Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The great Brexit divide – Approval of Johnson and Starmer – by referendum vote and social class – po

1246

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,130
    Major delay in Australian government’s Novavax deal, with 51m doses not expected until 2022
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/27/major-delay-in-federal-governments-novavax-deal-with-51m-doses-not-expected-until-2022

    One of the better vaccines.
    Shame they can't seem to manufacture it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186
    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,878
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:



    The scope is limited to NI, what punitive measures are you envisaging? You keep saying that the EU will come up with a punitive retaliation but fail to identify what these could entail? I did this for a living for 3 years in the run up to Brexit and for a few months after the TCA was ratified by the UK government. The scope of retaliation is very, very narrow and the room for punitive measures that Ireland will agree to is extremely limited.

    You're being naive, Max. The EU doesn't need to do anything very much. Just stop cooperating even more than is currently the case. We are so dependent on their goodwill in so many areas, from illegal migrants to food supplies to data protection to aviation to banking regulation, that they can afford to just sit back and wait for some sanity to leak back into the UK government.
    All of that is in scope of the TCA and other agreements. They would need to suspend parts of the TCA in retaliation which just seems extremely unlikely so we come back to what is in scope and that's the NI protocol itself where there are few good options for them.
    This is a political matter, not primarily a legal one. It's all about trust, or rather the near-total lack of it thanks to the ludicrous self-harm the UK government has been engaged in. We can't achieve good relations through legal routes, and we desperately need good relations. They don't. It's as simple as that, and has been all along.
    But retaliatory measures would need to be legal and proportional. The TCA completely flummoxes the ability of the EU to retaliate in any meaningful sense as it is a separate deal (by their own insistence, no less) which means it is not within the scope of retaliation. So sure, maybe they can huff and puff a bit and call Boris a wanker and rage at Frost a bit more than they usually do and maybe beg for Olly Robbins to come back but ultimately the retaliation available to them is to put up a border in Ireland. On a scale of 1-10 how likely is that?
    What retaliatory measures? They can just 'work to rule', in the old 1970s trade union style, and refuse to cooperate in all the large number of areas not covered by the TCA.

    Any further collapse in goodwill will hurt us a hell of a lot more than it hurts them. It's already bad enough, for heaven's sake.
    Not at all since this bothers them more than us.

    If we invoke Article 16, have the TCA and they 'work to rule' and there are no checks whatsoever from GB to NI (because Article 16 has been invoked) then what cards have they got left?

    We don't want checks from NI to GB or vice-versa and don't particularly want checks from Eire to NI or vice-versa either.

    They don't want checks from NI to Eire or vice-versa but do want checks from GB to NI. In your proposed scenario they're getting absolutely nothing of what they want, and we're getting everything that we want, so how is that hurting us? Its giving us what we want free of charge.

    They're powerless and impotent if we invoke Article 16 and they can't properly retaliate. Which is what Frost and Johnson rightly have recognised and why they're letting this play out.
    Err, you seem to have forgotten that they supply 40% of our food, are the only customer for much of our fishing, seafood and agricultural sectors, and account for the bulk of our exports.

    The idea of invoking Article 16 is for the birds. It's just about conceivable that Boris and Frost are stupid enough to do it, but it's not conceivable that it will work out well. Quite apart from anything else, what on earth are we bitching about? It was AT THE INSISTENCE OF BORIS that border was put down the Irish Sea. Invoking a legal process to complain that this wonderful oven-ready deal is working exactly as he intended it to and signed up to is beyond loopy. They are not going to change the rules of Single Market just because Lord Frost is even more unpleasant than usual, even if they could. With goodwill and trust, they could no doubt tweak it a bit at the edges, but that's the limit of it, and unfortunately, goodwill and trust have been trashed by the UK government.
    It's worth being clear here.

    We agreed a border in the Irish Sea.
    That border has been implemented as agreed
    We wish to use Article 16 because it's been implemented and while it's working as it was supposed to we don't like the result.,
    Hmm, we implemented it on the basis that the EU would implement a trusted trader scheme which took 99% of goods out of scope from said border. The EU hasn't implemented the scheme so it isn't working as envisaged and now we are taking action to make it work as it should until such time as the EU implement the scheme.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,768
    dixiedean said:

    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    I seem to recall @RochdalePioneers assuring us haughtily that supermarkets would never agree to pay more to lorry drivers as it was essentially set in stone?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57983698

    Oh looks as if "market forces" actually do exist afterall. Who could have ever foreseen that? 🤔

    I don't remember either of us saying that - what we said was that the agencies wouldn't be in a position to pay those sort of offers because supermarkets keep costs low.

    Mind you it's worth looking at the actual job advert https://www.tesco-careers.com/jobdetails/641063/

    20 days holiday rising to 22 tells you everything you need to know about the treatment of drivers even now.
    20 days holiday (plus bank holidays) is the law. That's pretty standard in much of the private sector.

    Rising to 22 is 10% higher than much of the country gets.
    Do you have a citation? I don't think that's true at all.

    For instance (10 years old but, if anything, I imagine firms have become more generous over time):
    https://www.e-reward.co.uk/news/irs-publishes-survey-of-annual-leave

    The average number of days' holiday given to staff is 34 days, inclusive of bank holidays. The statutory minimum for full-time employees is 28 days. Basic leave entitlement is higher in the public sector. On average, public sector employees receive 29 days, excluding bank holidays, compared with 25 days in manufacturing and production companies and 26 days in other private sector organisations.

    So, on average, private sector employees get a full week extra over and above the minimum.
    Be kind to Phil. He hasn't had a day off from his 16 hour a day gig backing Boris in years.
    No reason for him to assume anyone else might.
    No wonder Boris wanted to leave the EU, just so he could jettison the Working Time Directive and make Phil work well in excess of 48 hours a week.

    Phil mate, join a union!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,878

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    They already do that and what cooperation on illegal immigration? Haven't we just had a month of remainer sneering about how the EU aren't helping because they no longer have to?!

    Recognise the situation for what it is and the EU for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186
    edited July 27
    duplicate
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MattW said:

    eek said:


    He's not.

    He's trying to rewrite the NI Protocol because NI is not finished.

    I have to ask in what way is NI not finished yet? Border poll with Ireland not been called or something else?

    Assuming you mean the protocol, well the issue there is that it's working perfectly for the EU (unintentionally) but creating way bigger problems than expected for us....

    I think the reason why re-negotiation it isn't working out can be seen in the middle part of my previous sentence.
    Agreed which is why we need to invoke Article 16 and it seems like that threat is now very much on the table. Hopefully the threat will be enough to see the EU move without requiring us to pull the trigger, in which case its worked. If it doesn't, we need Frost and Boris to have enough backbone to proceed.
    What exactly is the downside of triggering Article 16, apart from worsening relations and getting a possible referral to the European Court? Retaliation? (Genuine question - I don't know.)
    That 'equivalent' retaliation is 'permitted'. Perhaps also that 'equivalent' can be in unrelated areas.

    The referral would not be to the European Court aiui, but to the neutral structures ("joint committee"?) set up to arbitrate disputes.

    The role of the European Court is restricted to matters related to the interpretation of EU Law where mentioned in the treaty. I do not think that the ECJ be sure to have jurisdiction over article 16.

    That is not all of it, but I think it is a gist. I have read the NIP but not recently.

    AIUI the EuCo have so far only begun to take action under areas presided over by the ECJ. Which suggests they are not going all out, or are scared they may not win, if they go for other areas.
    The other issue is ability to enforce an ECJ judgement on the UK. The reason the EU wouldn't go down that road is that the ECJ is no longer a recognised court in the UK and they have no ability to enforce any judgement it hands down. The UK government would, rightly, ignore any ruling and just keep on doing what it's doing without a second thought.

    As I said at the time, I really was shocked that the EU gave up ECJ jurisdiction over EU/UK matters. I guess for them a bad deal was better than no deal and from an EU perspective the TCA is a pretty awful deal.
    What Remainers are struggling with mentally, why they keep relying on the notion of "but Boris agreed this so why is Boris looking to renegotiate" is they're not familiar with the ratchett effect in European politics since it worked in their favour in the past.

    Boris having got a good deal in the TCA that removes the ECJ etc can now go back to the negotiating table to get a better deal for NI. Which is what the EU had spent five years prioritising and is now coming undone for them since we have the ability to invoke Article 16 and they have limited room to retaliate.

    Previously no sooner had we passed an EU Treaty like Maastricht and the Eurocrats were already planning for the next one. Like Nice and Lisbon. Now that same effect can work to Boris and Frost's favour and there's little Remainers can do about it other than to Tweet each other about how mad it is that Boris is renegotiating his own deal.
    The issue is that the retaliation is limited in scope to NI matters and the ultimate sanction is to put up a border on the island of Ireland (as they threatened to do previously). The UK pulling the trigger on A16 would be to ensure no border between GB and NI is erected so within the scope of that it would be tough for them to do something not border related or push into the wider TCA which is an entirely separate deal (on their insistence, no less).

