of Dan Wootton, and segments such as "Woke Watch" and "Crown Duels" (anti-Harry/Megan and wokery, obviously), when I watched it did the channel no favours.
Funnily enough, the man from the Guardian agrees with the man in Conservative Home who tried a similar enterprise as GB News. Nick Ferrari does this populist forces of reaction thing much more effectively.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Lessons need to be learned.
Does anyone know why we aren't opening up to the 12+ cohort? Are we likely to at any stage?
JCVI ultra-cautious about vaccination for children even though the MHRA think the benefits outweigh the risks. I got into a sub-debate on this yesterday about whether or not it's the child's or parent's decision - I don't take a particularly strong view on that but think if parental consent is given and the adolescent in question wants to be vaccinated then we should be doing it. The risks of long Covid are there for kids ( ~ 8% according to this) https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-14/long-covid-hubs-to-open-for-children-and-young-adults-in-england. Of course it shouldn't slow the adult rollout but with the 11 week default still being given between jabs and the adult cohort being exhausted for first jabs (And people being unable/unwilling /not realising they can change it) alongside the slowdown in first doses we'll run into a period of demand limitation in mid July I reckon...
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I don’t believe anyone ever predicted an immediate, 8% hit to GDP.
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
If anyone can explain why it is in the national interest to have a mobility chapter in a trade deal with a country on the other side of the world covering these issues but not an equivalent chapter in the trade deal with our immediate neighbours, I’d be interested to hear it.https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1405450710330793984/photo/1
They can probably get away with it for Australians as it is so far away, it costs a lot to travel here and Australian gdp per capita is higher than UK gdp per capita so there is less incentive to come here.
If they did it for an Indian FTA though then there would be much more opposition I would expect as you would expect far more Indian workers to take advantage of it than Australian as Indian gdp per capita is significantly lower than ours
Mobility is allowed with more local countries but not FOM. FOM can't work with countries at very different stages of economic development and very different culture. FOM with France and Germany has never been a problem. With the EU it's all or nothing.
You could get the same in a Liverpool pub about Manchester if they were about to face each other in the Champions League. Or FA Cup. Or its a Saturday.
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Lessons need to be learned.
Does anyone know why we aren't opening up to the 12+ cohort? Are we likely to at any stage?
The JCVI are still pondering - R4 this morning reporting that they are waiting for data from countries which are going ahead because it's finely balanced - risk of harm to 12 year old to vaccinate against a disease which is very unlikely to do them serious harm vs benefit to society of removing a potential source of infection. Most of the thoughtful commentators I've heard on this have clearly been conflicted. With high uptake in the rest of the population (unlike eg Israel where they have very resistant Orthodox hold outs) it may not be necessary to achieve reasonable degree of herd immunity across society.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
So TLDR; the VdL - US prez comparison was shite; wasn’t it?
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
Fine, that is your opinion, but it was still a ludicrous comparison. Those who want to continue to justify Brexit need to stop engaging in hyperbole. You got the result you wanted, such comparisons are not only inaccurate and unnecessary, but they just make you look silly. Now I must do my work. Must stop procrastinating!!
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
So TLDR; the VdL - US prez comparison was shite; wasn’t it?
No.
TLDR the VdL - US Pres comparison was spot on for anyone that hasn't left.
Meanwhile Scottish Tories try to ban the word "Tory" because it is "derogatory".
Leaving aside the fact that "Tory" is supposed to be derogatory, I feel that perhaps that the Tories should move to calling themselves the "Scottish Conservative & Unionist Movement".
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
I missed it last night, too. I agree completely. Sir Ian Blair getting airtime yesterday to defend her as "the outstanding officer of her generation", in between deeply unconvincing defences of his own record, incensed me.
It's "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" syndrome. Very common in the police and one reason why corruption arises. Discussed in the report. One reason why the police need an outsider with balls of steel to prise open this culture and let in cleansing sunlight.
Were it not for the requirement to have "balls of steel", I would have recommended your good self.
It's a figure of speech. (Though there is a good - if extremely rude - response to that which is too strong even for PB'ers)
On the whole - anecdotally and based on my experience - I think women are a load more courageous than men. We are - in so many professions - outsiders and that forces you to develop steel.
The problem is that people like Cressida Dick have to play the game to rise the ranks. Bolshie women who say it like it is get so far and no further.
Yes, agree completely - I was merely being whimsical about your metaphor, not serious.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
So TLDR; the VdL - US prez comparison was shite; wasn’t it?
No.
TLDR the VdL - US Pres comparison was spot on for anyone that hasn't left.
Sorry. This is moon made of green cheese level analysis. PB deserves better.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Wasn't it determined fairly recently that Texas, or any other of the United States of America, once joined, cannot leave.
I seem to recall, too, that sometime ago there was a war about it!
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I don’t believe anyone ever predicted an immediate, 8% hit to GDP.
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
Or one day they look at the UK and wonder how it bucked the trend of European decline. You just can't predict the future with that kind of certainty.
