Howdy, Stranger!

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

It looks as though Johnson will fail to get a US trade deal – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 21 in General
imageIt looks as though Johnson will fail to get a US trade deal – politicalbetting.com

Several of tomorrow’s papers are reporting the challenges facing BoJo in his question to get a post-Brexit trade deal with the US.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Only the deluded ever thought there could be a UK-US trade deal.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984
    Oh good.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984
    France are not offering up their permanent UNSC seat to the EU. An Italian MEP has said it should be part of the discussion if France wants an EU army.

    Rubbish headline from The Telegraph.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,809
    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,907

    Only the deluded ever thought there could be a UK-US trade deal.

    Source?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    Actually I was being literal - I have no real opinion on the merits of a trade deal, it's just that it's always described in terms of the chicken!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984

    MaxPB said:


    Allie Hodgkins-Brown
    @AllieHBNews
    ·
    1m
    Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Macron may offer up UN seat in push for EU army” #TomorrowsPapersToday

    ==


    Definitely trying to lose the presidential race next year me thinks

    I don't believe that at all but its a massive, massive step if that is done.

    And its something that could only have been facilitated post-Brexit. The idea of Britain giving up its seat to the EU was unthinkable, and the idea of two seats going to one was also pretty unthinkable. But one going up to its next federal level - that just makes sense.
    I wonder if Macron's plan is to get the UK kicked out in favour of India.
    How could that ever happen? We have a veto on being ejected. It's why the 5 permanent members are permanent. I'm actually not sure is there's a mechanism to give the French one to the EU. All 5 members have to vote the EU into it and then all 6 then need to vote France out, and the EU isn't a recognised sovereign state so can it even hold a SC seat? What they're really saying is that they'll keep the seat but allow some EU input into votes.
    The UK being kicked out is [next to] impossible*.

    The French one going to the EU is easily done, if the French are happy with it. Just recognise the EU as a sovereign state and the continuation of the French state and it takes the French place. But then the French [and the other 26] all leave the UN altogether, which would only be right if this is happening.

    If this happens it won't be the first exchange it'd be the third. Republic of China (Taiwan) was replaced as a permanent member by [People's Republic of] China. The USSR was replaced as a permanent member by Russia. And if the UK ever dissolved the UK would be replaced with England. There's no reason France can't be replaced with the EU if they make a federal unified country official.

    * Its technically possible but its not going to happen.

    Yeah the successor state method would be easy but that's obviously not how they'd want to do it. It would be the ultimate federalising step, the EU becomes a country. Anyway, it's not on the cards. The Telegraph just has a crap headline based on a quote from one Italian MEP/non-entity.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 44,972
    edited September 21
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    So apparently the leader of Unite won't be going to the Labour conference (which I guess is a big thing?) - and from there I see on wikipedia that she led a walkout at 17. I'm not sure I have enough of a crap about anything at 17 to walkout.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    Allie Hodgkins-Brown
    @AllieHBNews
    ·
    1m
    Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Macron may offer up UN seat in push for EU army” #TomorrowsPapersToday

    ==


    Definitely trying to lose the presidential race next year me thinks

    I don't believe that at all but its a massive, massive step if that is done.

    And its something that could only have been facilitated post-Brexit. The idea of Britain giving up its seat to the EU was unthinkable, and the idea of two seats going to one was also pretty unthinkable. But one going up to its next federal level - that just makes sense.
    I wonder if Macron's plan is to get the UK kicked out in favour of India.
    How could that ever happen? We have a veto on being ejected. It's why the 5 permanent members are permanent. I'm actually not sure is there's a mechanism to give the French one to the EU. All 5 members have to vote the EU into it and then all 6 then need to vote France out, and the EU isn't a recognised sovereign state so can it even hold a SC seat? What they're really saying is that they'll keep the seat but allow some EU input into votes.
    The UK being kicked out is [next to] impossible*.