    The whole WA/NI protocol is a disaster, there's no doubt about it. The disaster is on both sides, it's not a wholly UK issue or a wholly EU issue. Both sides need to show some level of flexibility and compromise. The UK has already done so by accepting, in principle, a GB/NI border, the EU has not responded in kind with the promised trusted trader scheme so the UK acting to look after its own interests by no longer adhering to the previously agreed principle of a GB/NI border is quite fair.
    When I was a trainee we had a cartoon on the wall of someone sitting at a desk with 3 baskets. In, out and too hard. The last was of course the one that was overflowing and where the NI protocol would undoubtedly be found.
    Three things are true:

    (1) The Northern Ireland protocol needs to change
    (2) HMG should not have signed it
    (3) Getting to the right answer is going to be at least slightly painful
    The fault, IMO, is with Theresa May and Olly Robbins who agreed to a lot of EU maximalist positions without second thought on the basis that the UK would not ever diverge from the UK. Robbins, in particular, seems like he was tasked with ensuring that the UK would find it impossible to diverge from EU standards post-Brexit, either by May or by remainers in the civil service who hated and still hate Brexit.
    The fundamental problem - to my mind - is that the UK was never really prepared to countenance no deal. Now, while it would have been painful to leave without either a transition or an FTA on the other side, having it as a credible option would have strengthened our hand considerably.

    And the reason we took such a stance date back to the immediate aftermath of the referendum, when David Cameron wrote the infamous Nissan letter. The fear, at the highest levels of government, was that a failure to immediately reassure business could lead to a Brexidus. Now, of course, such concerns look overdone. But I think that initial fear and unwillingness to risk No Deal was what fundamentally overshadowed negotiations.

    Final point: Boris Johnson was right to get Brexit done. But he also signed something which he either didn't understand, or which he knew was not sustainable. Neither of which reflects particularly well on him.

    I disagree. I think Boris knew full well that the NI Protocol wasn't sustainable, but that it was a price worth paying to 'Get Brexit Done'.

    And in that he was surely right - and such a priority does reflect well on him.

    Because it was the lesser evil available at the time before him. Get it done, in a way that maximises our potential while minimising disruption - and by paying an unsustainable price which you know you can revisit then later on at a time that suits us and doesn't hold the entire country to ransom as NI was doing with the ticking clock of Article 50.

    The simple question is from the position we were in what better options were there. Europhiles will of course say "continuing to be in the EU" or anything like that, like May's deal, but for a Brexiteer - short of a hard No Deal Brexit which was impossible considering he negotiated this during the 2017-19 Parliament, this was about as good as it could realistically get.

    TL;DR - By agreeing to an unsustainable deal, now a sustainable one can be negotiated without Article 50 ticking over our heads, which is how it should have always realistically been.
    If we had no intention of abiding by it, we shouldn't have signed it.

    It's like only mentioning to your spouse after the marriage that the whole monogamy thing isn't for you, and you plan to have other lovers. "I would have mentioned it before, but I didn't want the whole 'not getting married to you' hanging over the discussion."

    Leaving without a Deal would have been painful. Not fatal, and a lot less bad than Covid. But it would have been a little painful.

    But it would have been honest. Signing up to something you have no intention of respecting is fundamentally dishonest.
    The difference is the trusted trader scheme.

    Your wife told you before the wedding that she’d stay on the Pill for a couple of years, but has now decided to come off it straight away - but appears surprised that you’re not so interested any more.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:



    The scope is limited to NI, what punitive measures are you envisaging? You keep saying that the EU will come up with a punitive retaliation but fail to identify what these could entail? I did this for a living for 3 years in the run up to Brexit and for a few months after the TCA was ratified by the UK government. The scope of retaliation is very, very narrow and the room for punitive measures that Ireland will agree to is extremely limited.

    You're being naive, Max. The EU doesn't need to do anything very much. Just stop cooperating even more than is currently the case. We are so dependent on their goodwill in so many areas, from illegal migrants to food supplies to data protection to aviation to banking regulation, that they can afford to just sit back and wait for some sanity to leak back into the UK government.
    All of that is in scope of the TCA and other agreements. They would need to suspend parts of the TCA in retaliation which just seems extremely unlikely so we come back to what is in scope and that's the NI protocol itself where there are few good options for them.
    This is a political matter, not primarily a legal one. It's all about trust, or rather the near-total lack of it thanks to the ludicrous self-harm the UK government has been engaged in. We can't achieve good relations through legal routes, and we desperately need good relations. They don't. It's as simple as that, and has been all along.
    But retaliatory measures would need to be legal and proportional. The TCA completely flummoxes the ability of the EU to retaliate in any meaningful sense as it is a separate deal (by their own insistence, no less) which means it is not within the scope of retaliation. So sure, maybe they can huff and puff a bit and call Boris a wanker and rage at Frost a bit more than they usually do and maybe beg for Olly Robbins to come back but ultimately the retaliation available to them is to put up a border in Ireland. On a scale of 1-10 how likely is that?
    What retaliatory measures? They can just 'work to rule', in the old 1970s trade union style, and refuse to cooperate in all the large number of areas not covered by the TCA.

    Any further collapse in goodwill will hurt us a hell of a lot more than it hurts them. It's already bad enough, for heaven's sake.
    Not at all since this bothers them more than us.

    If we invoke Article 16, have the TCA and they 'work to rule' and there are no checks whatsoever from GB to NI (because Article 16 has been invoked) then what cards have they got left?

    We don't want checks from NI to GB or vice-versa and don't particularly want checks from Eire to NI or vice-versa either.

    They don't want checks from NI to Eire or vice-versa but do want checks from GB to NI. In your proposed scenario they're getting absolutely nothing of what they want, and we're getting everything that we want, so how is that hurting us? Its giving us what we want free of charge.

    They're powerless and impotent if we invoke Article 16 and they can't properly retaliate. Which is what Frost and Johnson rightly have recognised and why they're letting this play out.
    Err, you seem to have forgotten that they supply 40% of our food, are the only customer for much of our fishing, seafood and agricultural sectors, and account for the bulk of our exports.

    The idea of invoking Article 16 is for the birds. It's just about conceivable that Boris and Frost are stupid enough to do it, but it's not conceivable that it will work out well. Quite apart from anything else, what on earth are we bitching about? It was AT THE INSISTENCE OF BORIS that border was put down the Irish Sea. Invoking a legal process to complain that this wonderful oven-ready deal is working exactly as he intended it to and signed up to is beyond loopy. They are not going to change the rules of Single Market just because Lord Frost is even more unpleasant than usual, even if they could. With goodwill and trust, they could no doubt tweak it a bit at the edges, but that's the limit of it, and unfortunately, goodwill and trust have been trashed by the UK government.
    I haven't forgotten about any of that, I just don't consider it important. I didn't consider it important in the Brexit negotiations, I certainly don't consider it important now post-Brexit when the TCA has already been agreed.

    Anyway there is no goodwill and trust which is why power is needed instead. Goodwill is for the birds, we don't need anything as useless and ephemeral as goodwill.

    The simple fact is the NI Protocol hasn't been implemented with goodwill or trust by the EU which is why Article 16 should be invoked. The populace of NI makes up less than half a percent of the population of the Single Market, the trade makes up less then a percent of extra-EU trade, but checks in NI now make up 20% of the checks on trade the EU are doing.

    So they're being disproportionate by a ratio of 40x as many checks at the moment.

    So yes absolutely if the EU won't implement the Protocol with goodwill and good faith then its time to invoke Article 16. Which don't forget is a legitimate part of the Protocol just as much as any other Article.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 1,538
    edited July 27

    BBC News - My dog Dilyn can't control his romantic urges, says Boris Johnson
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57987491

    Insert joke here....

    Do you think Johnson is trolling us?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,870

    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    I seem to recall @RochdalePioneers assuring us haughtily that supermarkets would never agree to pay more to lorry drivers as it was essentially set in stone?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57983698

    Oh looks as if "market forces" actually do exist afterall. Who could have ever foreseen that? 🤔

    I don't remember either of us saying that - what we said was that the agencies wouldn't be in a position to pay those sort of offers because supermarkets keep costs low.

    Mind you it's worth looking at the actual job advert https://www.tesco-careers.com/jobdetails/641063/

    20 days holiday rising to 22 tells you everything you need to know about the treatment of drivers even now.
    20 days holiday (plus bank holidays) is the law. That's pretty standard in much of the private sector.

    Rising to 22 is 10% higher than much of the country gets.
    Do you have a citation? I don't think that's true at all.

    For instance (10 years old but, if anything, I imagine firms have become more generous over time):
    https://www.e-reward.co.uk/news/irs-publishes-survey-of-annual-leave

    The average number of days' holiday given to staff is 34 days, inclusive of bank holidays. The statutory minimum for full-time employees is 28 days. Basic leave entitlement is higher in the public sector. On average, public sector employees receive 29 days, excluding bank holidays, compared with 25 days in manufacturing and production companies and 26 days in other private sector organisations.

    So, on average, private sector employees get a full week extra over and above the minimum.
    Be kind to Phil. He hasn't had a day off from his 16 hour a day gig backing Boris in years.
    No reason for him to assume anyone else might.
    How can the company offer less than the statutory minimum?
    There are ways and means to discourage holiday being taken...

    My point was that offering the legal minimum of holidays while pretending its a great deal emphasised the reason why so few people want to drive HGVs.
    But they are offering less than the legal minimum. How is that allowed?
    Who is offering less than the legal minimum (which is 20 days + 8 bank holidays).
    Oh, so Phillip's numbers were correct? Sorry, I was under the assumption they were not given the replies.
    Best to be clear

    Tesco Delivery driver 20 > 22 days holiday + 8 days bank holidays
    Manufacturing 25 days holiday + 8 bank holidays
    Private firms (typical) 26 days holiday + 8 bank holidays
    Public sector 29 - 33 days + 8 bank holidays.