Regardless of any other merit, the Sunak interview got GB News into the papers, which was probably its main aim.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 8h This is the most uncomfortable I’ve seen Rishi Sunak in quite a while.
Sunak fans ould pause and watch the clip Dan Hodges has there. Looking well under pressure over £10K bill for new boilers for every family.
As Sunak says, what £10k bill? He rightly pointed out that (a) "costs" always get balanced against "opportunity" and whatever the cost is now won't be the cost by the time they are rolling it out.
Isn't the problem with retrofitting heat pumps that the radiators need to be replaced by bigger ones too, because of the lower operating temperature of the system?
So, opportunity - British design and manufacturing of all these new pumps and radiators, British installation of them. Which will generate a bucket load of money for the economy.
Neil is a dinosaur, asking the tired "how much will it cost" question not interested in "how much will it save" and "how much will doing nothing cost".
The majority of voters, especially the working classes and the Red Wall, care very much about the cost.
It’s also fair to ask why the British consumer is being asked to contribute so much, when the same isn’t true of much larger countries such as the US and China.
Having spent 15 years in a red wall WC town I am aware of this. "We can't afford it" has been drilled into them by opportunistic Tories to destroy Labour as the party who wastes money. Job done, the red wall is blue. Now then, we need to hose the blue wall with money. But "we can't afford it" and "how much will it cost".
I've had punters arguing on Facebook against spending money regenerating their own high street. The more the regen progresses and the more it gets lauded by experts as the model for other towns the more they shriek about the costs.
We either invest in stuff or we stay broken and crap. There is no £10k per household bill and the people asking the question know this. As for "why us and not China" we don't live in China. Our kids don't go to school in China. People have benefited massively from various clean air measures yet so many of our kids still go to schools where they breathe polluted air. Time to do more for their sake and let China do their own thing.
I do sometimes wonder whether a form of self-hatred or Stockholm syndrome has taken over with elements of the English working class. It's like they don't think they deserve any better. Even Brexit - touted as the second peasants' revolt by folk on here, seems to be more about hurting other people (foreigners, Londoners, the 'metropolitan elite') than anything else.
I suspect a lot of them want "higher wages" and by removing a pool of cheap accessible labour from the market they may very well get them.
And people think they're thick....
Yes, indeed they ARE getting them. Wages for the C2s and Ds have risen in a way not seen in the last 20 years.
It's so simple, and has happened time and time again in British history. When there are fewer people to do the skilled labour and/or the grunt work, the wages commanded for that work increase and the lot of those workers improves.
There has been a lot of magical thinking in my lifetime that immigration makes us richer and to say otherwise is somehow taboo. It increases our GDP, sure, because there are more of us. And if you're trying to employ someone you can do it more cheaply. I remember a geography GCSE question in which I was invited to discuss the benefits to the UK of immigration - the drawbacks weren't to be mentioned. But in reality it doesn't do a lot for most individual Britons.
Wages are higher in certain sectors because of a shortage of labour. Thats only partially due to "forriners go home" Brexit effects - the logistics industry is suffering because of IR35 just as much.
The harsh light of day for the British worker is that there are a stack of jobs they just don't want to do. We had to open the door to EU staff in the first place because locals don't want to clean offices or serve coffee or look after the elderly or work in a factory.
Now that some EU workers have left there is a shortage which is driving wages higher - but isn't filling the shortages because people still don't want those jobs.
Living on the backs of cheap EU labour is over, and in the end the pay will have to increase to attract the workers
I think the government will have to come up with immigration schemes for care workers. They have a delivery obligation. Wages will find their own levels elsewhere in the economy. ie GDP will contract in relative terms, to match. Some wages will go up and some will go down, but likely better terms for the low paid at the expense of fewer higher paid jobs. Which may be a desirable thing...
Or how about they just pay care workers more than minimum wage?
Care workers looking after the vulnerable for 12 hours a day, wiping people's bums and dealing with dementia, incontinence, and generally tough work . . . how is it that is a minimum wage job earning less than what eg a waiter earns? Since a waiter will get minimum wage plus tips.
Even pre-pandemic, pre-Brexit ~83% of care staff in the UK were British and half the non-British staff were not EU either so the notion we're reliant upon immigration to fill these roles has never been true. Pay a decent wage for these jobs and they'll get filled.
Many care workers are not actually paid by their employers, but by the state. By this I mean that there are quite a few care companies, whether residential or home care, which rely on contracts or similar from Government (including Local) contracts. So until we, the state, are prepared to pay more in taxes to fund such contracts, wages for the staff cannot rise.
Or, alternatively, the companies can take the higher wage costs out of director bonuses or corporate profits. Not everything has to lead to higher taxes.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
Fine, that is your opinion, but it was still a ludicrous comparison. Those who want to continue to justify Brexit need to stop engaging in hyperbole. You got the result you wanted, such comparisons are not only inaccurate and unnecessary, but they just make you look silly. Now I must do my work. Must stop procrastinating!!