    The French one going to the EU is easily done, if the French are happy with it. Just recognise the EU as a sovereign state and the continuation of the French state and it takes the French place. But then the French [and the other 26] all leave the UN altogether, which would only be right if this is happening.

    If this happens it won't be the first exchange it'd be the third. Republic of China (Taiwan) was replaced as a permanent member by [People's Republic of] China. The USSR was replaced as a permanent member by Russia. And if the UK ever dissolved the UK would be replaced with England. There's no reason France can't be replaced with the EU if they make a federal unified country official.

    * Its technically possible but its not going to happen.

    Yeah the successor state method would be easy but that's obviously not how they'd want to do it. It would be the ultimate federalising step, the EU becomes a country. Anyway, it's not on the cards. The Telegraph just has a crap headline based on a quote from one Italian MEP/non-entity.
    It's a cracking quote tho.

    The Italian MEP is entirely right. If France wants total support from the EU for an EU army and navy, and if France wants complete EU support in its diplomatic spazz-out against the Anglosphere, then France must show willing to the EU: and give up its UNSC seat to the EU, as the EU is then the primary actor in foreign and military policy - Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland (and others) surely deserve equal input into UN decisions if their young people are to be sent to die in EU military adventures alongside the French

    The Italian MEP exposes French arrogance, posturing and hypocrisy. The French want EU help and they want an EU army (that the French lead) but the French will never give up the UNSC seat because it is French and La Gloire and croissants and etc etc etc
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,971
    edited September 21
    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support
  • This talk of "confirming" a deal would be done is insane. Beth Rigby on Sky earlier today was challenging Boris to "commit" to getting a trade deal by 2024.

    It would be madness, absolute madness to do so and very good that Boris refused to do so.

    For those very short of memory: No deal is better than a bad deal. That applies to the USA every bit as much as the EU, if not more so.

    We should take our time and get this done right. Ideally within the CPTPP platform and not bilateral. If that can be done by 2024 then great. If it takes until 2028 then so be it. If it never happens, that's fine too. Better than committing to something then finding the only thing that can be achieved due to that commitment is a terrible deal and we've already folded our cards by giving a guarantee before the talks concluded.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    Do we pool any democracy and sovereignty into the Canada-Mexico-US arrangement our government seems desperate to gate crash?

    To have benefits of being in any Trade club we will have to use some sovereignty as currency to buy benefits we need in return?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    So apparently the leader of Unite won't be going to the Labour conference (which I guess is a big thing?) - and from there I see on wikipedia that she led a walkout at 17. I'm not sure I have enough of a crap about anything at 17 to walkout.

    I don't know, I walked out of a lot of pubs at 17 because they wouldn't sell me beer. 🤷‍♂️
    There wasn't a local pub where all the underage people drank? I thought everywhere had at least one.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,532
    edited September 21

    Only the deluded ever thought there could be a UK-US trade deal.

    Source?
    Not one in particular, it just always seemed incredibly unlikely for many reasons, whether its food standards, the NHS, Northern Ireland, or how divided the US is politically. Since Biden's election the US have always downplayed it. Of course Johnson goes for sunny optimism until reality hits.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-yellen-trade-idUSKBN29Q2RZ

    Asked about a possible trade deal with Taiwan, Yellen said: “President Biden has been clear that he will not sign any new free trade agreements before the U.S. makes major investments in American workers and our infrastructure. Our economic recovery at home must be our top priority.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/02/uk-hopes-of-early-us-trade-deal-dashed-by-biden-warning

    “I’m not going to enter any new trade agreement with anybody until we have made major investments here at home and in our workers and in education,” he said.
  • HYUFD said:

    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support

    Actually the conversation has moved on to joining the US - Mexico - Canada deal which is headlining in the Times and Express tomorrow
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?

    If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?
  • gealbhan said:

    Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?

    If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?

    Install a new gas combi boiler
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    Allie Hodgkins-Brown
    @AllieHBNews
    ·
    1m
    Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Macron may offer up UN seat in push for EU army” #TomorrowsPapersToday

    ==


    Definitely trying to lose the presidential race next year me thinks

    I don't believe that at all but its a massive, massive step if that is done.