    My original point was that Tesco is offering the bare minimum while pretending it's a great deal and it really isn't.
    As I said, in much of the private sector (not all of it) people can only get 20 days + 8 bank holidays.

    22 days + 8 bank holidays will be more than many people in this country get. It may not be as good as many others get, but its not uniform or standard by any means. More than one thing can be true simultaneously.

    20+8 is the legal minimum so 22+8 is more than that.
    Any indication on how "much" of the private sector offers the minimum legal amount of days off? Say, in % terms?
    I'm struggling to find the data but from memory its pretty high.

    According to an ONS survey in 2018 publicised by the TUC at the time, 2 million workers were getting less than the legal minimum in practice by companies finding ways to deny holidays. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/holiday-legal-minimum-workers-not-taken-denied-statutory-leave-tuc-research-a8466426.html

    We can reasonably assume those actually getting the minimum in their contracts would include those getting less than the minimum, plus many times more whose bosses aren't defrauding them.
    I don't agree - there's no reason to believe any of those people getting less than the minimum in practice are not contractually entitled to more than the minimum, and there's no reason to believe successful applicants to today's Tesco job ad will be more or less likely than average to end up being able to actually take all of it (for whatever reason).

    Also, I'm not sure what the parameters of the TUC study are - for example, do they include people who could, but simply don't want to, take off their leave entitlement? Either way, you're not comparing like with like.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited July 27

    BBC News - My dog Dilyn can't control his romantic urges, says Boris Johnson
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57987491

    Insert joke here....

    He's having fun with that story, definitely, it wouldn't make a press story if not for who he is. Cheeky bugger.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,889
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    MaxPB said:



    The scope is limited to NI, what punitive measures are you envisaging? You keep saying that the EU will come up with a punitive retaliation but fail to identify what these could entail? I did this for a living for 3 years in the run up to Brexit and for a few months after the TCA was ratified by the UK government. The scope of retaliation is very, very narrow and the room for punitive measures that Ireland will agree to is extremely limited.

    You're being naive, Max. The EU doesn't need to do anything very much. Just stop cooperating even more than is currently the case. We are so dependent on their goodwill in so many areas, from illegal migrants to food supplies to data protection to aviation to banking regulation, that they can afford to just sit back and wait for some sanity to leak back into the UK government.
    There is very little formal restraint on either party in the Northern Ireland Protocol. Unfortunately with all of this, Northern Ireland gets damaged the most. The Irish definitely have an agenda, but they also have a vastly bigger consideration for issues in Northern Ireland than the UKG does, despite the latter nominally running the place.
    Chief of which is ensuring UKG keeps paying the bills and NI doesn't decide it would be better off as part of Ireland.
    Not exactly. The Irish agenda is never have to choose between full membership of the EU and a soft border with the North (they will choose the EU over the North) and put the Brexit problem onto the UK rather than them. Which they have done very successfully.

    So far.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:



    The scope is limited to NI, what punitive measures are you envisaging? You keep saying that the EU will come up with a punitive retaliation but fail to identify what these could entail? I did this for a living for 3 years in the run up to Brexit and for a few months after the TCA was ratified by the UK government. The scope of retaliation is very, very narrow and the room for punitive measures that Ireland will agree to is extremely limited.

    You're being naive, Max. The EU doesn't need to do anything very much. Just stop cooperating even more than is currently the case. We are so dependent on their goodwill in so many areas, from illegal migrants to food supplies to data protection to aviation to banking regulation, that they can afford to just sit back and wait for some sanity to leak back into the UK government.
    All of that is in scope of the TCA and other agreements. They would need to suspend parts of the TCA in retaliation which just seems extremely unlikely so we come back to what is in scope and that's the NI protocol itself where there are few good options for them.
    This is a political matter, not primarily a legal one. It's all about trust, or rather the near-total lack of it thanks to the ludicrous self-harm the UK government has been engaged in. We can't achieve good relations through legal routes, and we desperately need good relations. They don't. It's as simple as that, and has been all along.
    But retaliatory measures would need to be legal and proportional. The TCA completely flummoxes the ability of the EU to retaliate in any meaningful sense as it is a separate deal (by their own insistence, no less) which means it is not within the scope of retaliation. So sure, maybe they can huff and puff a bit and call Boris a wanker and rage at Frost a bit more than they usually do and maybe beg for Olly Robbins to come back but ultimately the retaliation available to them is to put up a border in Ireland. On a scale of 1-10 how likely is that?
    What retaliatory measures? They can just 'work to rule', in the old 1970s trade union style, and refuse to cooperate in all the large number of areas not covered by the TCA.

    Any further collapse in goodwill will hurt us a hell of a lot more than it hurts them. It's already bad enough, for heaven's sake.
    Not at all since this bothers them more than us.

    If we invoke Article 16, have the TCA and they 'work to rule' and there are no checks whatsoever from GB to NI (because Article 16 has been invoked) then what cards have they got left?

    We don't want checks from NI to GB or vice-versa and don't particularly want checks from Eire to NI or vice-versa either.

    They don't want checks from NI to Eire or vice-versa but do want checks from GB to NI. In your proposed scenario they're getting absolutely nothing of what they want, and we're getting everything that we want, so how is that hurting us? Its giving us what we want free of charge.

    They're powerless and impotent if we invoke Article 16 and they can't properly retaliate. Which is what Frost and Johnson rightly have recognised and why they're letting this play out.
    Err, you seem to have forgotten that they supply 40% of our food, are the only customer for much of our fishing, seafood and agricultural sectors, and account for the bulk of our exports.

    The idea of invoking Article 16 is for the birds. It's just about conceivable that Boris and Frost are stupid enough to do it, but it's not conceivable that it will work out well. Quite apart from anything else, what on earth are we bitching about? It was AT THE INSISTENCE OF BORIS that border was put down the Irish Sea. Invoking a legal process to complain that this wonderful oven-ready deal is working exactly as he intended it to and signed up to is beyond loopy. They are not going to change the rules of Single Market just because Lord Frost is even more unpleasant than usual, even if they could. With goodwill and trust, they could no doubt tweak it a bit at the edges, but that's the limit of it, and unfortunately, goodwill and trust have been trashed by the UK government.
    It's worth being clear here.

    We agreed a border in the Irish Sea.
    That border has been implemented as agreed
    We wish to use Article 16 because it's been implemented and while it's working as it was supposed to we don't like the result.,
    We also agreed a trusted trader scheme, which resolves 99% of the problems, and which the EU don’t now wish to implement.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,726

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:



    The scope is limited to NI, what punitive measures are you envisaging? You keep saying that the EU will come up with a punitive retaliation but fail to identify what these could entail? I did this for a living for 3 years in the run up to Brexit and for a few months after the TCA was ratified by the UK government. The scope of retaliation is very, very narrow and the room for punitive measures that Ireland will agree to is extremely limited.

    You're being naive, Max. The EU doesn't need to do anything very much. Just stop cooperating even more than is currently the case. We are so dependent on their goodwill in so many areas, from illegal migrants to food supplies to data protection to aviation to banking regulation, that they can afford to just sit back and wait for some sanity to leak back into the UK government.
    All of that is in scope of the TCA and other agreements. They would need to suspend parts of the TCA in retaliation which just seems extremely unlikely so we come back to what is in scope and that's the NI protocol itself where there are few good options for them.
    This is a political matter, not primarily a legal one. It's all about trust, or rather the near-total lack of it thanks to the ludicrous self-harm the UK government has been engaged in. We can't achieve good relations through legal routes, and we desperately need good relations. They don't. It's as simple as that, and has been all along.
    But retaliatory measures would need to be legal and proportional. The TCA completely flummoxes the ability of the EU to retaliate in any meaningful sense as it is a separate deal (by their own insistence, no less) which means it is not within the scope of retaliation. So sure, maybe they can huff and puff a bit and call Boris a wanker and rage at Frost a bit more than they usually do and maybe beg for Olly Robbins to come back but ultimately the retaliation available to them is to put up a border in Ireland. On a scale of 1-10 how likely is that?
    What retaliatory measures? They can just 'work to rule', in the old 1970s trade union style, and refuse to cooperate in all the large number of areas not covered by the TCA.

    Any further collapse in goodwill will hurt us a hell of a lot more than it hurts them. It's already bad enough, for heaven's sake.
    Not at all since this bothers them more than us.

    If we invoke Article 16, have the TCA and they 'work to rule' and there are no checks whatsoever from GB to NI (because Article 16 has been invoked) then what cards have they got left?

    We don't want checks from NI to GB or vice-versa and don't particularly want checks from Eire to NI or vice-versa either.

    They don't want checks from NI to Eire or vice-versa but do want checks from GB to NI. In your proposed scenario they're getting absolutely nothing of what they want, and we're getting everything that we want, so how is that hurting us? Its giving us what we want free of charge.

    They're powerless and impotent if we invoke Article 16 and they can't properly retaliate. Which is what Frost and Johnson rightly have recognised and why they're letting this play out.
    Err, you seem to have forgotten that they supply 40% of our food, are the only customer for much of our fishing, seafood and agricultural sectors, and account for the bulk of our exports.