Sorry but there is no hyperbole there and in case you missed it, it was Scott that triggered this conversation (as it normally is) with the bullshit lie Ursula von der Leyen "never" had any constitutional role in this country.
The Scots could have left the UK had they voted Yes in 2014. Does that mean that Boris Johnson has no constitutional role in Scotland, since they could have left?
No of course not! The fact you can leave is absolutely meaningless until you do leave. Once you do, it becomes meaningful.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I don’t believe anyone ever predicted an immediate, 8% hit to GDP.
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
Or one day they look at the UK and wonder how it bucked the trend of European decline. You just can't predict the future with that kind of certainty.
First the Brexit argument was sunny uplands. Then it was “it’s not as bad as (insert “never-articulated apocalypse scenario”). Now it’s “you can’t predict the future with certainty”.
What you can do is look at pretty standard economic modelling which shows that if you reduce your trading abilities you will sacrifice economic growth.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I don’t believe anyone ever predicted an immediate, 8% hit to GDP.
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
Or one day they look at the UK and wonder how it bucked the trend of European decline. You just can't predict the future with that kind of certainty.
Yes. Like you I used to be a Remainer, one of the things that convinced me to change my mind in 2016 was realising that the UK was no better off in Europe than any other developed English speaking nation and had grown slower since 1993 than all non-EU developed English speaking nations.
The idea that the EU aided the UK economy is not borne out by any economic data or international comparisons with non-EU developed western economies.
Once you realise that, Europe kind of loses its shine.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I don’t believe anyone ever predicted an immediate, 8% hit to GDP.
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
Or one day they look at the UK and wonder how it bucked the trend of European decline. You just can't predict the future with that kind of certainty.
Yes. Like you I used to be a Remainer, one of the things that convinced me to change my mind in 2016 was realising that the UK was no better off in Europe than any developed English speaking nation and had grown slowed since 1993 than all non-EU developed English speaking nations.
The idea that the EU aided the UK economy is not borne out by any economic data or international comparisons with non-EU developed western economies.
Once you realise that, Europe kind of loses its shine.
In order to do that, you’d need a coherent theory on why the EU is hampering growth and/or why it is the EU to blame rather than U.K.-endogenous issues.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
So TLDR; the VdL - US prez comparison was shite; wasn’t it?
No.
TLDR the VdL - US Pres comparison was spot on for anyone that hasn't left.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Most people don't know who Cressida Dick is; those who do think it's a London issue and also they aren't sure who is ultimately responsible (Patel, Khan, or nobody). Khan would be well placed to demand her resignation if he wished to. I don't think Starmer is.
Everybody with a role in appointing Cressida Dick in place and keeping her there know who she is.
You need to look a little deeper into her political cover....
Cressida won't resign or be dismissed and so, no matter what the police hierarchy say or the procedures or the training etc about integrity etc, every policeman and woman and every citizen knows that, when push comes to shove it's meaningless.
If Cressida Dick really is the "finest officer of her generation" as Ian Blair claims, she would not have done what she did and she would have resigned as soon as the report came out. If the police hierarchy and her bosses in Parliament really believe what they say they would have made sure she went.
But we know they don't. So we have to live with the understanding that the Met - and some of our other police forces - are simply not fit for purpose, even if there are individuals working in it who try their best.
It is a great shame. It should make me angry. It does. More often it makes me cynical and disappointed. I love this country. It can be so much better than it is. It ought to be. But when I see what happens to the institutions which form part of its weft and weave I see an acceptance of the second-rate, a refusal to demand the best, a degradation of talent, a world weary dismissal of those wanting more as being naive or oblivious to how much worse things are elsewhere. And this "oh don't be so naive" attitude is itself so corrosive. I don't mind mistakes or people getting things wrong. We all do this. It is not perfection we aim for. But we should at least try to be as good as we can be.
Regardless of any other merit, the Sunak interview got GB News into the papers, which was probably its main aim.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 8h This is the most uncomfortable I’ve seen Rishi Sunak in quite a while.
Sunak fans ould pause and watch the clip Dan Hodges has there. Looking well under pressure over £10K bill for new boilers for every family.
As Sunak says, what £10k bill? He rightly pointed out that (a) "costs" always get balanced against "opportunity" and whatever the cost is now won't be the cost by the time they are rolling it out.
Isn't the problem with retrofitting heat pumps that the radiators need to be replaced by bigger ones too, because of the lower operating temperature of the system?
So, opportunity - British design and manufacturing of all these new pumps and radiators, British installation of them. Which will generate a bucket load of money for the economy.
Neil is a dinosaur, asking the tired "how much will it cost" question not interested in "how much will it save" and "how much will doing nothing cost".
The majority of voters, especially the working classes and the Red Wall, care very much about the cost.
It’s also fair to ask why the British consumer is being asked to contribute so much, when the same isn’t true of much larger countries such as the US and China.
Having spent 15 years in a red wall WC town I am aware of this. "We can't afford it" has been drilled into them by opportunistic Tories to destroy Labour as the party who wastes money. Job done, the red wall is blue. Now then, we need to hose the blue wall with money. But "we can't afford it" and "how much will it cost".