    And its something that could only have been facilitated post-Brexit. The idea of Britain giving up its seat to the EU was unthinkable, and the idea of two seats going to one was also pretty unthinkable. But one going up to its next federal level - that just makes sense.
    I wonder if Macron's plan is to get the UK kicked out in favour of India.
    How could that ever happen? We have a veto on being ejected. It's why the 5 permanent members are permanent. I'm actually not sure is there's a mechanism to give the French one to the EU. All 5 members have to vote the EU into it and then all 6 then need to vote France out, and the EU isn't a recognised sovereign state so can it even hold a SC seat? What they're really saying is that they'll keep the seat but allow some EU input into votes.
    The UK being kicked out is [next to] impossible*.

    The French one going to the EU is easily done, if the French are happy with it. Just recognise the EU as a sovereign state and the continuation of the French state and it takes the French place. But then the French [and the other 26] all leave the UN altogether, which would only be right if this is happening.

    If this happens it won't be the first exchange it'd be the third. Republic of China (Taiwan) was replaced as a permanent member by [People's Republic of] China. The USSR was replaced as a permanent member by Russia. And if the UK ever dissolved the UK would be replaced with England. There's no reason France can't be replaced with the EU if they make a federal unified country official.

    * Its technically possible but its not going to happen.

    Yeah the successor state method would be easy but that's obviously not how they'd want to do it. It would be the ultimate federalising step, the EU becomes a country. Anyway, it's not on the cards. The Telegraph just has a crap headline based on a quote from one Italian MEP/non-entity.
    It's a cracking quote tho.

    The Italian MEP is entirely right. If France wants total support from the EU for an EU army and navy, and if France wants complete EU support in its diplomatic spazz-out against the Anglosphere, then France must show willing to the EU: and give up its UNSC seat to the EU, as the EU is then the primary actor in foreign and military policy - Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland (and others) surely deserve equal input into UN decisions if their young people are to be sent to die in EU military adventures alongside the French

    The Italian MEP exposes French arrogance, posturing and hypocrisy. The French want EU help and they want an EU army (that the French lead) but the French will never give up the UNSC seat because it is French and La Gloire and croissants and etc etc etc
    Oh yeah it's definitely something that should be part of the EU army trade off and the Italians are right to ask the question. All it means is that the EU army is dead, France will never give up it's UNSC seat. It's what keeps them equal to the UK. Losing it would be admitting that they're no longer on our level. It would be another humiliation.
  • gealbhan said:

    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    Do we pool any democracy and sovereignty into the Canada-Mexico-US arrangement our government seems desperate to gate crash?

    To have benefits of being in any Trade club we will have to use some sovereignty as currency to buy benefits we need in return?
    Trust in Truss
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427

    This talk of "confirming" a deal would be done is insane. Beth Rigby on Sky earlier today was challenging Boris to "commit" to getting a trade deal by 2024.

    It would be madness, absolute madness to do so and very good that Boris refused to do so.

    For those very short of memory: No deal is better than a bad deal. That applies to the USA every bit as much as the EU, if not more so.

    We should take our time and get this done right. Ideally within the CPTPP platform and not bilateral. If that can be done by 2024 then great. If it takes until 2028 then so be it. If it never happens, that's fine too. Better than committing to something then finding the only thing that can be achieved due to that commitment is a terrible deal and we've already folded our cards by giving a guarantee before the talks concluded.