    The idea of invoking Article 16 is for the birds. It's just about conceivable that Boris and Frost are stupid enough to do it, but it's not conceivable that it will work out well. Quite apart from anything else, what on earth are we bitching about? It was AT THE INSISTENCE OF BORIS that border was put down the Irish Sea. Invoking a legal process to complain that this wonderful oven-ready deal is working exactly as he intended it to and signed up to is beyond loopy. They are not going to change the rules of Single Market just because Lord Frost is even more unpleasant than usual, even if they could. With goodwill and trust, they could no doubt tweak it a bit at the edges, but that's the limit of it, and unfortunately, goodwill and trust have been trashed by the UK government.
    Oh Richard you are reviving 'project fear' - the great EU bogey which indeed frightened 48% to vote to stay - oh ...it didn't work then over the whole of the UK and it won't work over NI. Also how quickly you forget how much trashing of goodwill was done by the EU ober the vaccine rollout. After 5 years it is time to take the blinkers off. Bad behaviour has noyt been a one way street.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,018

    BBC News - My dog Dilyn can't control his romantic urges, says Boris Johnson
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57987491

    Insert joke here....

    My wife has long been of the view that dogs inherit the personalities of their owners. Until I read the BBC article, I was inclined to disagree.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    They already do that and what cooperation on illegal immigration? Haven't we just had a month of remainer sneering about how the EU aren't helping because they no longer have to?!

    Recognise the situation for what it is and the EU for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
    It's not me that doesn't recognise what the EU is. It's the Brexiteers who totally fail to understand it. It's not some hostile state plotting against us, but it's a legalistic construct which allows 26 countries to work together in an unprecedented way precisely because it is based on enforceable rules. That's why they are not going to change the rules to suit us; not only do they not want to, they have no easy mechanism to do so. If the rules say packs of sausages can't enter the Single Market from third countries, that's pretty much the end of the matter, no matter how much Lord Frost shouts and insults them. We knew that all along. (Well, Boris probably didn't, but he should have done.)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573
    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    I seem to recall @RochdalePioneers assuring us haughtily that supermarkets would never agree to pay more to lorry drivers as it was essentially set in stone?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57983698

    Oh looks as if "market forces" actually do exist afterall. Who could have ever foreseen that? 🤔

    I don't remember either of us saying that - what we said was that the agencies wouldn't be in a position to pay those sort of offers because supermarkets keep costs low.

    Mind you it's worth looking at the actual job advert https://www.tesco-careers.com/jobdetails/641063/

    20 days holiday rising to 22 tells you everything you need to know about the treatment of drivers even now.
    20 days holiday (plus bank holidays) is the law. That's pretty standard in much of the private sector.

    Rising to 22 is 10% higher than much of the country gets.
    Do you have a citation? I don't think that's true at all.

    For instance (10 years old but, if anything, I imagine firms have become more generous over time):
    https://www.e-reward.co.uk/news/irs-publishes-survey-of-annual-leave

    The average number of days' holiday given to staff is 34 days, inclusive of bank holidays. The statutory minimum for full-time employees is 28 days. Basic leave entitlement is higher in the public sector. On average, public sector employees receive 29 days, excluding bank holidays, compared with 25 days in manufacturing and production companies and 26 days in other private sector organisations.

    So, on average, private sector employees get a full week extra over and above the minimum.
    Be kind to Phil. He hasn't had a day off from his 16 hour a day gig backing Boris in years.
    No reason for him to assume anyone else might.
    How can the company offer less than the statutory minimum?
    There are ways and means to discourage holiday being taken...

    My point was that offering the legal minimum of holidays while pretending its a great deal emphasised the reason why so few people want to drive HGVs.
    But they are offering less than the legal minimum. How is that allowed?
    Who is offering less than the legal minimum (which is 20 days + 8 bank holidays).
    Oh, so Phillip's numbers were correct? Sorry, I was under the assumption they were not given the replies.
    Best to be clear

    Tesco Delivery driver 20 > 22 days holiday + 8 days bank holidays
    Manufacturing 25 days holiday + 8 bank holidays
    Private firms (typical) 26 days holiday + 8 bank holidays
    Public sector 29 - 33 days + 8 bank holidays.

    My original point was that Tesco is offering the bare minimum while pretending it's a great deal and it really isn't.
    As I said, in much of the private sector (not all of it) people can only get 20 days + 8 bank holidays.

    22 days + 8 bank holidays will be more than many people in this country get. It may not be as good as many others get, but its not uniform or standard by any means. More than one thing can be true simultaneously.

    20+8 is the legal minimum so 22+8 is more than that.
    Any indication on how "much" of the private sector offers the minimum legal amount of days off? Say, in % terms?
    I'm struggling to find the data but from memory its pretty high.

    According to an ONS survey in 2018 publicised by the TUC at the time, 2 million workers were getting less than the legal minimum in practice by companies finding ways to deny holidays. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/holiday-legal-minimum-workers-not-taken-denied-statutory-leave-tuc-research-a8466426.html

    We can reasonably assume those actually getting the minimum in their contracts would include those getting less than the minimum, plus many times more whose bosses aren't defrauding them.
    I don't agree - there's no reason to believe any of those people getting less than the minimum in practice are not contractually entitled to more than the minimum, and there's no reason to believe successful applicants to today's Tesco job ad will be more or less likely than average to end up being able to actually take all of it (for whatever reason).

    Also, I'm not sure what the parameters of the TUC study are - for example, do they include people who could, but simply don't want to, take off their leave entitlement? Either way, you're not comparing like with like.
    Well if you're able to find figures for how many people are contracted to the legal minimum then it would be enlightening but there are millions of workers earning minimum wage and I see little reason not to believe there are millions earning minimum holiday entitlement too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    They already do that and what cooperation on illegal immigration? Haven't we just had a month of remainer sneering about how the EU aren't helping because they no longer have to?!

    Recognise the situation for what it is and the EU for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
    It's not me that doesn't recognise what the EU is. It's the Brexiteers who totally fail to understand it. It's not some hostile state plotting against us, but it's a legalistic construct which allows 26 countries to work together in an unprecedented way precisely because it is based on enforceable rules. That's why they are not going to change the rules to suit us; not only do they not want to, they have no easy mechanism to do so. If the rules say packs of sausages can't enter the Single Market from third countries, that's pretty much the end of the matter, no matter how much Lord Frost shouts and insults them. We knew that all along. (Well, Boris probably didn't, but he should have done.)
    What "enforceable rules" say that 20% of all the EU's checks for the entire continent need to be done on NI?

    What "enforceable rules" say that the EU can't implement the promised trusted trader scheme?

    What "enforceable rules" are broken if an Article of a ratified treaty is invoked?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    edited July 27
    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,878

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    They already do that and what cooperation on illegal immigration? Haven't we just had a month of remainer sneering about how the EU aren't helping because they no longer have to?!

    Recognise the situation for what it is and the EU for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
    It's not me that doesn't recognise what the EU is. It's the Brexiteers who totally fail to understand it. It's not some hostile state plotting against us, but it's a legalistic construct which allows 26 countries to work together in an unprecedented way precisely because it is based on enforceable rules. That's why they are not going to change the rules to suit us; not only do they not want to, they have no easy mechanism to do so. If the rules say packs of sausages can't enter the Single Market from third countries, that's pretty much the end of the matter, no matter how much Lord Frost shouts and insults them. We knew that all along. (Well, Boris probably didn't, but he should have done.)
    Again, that's just a bunch of angry ranting and meaningless words. The EU is no longer an informal and formal ally as, say the USA or Canada is, they are a formal ally whose relationship with us is defined within a tightly defined set of rules as laid out in the TCA and WA. I'm happy with that situation and not relying on some undetermined amount of goodwill for a functional relationship with the EU. It seems you aren't.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 560

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261

    England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    Oh...
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,726

    MrEd said:

    On topic , goes somewhat against the narrative that it is thick poorer Brexiteers who are being duped by Johnson. Maybe some of the snobbier commentators want to focus on their middle class Brexiteer peers....

    (....which includes my good self :smile: )

    There was a piece in the Guardian a few months ago saying the same thing - the accepted narrative is that the working classes delivered Brexit, but it was middle class Brexiteers, Tories, wot won it really.

    But having said that, I am still hugely disappointed at how many working class people voted Leave. I don’t think they’re thick. I certainly think they were duped. But history shows us that very intelligent people can be duped too. They were all duped by the very rich people who bankrolled the two Leave campaigns. Who, really, don’t give two shits about normal people. Much like your hero, Trump.

    They want to believe. I think they’re still trying desperately to believe. Some of them will never recant. But I suspect, in time, grudgingly, a good number will. Because Brexit cannot deliver everything it promised to everyone who bought into the dream.
    I'm not at all sure you understand the dream - I tried persuading countless friends here to vote remain because of the economic benefits. It simply did not wash with any of them. They were adamant it was not about money. They wanted out of an organisation which seemed to want to subvert their country. I did not buy the idea - 52% did. The EU behaviour since, especially over the vaccine rollout has made me seriously doubt how I'd vote if given the chance again. And yes I'm middle class and educated.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261

    England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    My brother who is 36 had his first dose this week. There were no sites close enough to him as he cannot afford random taxi journeys so was waiting on his GPs contacting him.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    edited July 27
    TimS said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261

    England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    Oh...
    Monday's nunber was super low though, so perhaps it is a backfilling issue. Worth keeping an eye out to see if all this talk of not being allowed to boogie without your jabs might be encouraging people to get them done.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    23k cases, 131 deaths.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,286
    edited July 27

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    Mr N, having just seen you posting again, I've been asked to write on behalf an anonymous friend in France who lurks here, who is grateful for your advice a couple of weeks ago re the French version of the Pass Sanitaire.
    I've no idea what the advice was, or the context, except to say the lurker & family are obliged.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186


    What "enforceable rules" say that 20% of all the EU's checks for the entire continent need to be done on NI?