I've had punters arguing on Facebook against spending money regenerating their own high street. The more the regen progresses and the more it gets lauded by experts as the model for other towns the more they shriek about the costs.
We either invest in stuff or we stay broken and crap. There is no £10k per household bill and the people asking the question know this. As for "why us and not China" we don't live in China. Our kids don't go to school in China. People have benefited massively from various clean air measures yet so many of our kids still go to schools where they breathe polluted air. Time to do more for their sake and let China do their own thing.
I do sometimes wonder whether a form of self-hatred or Stockholm syndrome has taken over with elements of the English working class. It's like they don't think they deserve any better. Even Brexit - touted as the second peasants' revolt by folk on here, seems to be more about hurting other people (foreigners, Londoners, the 'metropolitan elite') than anything else.
I suspect a lot of them want "higher wages" and by removing a pool of cheap accessible labour from the market they may very well get them.
And people think they're thick....
Yes, indeed they ARE getting them. Wages for the C2s and Ds have risen in a way not seen in the last 20 years.
It's so simple, and has happened time and time again in British history. When there are fewer people to do the skilled labour and/or the grunt work, the wages commanded for that work increase and the lot of those workers improves.
There has been a lot of magical thinking in my lifetime that immigration makes us richer and to say otherwise is somehow taboo. It increases our GDP, sure, because there are more of us. And if you're trying to employ someone you can do it more cheaply. I remember a geography GCSE question in which I was invited to discuss the benefits to the UK of immigration - the drawbacks weren't to be mentioned. But in reality it doesn't do a lot for most individual Britons.
Wages are higher in certain sectors because of a shortage of labour. Thats only partially due to "forriners go home" Brexit effects - the logistics industry is suffering because of IR35 just as much.
The harsh light of day for the British worker is that there are a stack of jobs they just don't want to do. We had to open the door to EU staff in the first place because locals don't want to clean offices or serve coffee or look after the elderly or work in a factory.
Now that some EU workers have left there is a shortage which is driving wages higher - but isn't filling the shortages because people still don't want those jobs.
Living on the backs of cheap EU labour is over, and in the end the pay will have to increase to attract the workers
I think the government will have to come up with immigration schemes for care workers. They have a delivery obligation. Wages will find their own levels elsewhere in the economy. ie GDP will contract in relative terms, to match. Some wages will go up and some will go down, but likely better terms for the low paid at the expense of fewer higher paid jobs. Which may be a desirable thing...
Or how about they just pay care workers more than minimum wage?
Care workers looking after the vulnerable for 12 hours a day, wiping people's bums and dealing with dementia, incontinence, and generally tough work . . . how is it that is a minimum wage job earning less than what eg a waiter earns? Since a waiter will get minimum wage plus tips.
Even pre-pandemic, pre-Brexit ~83% of care staff in the UK were British and half the non-British staff were not EU either so the notion we're reliant upon immigration to fill these roles has never been true. Pay a decent wage for these jobs and they'll get filled.
Many care workers are not actually paid by their employers, but by the state. By this I mean that there are quite a few care companies, whether residential or home care, which rely on contracts or similar from Government (including Local) contracts. So until we, the state, are prepared to pay more in taxes to fund such contracts, wages for the staff cannot rise.
Or, alternatively, the companies can take the higher wage costs out of director bonuses or corporate profits. Not everything has to lead to higher taxes.
Some could, indeed, but not all. And if you have 100 staff and your directors bonuses add up to 25k, that's not not going to make a big difference.
If anyone can explain why it is in the national interest to have a mobility chapter in a trade deal with a country on the other side of the world covering these issues but not an equivalent chapter in the trade deal with our immediate neighbours, I’d be interested to hear it.https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1405450710330793984/photo/1
Quite surprised this needs explaining to you. There are roughly equal living costs and incomes and the cost of travel from one to the other is high. There is hence not the same problem seen with the EU (half a billion people, many of them relatively poor), where free movement led to an effectively infinite supply of unskilled and semi skilled labour, ensuring the minimum wage become the ceiling price rather than floor price of an ever greater share of the labour market.
Even now five years on, there are people of the “left” who are unable to grasp that EU freedom of movement was a terrible deal for the people who were supposed to be lifeblood of the Labour movement. On economic terms, Brexit should have been enthusiastically backed by the Labour Party and fiercely opposed by the rent seeking Tory Party, it’s all quite the irony.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I don’t believe anyone ever predicted an immediate, 8% hit to GDP.
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
Or one day they look at the UK and wonder how it bucked the trend of European decline. You just can't predict the future with that kind of certainty.
First the Brexit argument was sunny uplands. Then it was “it’s not as bad as (insert “never-articulated apocalypse scenario”). Now it’s “you can’t predict the future with certainty”.
What you can do is look at pretty standard economic modelling which shows that if you reduce your trading abilities you will sacrifice economic growth.
See North Korea for more details.
Models, models, models, models.