    Quite. Remainers entirely misunderstand Leavers, and this threader is just example 2,397 of the same lack-of-comprehension

    A few geeky Leavers/Remainers may have argued about the "timing of subsequent trade deals", but vanishingly few voters actually cared so much it swayed their decision in the Brexit voting booth

    When Obama said "Britain will be at the back of the queue for a trade deal" this genuinely got people angry - but not because we cared about our position in the queue, but because - quite rightly - the fact he merely made a statement (obviously at the behest of Cameron) was seen as unwise, immoral and counter-productive interference, by a foreign politician, in a very British politician decision

    It quite possibly shunted 200,000 votes to Leave
  • MTimT2MTimT2 Posts: 48
    edited September 21
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    Allie Hodgkins-Brown
    @AllieHBNews
    ·
    1m
    Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Macron may offer up UN seat in push for EU army” #TomorrowsPapersToday

    ==


    Definitely trying to lose the presidential race next year me thinks

    I don't believe that at all but its a massive, massive step if that is done.

    And its something that could only have been facilitated post-Brexit. The idea of Britain giving up its seat to the EU was unthinkable, and the idea of two seats going to one was also pretty unthinkable. But one going up to its next federal level - that just makes sense.
    I wonder if Macron's plan is to get the UK kicked out in favour of India.
    How could that ever happen? We have a veto on being ejected. It's why the 5 permanent members are permanent. I'm actually not sure is there's a mechanism to give the French one to the EU. All 5 members have to vote the EU into it and then all 6 then need to vote France out, and the EU isn't a recognised sovereign state so can it even hold a SC seat? What they're really saying is that they'll keep the seat but allow some EU input into votes.
    The UK being kicked out is [next to] impossible*.

    The French one going to the EU is easily done, if the French are happy with it. Just recognise the EU as a sovereign state and the continuation of the French state and it takes the French place. But then the French [and the other 26] all leave the UN altogether, which would only be right if this is happening.

    If this happens it won't be the first exchange it'd be the third. Republic of China (Taiwan) was replaced as a permanent member by [People's Republic of] China. The USSR was replaced as a permanent member by Russia. And if the UK ever dissolved the UK would be replaced with England. There's no reason France can't be replaced with the EU if they make a federal unified country official.

    * Its technically possible but its not going to happen.

    Yeah the successor state method would be easy but that's obviously not how they'd want to do it. It would be the ultimate federalising step, the EU becomes a country. Anyway, it's not on the cards. The Telegraph just has a crap headline based on a quote from one Italian MEP/non-entity.
    Finally able to comment again, albeit with an old name.

    The UN Charter names the Permanent Members. Changes to the Charter require a supermajority AND a positive vote from the P5. However, the UN Rules of Procedure only require a majority of the UNGA voting to be changed. Maybe that is the route to removing a permanent member against their own wishes, if there is one.

    It has been done before. In 1986, the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross - which is the ICRC, the Member States to the Geneva Conventions, and all the Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies (and the Red Lion and Sun of Iran) could not remove the South African state delegation, as an issue of substance required a supermajority, which was not there. So they changed the rules of procedure, which did not require a supermajority.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    Allie Hodgkins-Brown
    @AllieHBNews
    ·
    1m
    Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Macron may offer up UN seat in push for EU army” #TomorrowsPapersToday

    ==


    Definitely trying to lose the presidential race next year me thinks

    I don't believe that at all but its a massive, massive step if that is done.

    And its something that could only have been facilitated post-Brexit. The idea of Britain giving up its seat to the EU was unthinkable, and the idea of two seats going to one was also pretty unthinkable. But one going up to its next federal level - that just makes sense.
    I wonder if Macron's plan is to get the UK kicked out in favour of India.
    How could that ever happen? We have a veto on being ejected. It's why the 5 permanent members are permanent. I'm actually not sure is there's a mechanism to give the French one to the EU. All 5 members have to vote the EU into it and then all 6 then need to vote France out, and the EU isn't a recognised sovereign state so can it even hold a SC seat? What they're really saying is that they'll keep the seat but allow some EU input into votes.
    The UK being kicked out is [next to] impossible*.

    The French one going to the EU is easily done, if the French are happy with it. Just recognise the EU as a sovereign state and the continuation of the French state and it takes the French place. But then the French [and the other 26] all leave the UN altogether, which would only be right if this is happening.