    What "enforceable rules" say that the EU can't implement the promised trusted trader scheme?

    What "enforceable rules" are broken if an Article of a ratified treaty is invoked?

    The 20% figure is garbage, isn't it? Some Dan Hannan nonsense.

    What trusted trader scheme? There isn't one. These things don't create themselves. The UK hasn't done anything to propose one. And the key word there is 'trust'.

    As for the last point, nothing. But don't expect it to help with the goodwill and the trust needed to mitigate the disastrous impact of the policy Boris rushed through with zero parliamentary oversight.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Philip is so deep into the cult that he won't acknowledge that the deal his leader personally negotiated and signed has been a disaster for NI. That's when you know you're deep down the rabbit hole, I found myself there with Corbyn a few times

    Maybe you've developed a bit since then but your posts on here show how far you still have to go.

    You're young, and your posts make you out to be obviously young like an excited twelve-year old coming out of the cinema having seen the latest Marvel film; "Kewl!"

    Be a bit more measured and sober, and you'll be worth reading.
    I'm glad you've finally stopped crying after Trump lost, welcome back Casino, wishing you well!
    I never supported Trump.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 535

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Murder Tuesday is back for the media to speculate over then.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    Mr N, having just seen you posting again, I've been asked to write on behalf an anonymous friend in France who looks here, who is grateful for your advice a couple of weeks ago re the French version of the Pass Sanitaire.
    I've no idea what the advice was, or the context, except to say the lurker & family are obliged.
    Ah, thanks! Glad to have been helpful. I was just passing on what I read in a tweet which I thought might be useful.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186
    Anyway, I must go. Toodle pip
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,286

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    Mr N, having just seen you posting again, I've been asked to write on behalf an anonymous friend in France who looks here, who is grateful for your advice a couple of weeks ago re the French version of the Pass Sanitaire.
    I've no idea what the advice was, or the context, except to say the lurker & family are obliged.
    Ah, thanks! Glad to have been helpful. I was just passing on what I read in a tweet which I thought might be useful.
    Noted. I'm sure my lurking friend will be in touch at some point.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,862

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,768
    edited July 27
    Just catching up with Johnson's law and order hi-viz chain gang intitiative.

    Whereas in principle, I don't disagree with the idea, but what is it with Johnson and his high visibility clothing fixation?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    RH1992 said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Murder Tuesday is back for the media to speculate over then.
    Murder Tuesday is the gift that keeps on giving us idiots to kick.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 197

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,726

    Anyway, I must go. Toodle pip

    Time to get back to the day job Ursula?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,864

    BBC News - My dog Dilyn can't control his romantic urges, says Boris Johnson
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57987491

    Insert joke here....

    There's an easy enough fix...
  • eekeek Posts: 15,862

    TimS said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261

    England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    Oh...
    Monday's nunber was super low though, so perhaps it is a backfilling issue. Worth keeping an eye out to see if all this talk of not being allowed to boogie without your jabs might be encouraging people to get them done.
    Yesterday's reported first doses were higher this week compared to last week (25000 compared to 18000 from memory).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    edited July 27
    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    Its worth remembering the rugrat super spreaders aren't testing themselves now though.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,881
    We must be reaching the point now when they fire the gun for the first boosters. If Gen Z don’t want it, and the kids aren’t allowed it, then why not start from the beginning again with Groups 1-3?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573


    What "enforceable rules" say that 20% of all the EU's checks for the entire continent need to be done on NI?

    What "enforceable rules" say that the EU can't implement the promised trusted trader scheme?

    What "enforceable rules" are broken if an Article of a ratified treaty is invoked?

    The 20% figure is garbage, isn't it? Some Dan Hannan nonsense.

    What trusted trader scheme? There isn't one. These things don't create themselves. The UK hasn't done anything to propose one. And the key word there is 'trust'.

    As for the last point, nothing. But don't expect it to help with the goodwill and the trust needed to mitigate the disastrous impact of the policy Boris rushed through with zero parliamentary oversight.
    That 20% figure has been quoted in many sources without challenge. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-protocol-checks-equate-to-20-of-total-undertaken-by-eu-40158174.html

    You're right Trusted Trader Schemes don't create themselves, we need the EU to compromise to produce one. Until then, we can implement Article 16.

    On your last point - great, if its nothing we can live with that. As for your ludicrous farcical notion of "goodwill" - we haven't got any and I don't want any. There hasn't been any goodwill as far as the EU is concerned at the very least since Blair gave away half the rebate for the promise of CAP reform that then never happened.

    The less said about "goodwill" the better.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291

    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    Its worth remembering the rugrat super spreaders aren't testing themselves now though.
    Testing isn't really massively down.

    Running the numbers now..
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573

    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    Its worth remembering the rugrat super spreaders aren't testing themselves now though.
    Testing isn't really massively down.

    Running the numbers now..
    WoW cases down 30.8%
    WoW tests down 13.8%

    Would have expected a bigger drop in test figures. Surprised its so low.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291

    Just catching up with Johnson's law and order hi-viz chain gang intitiative.

    Whereas in principle, I don't disagree with the idea, but what is it with Johnson and his high visibility clothing fixation?

    Hi-Viz grants mystic powers of protection and authority. Every one in 'Elf & Safety knows this.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,768
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MattW said:

    eek said:


    He's not.

    He's trying to rewrite the NI Protocol because NI is not finished.

    I have to ask in what way is NI not finished yet? Border poll with Ireland not been called or something else?

    Assuming you mean the protocol, well the issue there is that it's working perfectly for the EU (unintentionally) but creating way bigger problems than expected for us....

    I think the reason why re-negotiation it isn't working out can be seen in the middle part of my previous sentence.
    Agreed which is why we need to invoke Article 16 and it seems like that threat is now very much on the table. Hopefully the threat will be enough to see the EU move without requiring us to pull the trigger, in which case its worked. If it doesn't, we need Frost and Boris to have enough backbone to proceed.
    What exactly is the downside of triggering Article 16, apart from worsening relations and getting a possible referral to the European Court? Retaliation? (Genuine question - I don't know.)
    That 'equivalent' retaliation is 'permitted'. Perhaps also that 'equivalent' can be in unrelated areas.

    The referral would not be to the European Court aiui, but to the neutral structures ("joint committee"?) set up to arbitrate disputes.

    The role of the European Court is restricted to matters related to the interpretation of EU Law where mentioned in the treaty. I do not think that the ECJ be sure to have jurisdiction over article 16.

    That is not all of it, but I think it is a gist. I have read the NIP but not recently.

    AIUI the EuCo have so far only begun to take action under areas presided over by the ECJ. Which suggests they are not going all out, or are scared they may not win, if they go for other areas.
    The other issue is ability to enforce an ECJ judgement on the UK. The reason the EU wouldn't go down that road is that the ECJ is no longer a recognised court in the UK and they have no ability to enforce any judgement it hands down. The UK government would, rightly, ignore any ruling and just keep on doing what it's doing without a second thought.

    As I said at the time, I really was shocked that the EU gave up ECJ jurisdiction over EU/UK matters. I guess for them a bad deal was better than no deal and from an EU perspective the TCA is a pretty awful deal.
    What Remainers are struggling with mentally, why they keep relying on the notion of "but Boris agreed this so why is Boris looking to renegotiate" is they're not familiar with the ratchett effect in European politics since it worked in their favour in the past.

    Boris having got a good deal in the TCA that removes the ECJ etc can now go back to the negotiating table to get a better deal for NI. Which is what the EU had spent five years prioritising and is now coming undone for them since we have the ability to invoke Article 16 and they have limited room to retaliate.

    Previously no sooner had we passed an EU Treaty like Maastricht and the Eurocrats were already planning for the next one. Like Nice and Lisbon. Now that same effect can work to Boris and Frost's favour and there's little Remainers can do about it other than to Tweet each other about how mad it is that Boris is renegotiating his own deal.
    The issue is that the retaliation is limited in scope to NI matters and the ultimate sanction is to put up a border on the island of Ireland (as they threatened to do previously). The UK pulling the trigger on A16 would be to ensure no border between GB and NI is erected so within the scope of that it would be tough for them to do something not border related or push into the wider TCA which is an entirely separate deal (on their insistence, no less).

    The whole WA/NI protocol is a disaster, there's no doubt about it. The disaster is on both sides, it's not a wholly UK issue or a wholly EU issue. Both sides need to show some level of flexibility and compromise. The UK has already done so by accepting, in principle, a GB/NI border, the EU has not responded in kind with the promised trusted trader scheme so the UK acting to look after its own interests by no longer adhering to the previously agreed principle of a GB/NI border is quite fair.
    When I was a trainee we had a cartoon on the wall of someone sitting at a desk with 3 baskets. In, out and too hard. The last was of course the one that was overflowing and where the NI protocol would undoubtedly be found.
    Three things are true:

    (1) The Northern Ireland protocol needs to change
    (2) HMG should not have signed it
    (3) Getting to the right answer is going to be at least slightly painful
    The fault, IMO, is with Theresa May and Olly Robbins who agreed to a lot of EU maximalist positions without second thought on the basis that the UK would not ever diverge from the UK. Robbins, in particular, seems like he was tasked with ensuring that the UK would find it impossible to diverge from EU standards post-Brexit, either by May or by remainers in the civil service who hated and still hate Brexit.
    Oh behave.