Change the tune. People have been spinning that yarn since before the EEC became the EU in 1993 and they've been consistently wrong. People were spinning that yarn as to why the UK would do worse than the Eurozone if we didn't join the Single Currency and they were consistently wrong.
If the UK supposedly was better off inside the EU (something we're supposedly going to be worse off now without) then pick a control group country. Which non-EU developed western nation have we done better off than in the past, which we should be more like in the future?
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
So TLDR; the VdL - US prez comparison was shite; wasn’t it?
No.
TLDR the VdL - US Pres comparison was spot on for anyone that hasn't left.
So disingenuous, bordering on trolling
No. Its not rocket science, if you leave then UvdL ceases to be President of the EU for you as an EU memberstate.
If you don't leave, then you are a member state and as such UvdL is your President of the EU.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Most people don't know who Cressida Dick is; those who do think it's a London issue and also they aren't sure who is ultimately responsible (Patel, Khan, or nobody). Khan would be well placed to demand her resignation if he wished to. I don't think Starmer is.
Everybody with a role in appointing Cressida Dick in place and keeping her there know who she is.
You need to look a little deeper into her political cover....
Cressida won't resign or be dismissed and so, no matter what the police hierarchy say or the procedures or the training etc about integrity etc, every policeman and woman and every citizen knows that, when push comes to shove it's meaningless.
If Cressida Dick really is the "finest officer of her generation" as Ian Blair claims, she would not have done what she did and she would have resigned as soon as the report came out. If the police hierarchy and her bosses in Parliament really believe what they say they would have made sure she went.
But we know they don't. So we have to live with the understanding that the Met - and some of our other police forces - are simply not fit for purpose, even if there are individuals working in it who try their best.
It is a great shame. It should make me angry. It does. More often it makes me cynical and disappointed. I love this country. It can be so much better than it is. It ought to be. But when I see what happens to the institutions which form part of its weft and weave I see an acceptance of the second-rate, a refusal to demand the best, a degradation of talent, a world weary dismissal of those wanting more as being naive or oblivious to how much worse things are elsewhere. And this "oh don't be so naive" attitude is itself so corrosive. I don't mind mistakes or people getting things wrong. We all do this. It is not perfection we aim for. But we should at least try to be as good as we can be.
Shouldn't we?
See this all the time with standards, personal and professional. Sure, no one is perfect, be understanding. But as you say it doesnt mean you have to accept crap or not try to uphold those standards.
I'll forgive a lot if I think people are trying at least. Obfuscation and sophistry to not try? Not so much.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I don’t believe anyone ever predicted an immediate, 8% hit to GDP.
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
Or one day they look at the UK and wonder how it bucked the trend of European decline. You just can't predict the future with that kind of certainty.
Yes. Like you I used to be a Remainer, one of the things that convinced me to change my mind in 2016 was realising that the UK was no better off in Europe than any developed English speaking nation and had grown slowed since 1993 than all non-EU developed English speaking nations.
The idea that the EU aided the UK economy is not borne out by any economic data or international comparisons with non-EU developed western economies.
Once you realise that, Europe kind of loses its shine.
In order to do that, you’d need a coherent theory on why the EU is hampering growth and/or why it is the EU to blame rather than U.K.-endogenous issues.
I have that. Two reasons.
One: The EU is very sclerotic and slow to adjust to new technologies or change regulations. Two: Inside the EU there was no singular accountability. The EU could blame nation states, the nation states could blame the EU, nobody took responsibility.
Outside of the EU the UK government can both be held fully accountable and responsible - plus it can be more nimble.
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Yes. My cohort are reporting they are double jabbed now. Around a week behind me. They were several weeks behind. They'll pass us very soon at this rate.
The fact Covid and Brexit both occurred at the same time means it's impossible to look at any trade figures (outside of NI issues) and say which of them caused which issues.
I think that's about right - -10-15% is about what I predicted. Since EU exports were about 12% of our GDP, that implies a loss of about 1% of GDP in the short term, compared to the 8% forecast by the OBR, mainly from this source. It's also consistent with EU studies that show the Single Market is worth about 1% of GDP to member states.
Though a lost of 10% of trade does not automatically mean a loss of 1% of GDP, since EU imports are technically a negative to GDP and imports were much, much higher than imports.
Yes, and there are multiplier effects, dynamic effects and so on.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I don’t believe anyone ever predicted an immediate, 8% hit to GDP.
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
Or one day they look at the UK and wonder how it bucked the trend of European decline. You just can't predict the future with that kind of certainty.
First the Brexit argument was sunny uplands. Then it was “it’s not as bad as (insert “never-articulated apocalypse scenario”). Now it’s “you can’t predict the future with certainty”.
What you can do is look at pretty standard economic modelling which shows that if you reduce your trading abilities you will sacrifice economic growth.
See North Korea for more details.
Models, models, models, models.
Change the tune. People have been spinning that yarn since before the EEC became the EU in 1993 and they've been consistently wrong. People were spinning that yarn as to why the UK would do worse than the Eurozone if we didn't join the Single Currency and they were consistently wrong.