    If this happens it won't be the first exchange it'd be the third. Republic of China (Taiwan) was replaced as a permanent member by [People's Republic of] China. The USSR was replaced as a permanent member by Russia. And if the UK ever dissolved the UK would be replaced with England. There's no reason France can't be replaced with the EU if they make a federal unified country official.

    * Its technically possible but its not going to happen.

    Yeah the successor state method would be easy but that's obviously not how they'd want to do it. It would be the ultimate federalising step, the EU becomes a country. Anyway, it's not on the cards. The Telegraph just has a crap headline based on a quote from one Italian MEP/non-entity.
    Its not how they'd want to do it, but its the way it should happen if it does happen.

    The headline is amusing but it does betray a real issue. Why should the other states accede to a French demand for an EU military (primarily motivated it seems to feed France's military industrial complex) if France isn't prepared to transfer the seat over to the EU? If France are prepared to, then that's major, but if they're not then any sceptical nations have a very easy way to say no to the whole thing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,971

    HYUFD said:

    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support

    Actually the conversation has moved on to joining the US - Mexico - Canada deal which is headlining in the Times and Express tomorrow
    That is the plan but while the Democrats hold Congress little sign of any enthusiasm for a UK trade deal at present with Mexico and Canada involved or not, it may need the GOP to retake the House at least for it to get anywhere

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440433075511390213?s=20

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440433522867462144?s=20
  • gealbhan said:

    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    Do we pool any democracy and sovereignty into the Canada-Mexico-US arrangement our government seems desperate to gate crash?

    To have benefits of being in any Trade club we will have to use some sovereignty as currency to buy benefits we need in return?
    No, not really.

    Legitimate trade clubs as opposed to nascent federal states have agreed rules that the nations agreed to and stick to them. They may evolve a bit due to court cases etc but until the nations involved change the rules that's it.

    The EU was completely different to every other trade club on the planet because the EU had the power to change its own rules. It has its own Parliament, its own initiative, its own executive. Does NAFTA the USMCA have that?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,113

    Only the deluded ever thought there could be a UK-US trade deal.

    Source?
    That's right. My organisation is concerned about a trade deal (because, if similar to the Australian one, it would destroy much of British livestock farming or force a reduction in standards) but it's been obvious for ages that it wouldn't happen before 2023.

    The reason is that a successful deal requires the consent of the legislatures to negotiate a finished package for a single up-and-down vote. In Britian, bizarrely, Government don't even need a vote, they can just sign it. But in the US, with its mass of special interest lobbies, Congress will nickel-and-dime every clause of any deal to death. That means that negotiations are a waste of time - whatever you come up with, Congress with tinker with it.

    The problem is well-known,and there's a solution: popular presidents with compliant Congress majorities can get authority to do a finished package. But that isn't currently the case. So Biden's only way to get it would be

    (a) win over lots of Republicans (good luck with that) or
    (b) win a sweeping victory in the midterms (ditto)

    So Johnson is absolutely right to knock the whole idea on the head - pretending he might get a deal would just set him up to fail.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984
    MTimT2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    Allie Hodgkins-Brown
    @AllieHBNews
    ·
    1m
    Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Macron may offer up UN seat in push for EU army” #TomorrowsPapersToday

    ==


    Definitely trying to lose the presidential race next year me thinks

    I don't believe that at all but its a massive, massive step if that is done.

    And its something that could only have been facilitated post-Brexit. The idea of Britain giving up its seat to the EU was unthinkable, and the idea of two seats going to one was also pretty unthinkable. But one going up to its next federal level - that just makes sense.
    I wonder if Macron's plan is to get the UK kicked out in favour of India.
    How could that ever happen? We have a veto on being ejected. It's why the 5 permanent members are permanent. I'm actually not sure is there's a mechanism to give the French one to the EU. All 5 members have to vote the EU into it and then all 6 then need to vote France out, and the EU isn't a recognised sovereign state so can it even hold a SC seat? What they're really saying is that they'll keep the seat but allow some EU input into votes.
    The UK being kicked out is [next to] impossible*.