    Mrs May took compromise over sensibilities in NI seriously. Boris Johnson just blundered in, as is his way, and signed up to an absolute pig-in-a-poke, Moreover he sold it as a "Brexit is done" victory.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,862

    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    Its worth remembering the rugrat super spreaders aren't testing themselves now though.
    Testing isn't really massively down.

    Running the numbers now..
    WoW cases down 30.8%
    WoW tests down 13.8%

    Would have expected a bigger drop in test figures. Surprised its so low.
    I was surprised about that last week after the first set of schools had gone on holiday.

    The WoW figures do point to infection rates falling even though it's obvious that a lot of people may be infected but are not being tested....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291

    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    Its worth remembering the rugrat super spreaders aren't testing themselves now though.
    Testing isn't really massively down.

    Running the numbers now..
    WoW cases down 30.8%
    WoW tests down 13.8%

    Would have expected a bigger drop in test figures. Surprised its so low.
    That's been seen every time the cases drop - the tests lag. Probably because of mass testing in areas of high infection - "pushing" people to test.....
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,177
    moonshine said:

    We must be reaching the point now when they fire the gun for the first boosters. If Gen Z don’t want it, and the kids aren’t allowed it, then why not start from the beginning again with Groups 1-3?

    it starts the first week in September
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,664
    First time in ages Tuesday lower cases than Monday - pace of collapse in numbers even outweighing the normal weekly shape now.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,878
    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Where's wee Alistair McCaseramper?

    We're dooooommmmed...
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,664
    And no sign of anything exponential in hospital numbers, if anything the arithmetic growth rate is slowing.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,035
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Rightly or wrongly I can perfectly see why healthy, fit 18-22 yr olds (how many of them are there?) just can't be arsed to get jabbed.

    If they thought about it it would be "for society" but whenever has an 18-22yr old thought about "society".

    They need to start bribing (rather than the threatening which, it seems, is far inferior) imo.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    maaarsh said:

    And no sign of anything exponential in hospital numbers, if anything the arithmetic growth rate is slowing.

    And of course, we now know that you can effectively cut those in half anyway.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,177
    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    6 weeks ago I was called a retard on this site by OGH's son for suggesting that the way cases collapsed in India might just be the way that Delta behaves, as social distancing is not really possible in India.

    Now look what has happened here and in Scotland and in Holland and in Jakarta.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,878
    maaarsh said:

    And no sign of anything exponential in hospital numbers, if anything the arithmetic growth rate is slowing.

    Yes, now at about 20 day doubling time for admissions and 16 days for in hospital, that was 11 days and 9 days when the decision to go ahead with step 4 was made.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,440
    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    This is what Heard immunity looks like for a highly infections virus,

    if a virus has a R0 rate of 10 then

    85% with immunity = 50 % growth
    90% with immunity = 0% Flat
    95% with immunity = 50 % decline

    If the viruses has an R rate of 20 then those numbers are 92.5%, 95% and 97.5%

    in the week ending 17 August 1.2 million people had there second jab, and the ONS estimate is that 800,000 actually had the viruses based on there random household servery. The week after that had similar number vaccinated and probably slightly more with the viruses but the numbers is not out yet.

    I cant find the link but IIRC the ONS also did an anti body servery a couple of weeks ago which indicated 91.5% of the population had antibodies, I can remember if that was all population or just adults.

    This is what what heard immunity looks like, and should have been expected. It also brings in to question the silly idea of vaccine passports and any other restriction with the possible exception of hospital visited.

    if there is a new variant or evidenced that vaccines (that have been spaced out properly) decrees effectiveness significantly, that different but until then lets get back to normal.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,641

    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    6 weeks ago I was called a retard on this site by OGH's son for suggesting that the way cases collapsed in India might just be the way that Delta behaves, as social distancing is not really possible in India.

    Now look what has happened here and in Scotland and in Holland and in Jakarta.

    I'm waiting for the schools to return in Scotland (in just under 3 weeks) to see what happens.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,522
    edited July 27
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Friend of mine who I was out with saturday said he'd looked into it and decided it wasn't for him because he didn't go out much. Which I found an interesting argument :D
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,878
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Friend of mine who I was out with saturday said he'd looked into it and decided it wasn't for him because he didn't go out much.
    Lol, fair enough.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,440
    MaxPB said:

    Some good news from my friend who was struggling with COVID, she's been discharged from hospital and is feeling a lot better. They gave her an early second vaccine dose on Wednesday last week as part of a trial that's looking into the effect of vaccination of medium term COVID patients who have been infected for more than two weeks. It may just be a coincidence that her infection has gone away just at the same moment her immune system begins to make huge amounts of antibodies due to her second vaccine dose but it probably isn't.

    Glad to hear she is getting better, and glad that new ways to treat the virus with the vaccine are being explored. :)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,286
    edited July 27
    MaxPB said:

    Some good news from my friend who was struggling with COVID, she's been discharged from hospital and is feeling a lot better. They gave her an early second vaccine dose on Wednesday last week as part of a trial that's looking into the effect of vaccination of medium term COVID patients who have been infected for more than two weeks. It may just be a coincidence that her infection has gone away just at the same moment her immune system begins to make huge amounts of antibodies due to her second vaccine dose but it probably isn't.

    Whatever, it's good news, as you say. Wish her well.
  • felix said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic , goes somewhat against the narrative that it is thick poorer Brexiteers who are being duped by Johnson. Maybe some of the snobbier commentators want to focus on their middle class Brexiteer peers....

    (....which includes my good self :smile: )

    There was a piece in the Guardian a few months ago saying the same thing - the accepted narrative is that the working classes delivered Brexit, but it was middle class Brexiteers, Tories, wot won it really.

    But having said that, I am still hugely disappointed at how many working class people voted Leave. I don’t think they’re thick. I certainly think they were duped. But history shows us that very intelligent people can be duped too. They were all duped by the very rich people who bankrolled the two Leave campaigns. Who, really, don’t give two shits about normal people. Much like your hero, Trump.

    They want to believe. I think they’re still trying desperately to believe. Some of them will never recant. But I suspect, in time, grudgingly, a good number will. Because Brexit cannot deliver everything it promised to everyone who bought into the dream.
    I'm not at all sure you understand the dream - I tried persuading countless friends here to vote remain because of the economic benefits. It simply did not wash with any of them. They were adamant it was not about money. They wanted out of an organisation which seemed to want to subvert their country. I did not buy the idea - 52% did. The EU behaviour since, especially over the vaccine rollout has made me seriously doubt how I'd vote if given the chance again. And yes I'm middle class and educated.
    The dream is whatever you want it to be. That’s the genius of Brexit. And it’s biggest flaw.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,870

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    They already do that and what cooperation on illegal immigration? Haven't we just had a month of remainer sneering about how the EU aren't helping because they no longer have to?!

    Recognise the situation for what it is and the EU for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
    It's not me that doesn't recognise what the EU is. It's the Brexiteers who totally fail to understand it. It's not some hostile state plotting against us, but it's a legalistic construct which allows 26 countries to work together in an unprecedented way precisely because it is based on enforceable rules. That's why they are not going to change the rules to suit us; not only do they not want to, they have no easy mechanism to do so. If the rules say packs of sausages can't enter the Single Market from third countries, that's pretty much the end of the matter, no matter how much Lord Frost shouts and insults them. We knew that all along. (Well, Boris probably didn't, but he should have done.)
    The single biggest factor behind my Leave vote was Angela Merkel unilaterally overriding the Dublin Convention on refugees because she felt sorry for the Syrian kid she saw on the news that morning. That broke forever in my mind
    the idea that the EU was a "legalistic construct based on enforceable rules". It's not true, because certain other countries aren't bound by those rules if they don't feel like it.

    So, I say it is not Brexiteers who don't understand the EU and what it is. On the contrary.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,755

    Ratters said:

    23k cases, 131 deaths.

    Cases down c.50% on last week where there were 46.5k.

    The speed at which cases are collapsing continues to astonish.
    6 weeks ago I was called a retard on this site by OGH's son for suggesting that the way cases collapsed in India might just be the way that Delta behaves, as social distancing is not really possible in India.

    Now look what has happened here and in Scotland and in Holland and in Jakarta.

    One issue might be that people in rural India might not travel much. So the virus will burn rapidly through a village and then have nowhere to go.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,878
    Endillion said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    They already do that and what cooperation on illegal immigration? Haven't we just had a month of remainer sneering about how the EU aren't helping because they no longer have to?!

    Recognise the situation for what it is and the EU for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
    It's not me that doesn't recognise what the EU is. It's the Brexiteers who totally fail to understand it. It's not some hostile state plotting against us, but it's a legalistic construct which allows 26 countries to work together in an unprecedented way precisely because it is based on enforceable rules. That's why they are not going to change the rules to suit us; not only do they not want to, they have no easy mechanism to do so. If the rules say packs of sausages can't enter the Single Market from third countries, that's pretty much the end of the matter, no matter how much Lord Frost shouts and insults them. We knew that all along. (Well, Boris probably didn't, but he should have done.)
    The single biggest factor behind my Leave vote was Angela Merkel unilaterally overriding the Dublin Convention on refugees because she felt sorry for the Syrian kid she saw on the news that morning. That broke forever in my mind
    the idea that the EU was a "legalistic construct based on enforceable rules". It's not true, because certain other countries aren't bound by those rules if they don't feel like it.