If the UK supposedly was better off inside the EU (something we're supposedly going to be worse off now without) then pick a control group country. Which non-EU developed western nation have we done better off than in the past, which we should be more like in the future?
Sadly your test is not possible.
There is no large, developed western nation in our part of the world which is not part of the EU.
The US, Canada, Switzerland are not great proxies.
You know this of course.
The Euro is an interesting reference.
Basic economic modelling suggests, all things being equal, that we *would* be more economically productive inside the Euro.
But it is also much clearer that in doing so we forfeit monetary policy capability (and these days, elements of fiscal policy ie borrowing); not to mention dealing with the complexities of fiscal transfers.
I was never a Euro fan (for the U.K.) but I don’t doubt the prima facie economic argument in favour.
Perhaps you are making a similar case for EU-membership, but the continued silliness of Brexiters who must avow that there is no cost to severing our trading relationships, casts doubt on the whole enterprise.
As @MarqueeMark insinuates upthread, there is some suggestion online that Cressida is some kind of MI5 operator.
Although why this means she should be free from unaccountability as Met Chief I don’t know.
Well the mysterious 2-year period at the FO about which no details are given is pretty much telegraphing that in 6-foot high letters.
Truth is her bosses and the police generally don't care about accountability. How she behaved is, in essence, no different to how this junior Lancashire police officer behaved last year - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/lockdown-blues/.
Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.
She never did
Oh really?
Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?
Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?
How is it a false comparison?
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK. The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
Logic fail here. If being able to leave a relationship is meaningless, it follows that a relationship where you can't leave is no more captive than one where you can. Which is a clear nonsense. Being able to leave is fundamentally different to being unable to leave, whether you choose to leave or not.
Indonesia will be getting Novavax in July - anyone know when the UK's 60 million doses come onstream? According to the original plan they should already be filling & finishing.
As @MarqueeMark insinuates upthread, there is some suggestion online that Cressida is some kind of MI5 operator.
Although why this means she should be free from unaccountability as Met Chief I don’t know.
Well the mysterious 2-year period at the FO about which no details are given is pretty much telegraphing that in 6-foot high letters.
Truth is her bosses and the police generally don't care about accountability. How she behaved is, in essence, no different to how this junior Lancashire police officer behaved last year - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/lockdown-blues/.
Isn't it MI5's normal approach to slip its operatives in somewhere a little more, er, unobtrusive? And as Gardenwalker says - that surely doesn't absolver her of accountability? Are we as a country really saying to the Met's customers "don't worry, it's ok that the police is corrupt, it's led by a spy"?
Canada is absolutely smashing it in terms of vaccinations. Open to everyone 12+ combined with a good takeup means they're over 65% of population for first doses. They're doing over 1 jab per person per day too, demand doesn't particularly look to be slackening in terms of takeup. After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
Yes. My cohort are reporting they are double jabbed now. Around a week behind me. They were several weeks behind. They'll pass us very soon at this rate.
They're at 13% double-jabbed, we're at 45%; they're at 78 doses per 100 population, we're at 106
It will take some months more for them to overtake us. Probably, like us overtaking Israel which will happen soon, it will only be because we've stopped by then.
They'll overtake Europe very soon though on second jabs. They've already overtaken them on total doses given.
What's interesting though is that Canada's takeoff in jab rates has really happened since the USA's collapsed. I'm guessing America is exporting the doses they no longer need to Canada.
Can I just say, since I was not online, how much I enjoyed @Cyclefree's thread header posted last night. An outstanding piece that highlighted a genuine problem and a major flaw in our system. Why is Dick still in office this morning? Have we no shame? None at all?
I would ask where our opposition is but, frankly, what's the point?
Thank you.
Starmer and Thomas-Symonds should be all over this. They are, given their previous professions, well placed to do so. And yet nothing. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Most people don't know who Cressida Dick is; those who do think it's a London issue and also they aren't sure who is ultimately responsible (Patel, Khan, or nobody). Khan would be well placed to demand her resignation if he wished to. I don't think Starmer is.
Boris got Blair out.
It is not in Khan’s gift to fire Dick (that’s Patel), but he could be more vocal and say he simply has no faith in her.
What's the upside? I've not read the whole report, just skimmed the chapters recommended by @Cyclefree's header on the previous thread. The case against Cressida Dick as Commissioner (to which position she should never have been appointed imo) rather than her earlier role as Assistant Commissioner dealing with the inquiry is not great, and probably weaker than that against the Home Office.
Comments
I have no idea why people are so obsessed with wanting this channel to fail, I don’t watch much current affairs but seemed a vast improvement on what I have seen in recent years. Give the politicians a chance to speak in detail about their brief and how they think about things. Sunak did ok but I think he was caught out hiding a few times, when the format actually allowed him to be a bit clearer and explain his thinking without being jumped on.
I'm not imagining that right? India was at like double of Pakistan?
That's one of the cruellest tragedies of the pandemic, not being allowed to see loved ones and not being able to say goodbye. So no, that wasn't or shouldn't have been essential overseas travel.