    So, I say it is not Brexiteers who don't understand the EU and what it is. On the contrary.
    The EU is a rules based legalistic body when it suits it to be. See the border pedantry wrt UK exports to the EU.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    UK cases by specimen data scaled to 100K

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    England PCR positivity

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    UK Case summary

    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    UK Hospitals

    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    UK deaths

    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    UK R

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    Age related data

    image
    image
    image
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,870

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    I seem to recall @RochdalePioneers assuring us haughtily that supermarkets would never agree to pay more to lorry drivers as it was essentially set in stone?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57983698

    Oh looks as if "market forces" actually do exist afterall. Who could have ever foreseen that? 🤔

    I don't remember either of us saying that - what we said was that the agencies wouldn't be in a position to pay those sort of offers because supermarkets keep costs low.

    Mind you it's worth looking at the actual job advert https://www.tesco-careers.com/jobdetails/641063/

    20 days holiday rising to 22 tells you everything you need to know about the treatment of drivers even now.
    20 days holiday (plus bank holidays) is the law. That's pretty standard in much of the private sector.

    Rising to 22 is 10% higher than much of the country gets.
    Do you have a citation? I don't think that's true at all.

    For instance (10 years old but, if anything, I imagine firms have become more generous over time):
    https://www.e-reward.co.uk/news/irs-publishes-survey-of-annual-leave

    The average number of days' holiday given to staff is 34 days, inclusive of bank holidays. The statutory minimum for full-time employees is 28 days. Basic leave entitlement is higher in the public sector. On average, public sector employees receive 29 days, excluding bank holidays, compared with 25 days in manufacturing and production companies and 26 days in other private sector organisations.

    So, on average, private sector employees get a full week extra over and above the minimum.
    Be kind to Phil. He hasn't had a day off from his 16 hour a day gig backing Boris in years.
    No reason for him to assume anyone else might.
    How can the company offer less than the statutory minimum?
    There are ways and means to discourage holiday being taken...

    My point was that offering the legal minimum of holidays while pretending its a great deal emphasised the reason why so few people want to drive HGVs.
    But they are offering less than the legal minimum. How is that allowed?
    Who is offering less than the legal minimum (which is 20 days + 8 bank holidays).
    Oh, so Phillip's numbers were correct? Sorry, I was under the assumption they were not given the replies.
    Best to be clear

    Tesco Delivery driver 20 > 22 days holiday + 8 days bank holidays
    Manufacturing 25 days holiday + 8 bank holidays
    Private firms (typical) 26 days holiday + 8 bank holidays
    Public sector 29 - 33 days + 8 bank holidays.

    My original point was that Tesco is offering the bare minimum while pretending it's a great deal and it really isn't.
    As I said, in much of the private sector (not all of it) people can only get 20 days + 8 bank holidays.

    22 days + 8 bank holidays will be more than many people in this country get. It may not be as good as many others get, but its not uniform or standard by any means. More than one thing can be true simultaneously.

    20+8 is the legal minimum so 22+8 is more than that.
    Any indication on how "much" of the private sector offers the minimum legal amount of days off? Say, in % terms?
    I'm struggling to find the data but from memory its pretty high.

    According to an ONS survey in 2018 publicised by the TUC at the time, 2 million workers were getting less than the legal minimum in practice by companies finding ways to deny holidays. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/holiday-legal-minimum-workers-not-taken-denied-statutory-leave-tuc-research-a8466426.html

    We can reasonably assume those actually getting the minimum in their contracts would include those getting less than the minimum, plus many times more whose bosses aren't defrauding them.
    I don't agree - there's no reason to believe any of those people getting less than the minimum in practice are not contractually entitled to more than the minimum, and there's no reason to believe successful applicants to today's Tesco job ad will be more or less likely than average to end up being able to actually take all of it (for whatever reason).

    Also, I'm not sure what the parameters of the TUC study are - for example, do they include people who could, but simply don't want to, take off their leave entitlement? Either way, you're not comparing like with like.
    Well if you're able to find figures for how many people are contracted to the legal minimum then it would be enlightening but there are millions of workers earning minimum wage and I see little reason not to believe there are millions earning minimum holiday entitlement too.
    I can't - I have tried - and apparently neither can you.

    So we are reduced to arguing based solely on intuition and logic, neither of which is particularly satisfactory, but in the spirit of which I will offer that many companies have standard leave (and other benefit) policies above the minimum, which are extended to all employees regardless of wage.

    I therefore disagree that there is much of a link between minimum wage and minimum leave. I would also point out that the pension contribution Tesco are offering (above) is somewhat above the minimum, even though the number of days off isn't.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    Age related data scaled to 100k

    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    edited July 27
    Case rate changes

    image
    image
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,755
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Rightly or wrongly I can perfectly see why healthy, fit 18-22 yr olds (how many of them are there?) just can't be arsed to get jabbed.

    If they thought about it it would be "for society" but whenever has an 18-22yr old thought about "society".

    They need to start bribing (rather than the threatening which, it seems, is far inferior) imo.
    Why not just give them money? I've just been invited to sign up for the ONS prevalence survey, it's £50 for the first visit and £25 for subsequent ones.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,641
    edited July 27

    Why the Great Barrington Declaration was full of crap:

    https://twitter.com/ScienceShared/status/1420014267995238401

    Many western countries used shielding (extended self-isolation) of people presumed to be at high-risk from COVID-19 to protect them and reduce healthcare demand. To investigate the effectiveness of this strategy, we linked family practitioner, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and death records and compared COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded individuals in the West of Scotland.
    ...
    Referent to low-risk, the shielded group had higher confirmed infections (RR 8.45, 95% 7.44–9.59), case-fatality (RR 5.62, 95% CI 4.47–7.07) and population mortality (RR 57.56, 95% 44.06–75.19).
    ...
    In conclusion, in spite of the shielding strategy, high risk individuals were at increased risk of death.


    Shielding was worth doing, but it was a fantasy that vulnerable people could be prevented from encountering a highly contagious novel respiratory pathogen.

    --AS

    The entire point of the Great Barrington Declaration was:

    "I don't like all this covid and restrictions and stuff. I liked it the way it was before. Maybe it doesn't have to apply to me. Let's pretend only a very few are vulnerable and we can handwave to say they'll be locked up for their own safety so I can go back to normal."

    The rest was highly motivated reasoning around that.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/27/people-shielding-still-eight-times-more-likely-to-get-covid-19-study-finds

    gives more reportage on why that approach doesn't work, it would seem.[edit: on the same study as cited].
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,946

    Philip is so deep into the cult that he won't acknowledge that the deal his leader personally negotiated and signed has been a disaster for NI. That's when you know you're deep down the rabbit hole, I found myself there with Corbyn a few times

    Maybe you've developed a bit since then but your posts on here show how far you still have to go.

    You're young, and your posts make you out to be obviously young like an excited twelve-year old coming out of the cinema having seen the latest Marvel film; "Kewl!"

    Be a bit more measured and sober, and you'll be worth reading.
    What a patronising post. Embarrassing.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,440
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    I'm not sure what you mean by easily pused in to it?

    If you mean make laws and rules deliberately constraining so that there life is meanifuly worsens if they do not do as you wish, that I flat out object to that.

    If you mean, find ways to make it easy for them to get a jab, and take time to enplane the benefits as well as the risks then sure.

    I think its silly that we are talking about limiting the freedom of an 18 and a half year old if they do not take the jab, but not letting a 17 and a half year old from taking it no mater how much they what it. but the signal that send out is not going to encourage 18 Year olds, there has to be an age group where the vaccine risk and benefits are similar, who get to chose with out being judged, I'm not a medicine expert, I think that's probably 16-17 year olds, but don't know that. but to say its unsafe for somebody even slightly younger than you, but you must take it will not work IMHO.

    I am pro vaccine and when I have talked to people not taking it I do try to explain and encourage taking vaccine. but evidence suggest to me, that a large proportion, probably over half and possibly a lot over half have had the viruses already which gives them a lot of protection. we are already passed heard immunity and will be well passed it by the time we give out another 8 million second doses. Why the the determination to pick a fight, lets just be glad cases are falling.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,035

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Rightly or wrongly I can perfectly see why healthy, fit 18-22 yr olds (how many of them are there?) just can't be arsed to get jabbed.

    If they thought about it it would be "for society" but whenever has an 18-22yr old thought about "society".

    They need to start bribing (rather than the threatening which, it seems, is far inferior) imo.
    Why not just give them money? I've just been invited to sign up for the ONS prevalence survey, it's £50 for the first visit and £25 for subsequent ones.
    Absolutely. Our idea previously on here was around £500 for double jabbed. 18-25yr olds. Or thereabouts on amount/age.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,090
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Rightly or wrongly I can perfectly see why healthy, fit 18-22 yr olds (how many of them are there?) just can't be arsed to get jabbed.

    If they thought about it it would be "for society" but whenever has an 18-22yr old thought about "society".

    They need to start bribing (rather than the threatening which, it seems, is far inferior) imo.
    Why not just give them money? I've just been invited to sign up for the ONS prevalence survey, it's £50 for the first visit and £25 for subsequent ones.
    Absolutely. Our idea previously on here was around £500 for double jabbed. 18-25yr olds. Or thereabouts on amount/age.
    What about those who have already been jabbed?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Rightly or wrongly I can perfectly see why healthy, fit 18-22 yr olds (how many of them are there?) just can't be arsed to get jabbed.

    If they thought about it it would be "for society" but whenever has an 18-22yr old thought about "society".