Or maybe, since many on here like football analogies, "Missing Open Goals".
Petit dejeuner: Mackerel, Mushrooms, Poached Egg and Samphire, fresh from the coast.
Now look at the current occupant of No 10.
Even at current pay rates, social care is already heading for "reluctant Turkish stepmom" territory. (i.e. like you-know-what and the other you-know-what but combined.)
After a shaky start, I think their superior eligibility criteria will mean they'll end up ahead of the UK too tbh.
“Comparing changes with EU vs non-EU gives a rough estimate of the Brexit effect, controlling for Covid-19. By this metric, Brexit cut goods trade with EU by 21% so far in 2021 vs 2019. Or comparing April 2021 to April 2019 implies a -15% Brexit effect.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-statistics-import-export-b1864040.html
On 31 March India had a test positivity rate of 6.0% and 44.94 cases per million.
On 31 March France had a test positivity rate of 7.3% and 562.57 cases per million.
What would your priority be for a red list from that data Alistair?
But you know that don't you. But you have no integrity either, so won't acknowledge that will you?
If this is what the police are doing here, how can anyone have any confidence at all that the police are not obstructing or lying to or making inadequate disclosure to other courts, tribunals? How can we trust them? This goes to the heart of the criminal justice system. The government has talked endlessly about hiring more policemen and law and order. Well, none of that amounts to a hill of beans if those who are hired, those who are responsible for law and order are a load of lying, untrustworthy so-and-so's whose word means nothing.
A competent Opposition leader would be able to make something of this. Trouble is Starmer is simply not up to it.
https://twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1405462011539038209?s=20
Also, the number of variants being tracked as being introduced from India was significant. 50 versus 12 in Bangladesh and 6 in Pakistan.
At the time of red listing P & B, the government suggested it was based in the volume of variants.
Even at the time (April 9) it was a head scratcher as to why India was excluded, even though we did not have Delta as a VOC. (WHO had it as a VOI though).
The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.
If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.
But agree that Covid usefully disguises the Brexit loss.
It is not in Khan’s gift to fire Dick (that’s Patel), but he could be more vocal and say he simply has no faith in her.
https://twitter.com/mikegove12/status/1405412394118127618?s=21
Lack of accountability
Mismanagement
Petty corruption
Labour has not yet had the wit to crystallise them into clearly defined hammer blows as Blair did to Major.
On the whole - anecdotally and based on my experience - I think women are a load more courageous than men. We are - in so many professions - outsiders and that forces you to develop steel.
The problem is that people like Cressida Dick have to play the game to rise the ranks. Bolshie women who say it like it is get so far and no further.
You need to look a little deeper into her political cover....
If they did it for an Indian FTA though then there would be much more opposition I would expect as you would expect far more Indian workers to take advantage of it than Australian as Indian gdp per capita is significantly lower than ours
Because the country in the other side of the world has more Britons there than the entirety of the European Union excluding Ireland (whom we have a common travel area with) combined.
Are you too incapable of understanding that Scott?
A further point. Services trade is unlikely to less affected by Brexit than goods trade as it relies heavily on FoM and regulatory alignment.
The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.
Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.
What is certain is that the 8% estimate of lost GDP from the OBR looks very unlikely.
Also, for Scottish independence, given that Scottish trade with the rUK is 3-4 times bigger than the UK's with the EU, I'd project a 4-6% loss of Scottish GDP from independence, assuming a similar trade deal is agreed. And something similar from the loss of fiscal subsidies, of course. And probably some more if they switch currency.
It'd be like going through 2020 all over again without the UK Treasury to bail them out.
I seem to recall, too, that sometime ago there was a war about it!
Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.
Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.
We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.
Of course it shouldn't slow the adult rollout but with the 11 week default still being given between jabs and the adult cohort being exhausted for first jabs (And people being unable/unwilling /not realising they can change it) alongside the slowdown in first doses we'll run into a period of demand limitation in mid July I reckon...
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1405469773698416641?s=20
Brexit is like rust, it accumulates over time.
Then one day you look at your Western European peers and realise they are weirdly much wealthier countries, and that you are the sick man of Europe.
You could get the same in a Liverpool pub about Manchester if they were about to face each other in the Champions League. Or FA Cup. Or its a Saturday.
TLDR the VdL - US Pres comparison was spot on for anyone that hasn't left.
Leaving aside the fact that "Tory" is supposed to be derogatory, I feel that perhaps that the Tories should move to calling themselves the "Scottish Conservative & Unionist Movement".
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-conservative-councillor-demands-snp-24330509
The Scots could have left the UK had they voted Yes in 2014. Does that mean that Boris Johnson has no constitutional role in Scotland, since they could have left?
No of course not! The fact you can leave is absolutely meaningless until you do leave. Once you do, it becomes meaningful.
Some drinkers at the pub could also be seen ignoring Covid rules as they left off their masks while not sitting down at their tables.