    They need to start bribing (rather than the threatening which, it seems, is far inferior) imo.
    Why not just give them money? I've just been invited to sign up for the ONS prevalence survey, it's £50 for the first visit and £25 for subsequent ones.
    Absolutely. Our idea previously on here was around £500 for double jabbed. 18-25yr olds. Or thereabouts on amount/age.
    £200 on being double jabbed for every adult in the UK would cost £10bn which is a fraction of the pandemics costs.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,090
    Roger said:

    Philip is so deep into the cult that he won't acknowledge that the deal his leader personally negotiated and signed has been a disaster for NI. That's when you know you're deep down the rabbit hole, I found myself there with Corbyn a few times

    Maybe you've developed a bit since then but your posts on here show how far you still have to go.

    You're young, and your posts make you out to be obviously young like an excited twelve-year old coming out of the cinema having seen the latest Marvel film; "Kewl!"

    Be a bit more measured and sober, and you'll be worth reading.
    What a patronising post. Embarrassing.
    I think it's a wind-up.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,035
    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Rightly or wrongly I can perfectly see why healthy, fit 18-22 yr olds (how many of them are there?) just can't be arsed to get jabbed.

    If they thought about it it would be "for society" but whenever has an 18-22yr old thought about "society".

    They need to start bribing (rather than the threatening which, it seems, is far inferior) imo.
    Why not just give them money? I've just been invited to sign up for the ONS prevalence survey, it's £50 for the first visit and £25 for subsequent ones.
    Absolutely. Our idea previously on here was around £500 for double jabbed. 18-25yr olds. Or thereabouts on amount/age.
    What about those who have already been jabbed?
    Yep those too.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,440
    Carnyx said:

    Why the Great Barrington Declaration was full of crap:

    https://twitter.com/ScienceShared/status/1420014267995238401

    Many western countries used shielding (extended self-isolation) of people presumed to be at high-risk from COVID-19 to protect them and reduce healthcare demand. To investigate the effectiveness of this strategy, we linked family practitioner, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and death records and compared COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded individuals in the West of Scotland.
    ...
    Referent to low-risk, the shielded group had higher confirmed infections (RR 8.45, 95% 7.44–9.59), case-fatality (RR 5.62, 95% CI 4.47–7.07) and population mortality (RR 57.56, 95% 44.06–75.19).
    ...
    In conclusion, in spite of the shielding strategy, high risk individuals were at increased risk of death.


    Shielding was worth doing, but it was a fantasy that vulnerable people could be prevented from encountering a highly contagious novel respiratory pathogen.

    --AS

    The entire point of the Great Barrington Declaration was:

    "I don't like all this covid and restrictions and stuff. I liked it the way it was before. Maybe it doesn't have to apply to me. Let's pretend only a very few are vulnerable and we can handwave to say they'll be locked up for their own safety so I can go back to normal."

    The rest was highly motivated reasoning around that.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/27/people-shielding-still-eight-times-more-likely-to-get-covid-19-study-finds

    gives more reportage on why that approach doesn't work, it would seem.[edit: on the same study as cited].
    Except id did work in Sweden and some US sates.

    The highly motivated reasoning is all on the side of those who are now trying to defend such a terrible if widely adopted lockdown stratagem.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,100
    My Official Prediction for Peak Cases was tomorrow and 87,000

    It looks - God willing - that I am going to be gloriously, spectacularly wrong. Same goes for Neil Ferguson, et al

    Did ANY of the experts predict this startling fall? I know a couple of people on here did, and Kudos to them
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,035

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    Rightly or wrongly I can perfectly see why healthy, fit 18-22 yr olds (how many of them are there?) just can't be arsed to get jabbed.

    If they thought about it it would be "for society" but whenever has an 18-22yr old thought about "society".

    They need to start bribing (rather than the threatening which, it seems, is far inferior) imo.
    Why not just give them money? I've just been invited to sign up for the ONS prevalence survey, it's £50 for the first visit and £25 for subsequent ones.
    Absolutely. Our idea previously on here was around £500 for double jabbed. 18-25yr olds. Or thereabouts on amount/age.
    £200 on being double jabbed for every adult in the UK would cost £10bn which is a fraction of the pandemics costs.
    Peanuts vs the alternative. Whatever that may be.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,946
    Endillion said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    <

    So you're saying that companies in the EU will stop exporting to the UK or that UK companies will stop purchasing from them and vice versa? Again, the rules surrounding importation of agricultural and food products is very tightly defined within the TCA. There is little recourse for them beyond the existing border pedantry they have already implemented.

    Everything else you've written is just a load of angry and pointless words, Richard. I think you need to get some perspective here. What you want to happen (Boris to be punished by the EU) vs the reality of what is within the realms of possibility (very little) are two very different things.

    Our relationship with the EU is defined by very tight legal agreements, goodwill is not a factor and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you'll be. The same is true for the EU and every country that isn't in the EU. Goodwill is a worthless commodity.

    Don't be silly, goodwill is crucial. What on earth do you think would happen if they insisted on full customs checks rather than waving through most loads as they currently do? What about things like cooperation on illegal migration?
    They already do that and what cooperation on illegal immigration? Haven't we just had a month of remainer sneering about how the EU aren't helping because they no longer have to?!

    Recognise the situation for what it is and the EU for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
    It's not me that doesn't recognise what the EU is. It's the Brexiteers who totally fail to understand it. It's not some hostile state plotting against us, but it's a legalistic construct which allows 26 countries to work together in an unprecedented way precisely because it is based on enforceable rules. That's why they are not going to change the rules to suit us; not only do they not want to, they have no easy mechanism to do so. If the rules say packs of sausages can't enter the Single Market from third countries, that's pretty much the end of the matter, no matter how much Lord Frost shouts and insults them. We knew that all along. (Well, Boris probably didn't, but he should have done.)
    The single biggest factor behind my Leave vote was Angela Merkel unilaterally overriding the Dublin Convention on refugees because she felt sorry for the Syrian kid she saw on the news that morning. That broke forever in my mind
    the idea that the EU was a "legalistic construct based on enforceable rules". It's not true, because certain other countries aren't bound by those rules if they don't feel like it.

    So, I say it is not Brexiteers who don't understand the EU and what it is. On the contrary.
    To repeat you were a Remainer who changed their vote to Leave because Merkel felt compassion for a suffering Syrian child. You show all the heart and honesty of a Faragist.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,870
    Leon said:

    My Official Prediction for Peak Cases was tomorrow and 87,000

    It looks - God willing - that I am going to be gloriously, spectacularly wrong. Same goes for Neil Ferguson, et al

    Did ANY of the experts predict this startling fall? I know a couple of people on here did, and Kudos to them

    I pointed out in retrospect that it should have been obvious what effect the schools shutting would have had.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    Roger said:

    Philip is so deep into the cult that he won't acknowledge that the deal his leader personally negotiated and signed has been a disaster for NI. That's when you know you're deep down the rabbit hole, I found myself there with Corbyn a few times

    Maybe you've developed a bit since then but your posts on here show how far you still have to go.

    You're young, and your posts make you out to be obviously young like an excited twelve-year old coming out of the cinema having seen the latest Marvel film; "Kewl!"

    Be a bit more measured and sober, and you'll be worth reading.
    What a patronising post. Embarrassing.
    Not as toe-curling as this one....

    "If you had worked for as many years in Europe with Europeans with all their quirks you too might feel as I do. That we are seprating ourselves from the most culturally exciting varied and beautiful continent in the world for no reason other than some very small minded people don't like foreigners makes me want to vomit.

    If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'."

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,035
    edited July 27
    BigRich said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    The number of new doses administered yesterday is 236,261 England administered 198K doses compared to 144K last week (FD: 59K, SD: 138K).

    I commented earlier today that it seemed the Vaccport plan seems to have had an impact of vaccinations.
    We really need to be doing triple those first dose numbers to make a dent in the 4m under 40s that can be easily pushed into getting a vaccine.
    I'm not sure what you mean by easily pused in to it?

    If you mean make laws and rules deliberately constraining so that there life is meanifuly worsens if they do not do as you wish, that I flat out object to that.

    If you mean, find ways to make it easy for them to get a jab, and take time to enplane the benefits as well as the risks then sure.

    I think its silly that we are talking about limiting the freedom of an 18 and a half year old if they do not take the jab, but not letting a 17 and a half year old from taking it no mater how much they what it. but the signal that send out is not going to encourage 18 Year olds, there has to be an age group where the vaccine risk and benefits are similar, who get to chose with out being judged, I'm not a medicine expert, I think that's probably 16-17 year olds, but don't know that. but to say its unsafe for somebody even slightly younger than you, but you must take it will not work IMHO.

    I am pro vaccine and when I have talked to people not taking it I do try to explain and encourage taking vaccine. but evidence suggest to me, that a large proportion, probably over half and possibly a lot over half have had the viruses already which gives them a lot of protection. we are already passed heard immunity and will be well passed it by the time we give out another 8 million second doses. Why the the determination to pick a fight, lets just be glad cases are falling.
    Great post.

    Gove said it's "selfish" not to have the jab. But it is by no means certain that it is selfish. If you are asymptomatic then your viral load will be lower. Plus a huge proportion of those you might give it to will have been jabbed.

    So what about those who can't be jabbed? The clinically extremely vulnerable. Well it is difficult for them but to inflict such extraordinary restrictions on liberty for those people? I don't see how it's justified.
This discussion has been closed.