It's quite funny the way a rowdy singalong in a pub is reported these days.
https://www.brecorder.com/news/40100627
Looks like about a dozen countries are at the moment, and a dozen more have approved the vaccine for children and/or planning to roll it out.
Then it was “it’s not as bad as (insert “never-articulated apocalypse scenario”).
Now it’s “you can’t predict the future with certainty”.
What you can do is look at pretty standard economic modelling which shows that if you reduce your trading abilities you will sacrifice economic growth.
See North Korea for more details.
Ask the fishermen. Or farmers.
The idea that the EU aided the UK economy is not borne out by any economic data or international comparisons with non-EU developed western economies.
Once you realise that, Europe kind of loses its shine.
Cressida won't resign or be dismissed and so, no matter what the police hierarchy say or the procedures or the training etc about integrity etc, every policeman and woman and every citizen knows that, when push comes to shove it's meaningless.
If Cressida Dick really is the "finest officer of her generation" as Ian Blair claims, she would not have done what she did and she would have resigned as soon as the report came out. If the police hierarchy and her bosses in Parliament really believe what they say they would have made sure she went.
But we know they don't. So we have to live with the understanding that the Met - and some of our other police forces - are simply not fit for purpose, even if there are individuals working in it who try their best.
It is a great shame. It should make me angry. It does. More often it makes me cynical and disappointed. I love this country. It can be so much better than it is. It ought to be. But when I see what happens to the institutions which form part of its weft and weave I see an acceptance of the second-rate, a refusal to demand the best, a degradation of talent, a world weary dismissal of those wanting more as being naive or oblivious to how much worse things are elsewhere. And this "oh don't be so naive" attitude is itself so corrosive. I don't mind mistakes or people getting things wrong. We all do this. It is not perfection we aim for. But we should at least try to be as good as we can be.
Shouldn't we?
Although why this means she should be free from unaccountability as Met Chief I don’t know.
Even now five years on, there are people of the “left” who are unable to grasp that EU freedom of movement was a terrible deal for the people who were supposed to be lifeblood of the Labour movement. On economic terms, Brexit should have been enthusiastically backed by the Labour Party and fiercely opposed by the rent seeking Tory Party, it’s all quite the irony.
Change the tune. People have been spinning that yarn since before the EEC became the EU in 1993 and they've been consistently wrong. People were spinning that yarn as to why the UK would do worse than the Eurozone if we didn't join the Single Currency and they were consistently wrong.
If the UK supposedly was better off inside the EU (something we're supposedly going to be worse off now without) then pick a control group country. Which non-EU developed western nation have we done better off than in the past, which we should be more like in the future?
NEW: The govt suppressed access to sick pay for people isolating at the height of the pandemic, emails between senior civil servants reveal
Treasury instructed officials to conceal from the public how the furlough scheme could help those isolating
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1405412392507305987?s=20
If you don't leave, then you are a member state and as such UvdL is your President of the EU.
I'll forgive a lot if I think people are trying at least. Obfuscation and sophistry to not try? Not so much.
One: The EU is very sclerotic and slow to adjust to new technologies or change regulations.
Two: Inside the EU there was no singular accountability. The EU could blame nation states, the nation states could blame the EU, nobody took responsibility.
Outside of the EU the UK government can both be held fully accountable and responsible - plus it can be more nimble.
They were several weeks behind. They'll pass us very soon at this rate.
Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html
There is no large, developed western nation in our part of the world which is not part of the EU.
The US, Canada, Switzerland are not great proxies.
You know this of course.
The Euro is an interesting reference.
Basic economic modelling suggests, all things being equal, that we *would* be more economically productive inside the Euro.
But it is also much clearer that in doing so we forfeit monetary policy capability (and these days, elements of fiscal policy ie borrowing); not to mention dealing with the complexities of fiscal transfers.
I was never a Euro fan (for the U.K.) but I don’t doubt the prima facie economic argument in favour.
Perhaps you are making a similar case for EU-membership, but the continued silliness of Brexiters who must avow that there is no cost to severing our trading relationships, casts doubt on the whole enterprise.
Truth is her bosses and the police generally don't care about accountability. How she behaved is, in essence, no different to how this junior Lancashire police officer behaved last year - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/lockdown-blues/.
Even today, all the white people are still racist, even if they’re not and especially if they say they’re not.
https://coconuts.co/jakarta/news/indonesia-to-begin-receiving-shipments-of-novavax-vaccine-in-july/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/29/uk-strikes-deal-gsk-doses-novavax-covid-vaccine
And as Gardenwalker says - that surely doesn't absolver her of accountability? Are we as a country really saying to the Met's customers "don't worry, it's ok that the police is corrupt, it's led by a spy"?
And if she is an MI5 operative - why?
It will take some months more for them to overtake us. Probably, like us overtaking Israel which will happen soon, it will only be because we've stopped by then.
They'll overtake Europe very soon though on second jabs. They've already overtaken them on total doses given.
What's interesting though is that Canada's takeoff in jab rates has really happened since the USA's collapsed. I'm guessing America is exporting the doses they no longer need to Canada.