    The French one going to the EU is easily done, if the French are happy with it. Just recognise the EU as a sovereign state and the continuation of the French state and it takes the French place. But then the French [and the other 26] all leave the UN altogether, which would only be right if this is happening.

    If this happens it won't be the first exchange it'd be the third. Republic of China (Taiwan) was replaced as a permanent member by [People's Republic of] China. The USSR was replaced as a permanent member by Russia. And if the UK ever dissolved the UK would be replaced with England. There's no reason France can't be replaced with the EU if they make a federal unified country official.

    * Its technically possible but its not going to happen.

    Yeah the successor state method would be easy but that's obviously not how they'd want to do it. It would be the ultimate federalising step, the EU becomes a country. Anyway, it's not on the cards. The Telegraph just has a crap headline based on a quote from one Italian MEP/non-entity.
    Finally able to comment again, albeit with an old name.

    The UN Charter names the Permanent Members. Changes to the Charter require a supermajority AND a positive vote from the P5. However, the UN Rules of Procedure only require a majority of the UNGA voting to be changed. Maybe that is the route to removing a permanent member against their own wishes, if there is one.

    It has been done before. In 1986, the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross - which is the ICRC, the Member States to the Geneva Conventions, and all the Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies (and the Red Lion and Sun of Iran) could not remove the South African state delegation, as an issue of substance required a supermajority, which was not there. So they changed the rules of procedure, which did not require a supermajority.
    But a single P5 member can veto a positive vote.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    gealbhan said:

    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    Do we pool any democracy and sovereignty into the Canada-Mexico-US arrangement our government seems desperate to gate crash?

    To have benefits of being in any Trade club we will have to use some sovereignty as currency to buy benefits we need in return?
    Trust in Truss
    Absolutely. And then open up everything she is doing and look at the detail.

    I wasn’t actually having a go at you Big G, I was dismantling Leon’s brexiteer drivel. He doesn’t understand, yet, you have to use sovereignty as currency to buy everything lost from exiting the EU trade membership.

    A US UK trade deal, Trump kept implying was oven ready once we finally divorced Europe, will be an economic blow to UK if it’s still five years off, and, on topic, Mike is right in the header, it’s politically damaging to this Brexit government.

    The Express, predictably, talks up the chaff put out to disguise the bad news: UK gate crashing Canada-Mexico-US as a given, but I am far from convinced that is any quick win either. As I implied in the first sentence, the devil will be found in the detail.

    Am I wrong on any of these points?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support

    Actually the conversation has moved on to joining the US - Mexico - Canada deal which is headlining in the Times and Express tomorrow
    That is the plan but while the Democrats hold Congress little sign of any enthusiasm for a UK trade deal at present with Mexico and Canada involved or not, it may need the GOP to retake the House at least for it to get anywhere

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440433075511390213?s=20

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440433522867462144?s=20
    That is your own unique take on things

    Maybe wait and see and hear from Liz Truss
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427

    Leon said:

    The Italian MEP exposes French arrogance, posturing and hypocrisy. The French want EU help and they want an EU army (that the French lead) but the French will never give up the UNSC seat because it is French and La Gloire and croissants and etc etc etc

    France is guilty of all the things De Gaulle used to justify vetoing the UK in the 60s.
    This Italian MEP (if he is being quoted correctly, I haven't seen the article or the speech) has actually done France a big favour, and crystallised their dilemma


    Because this is it. Either France ploughs its own furrow, with the odd bit of support from the EU - here and there- and then sighs and semi-attaches to Aukus and the the US-led alliance - OR France actively bites the bullet and says Yes, we are merging our sovereignty at the UNSC with our EU brothers and allies, from now on the French seat at the UN is the EU seat, and foreign policy will be decided in Brussels

    It would be an incredibly brave step by a French prez, and they should probably do it. They are so dominant in the EU along with Berlin they would still have control, in essence, and then, wow, the EU is a global player (with massive French influence behind the scenes).

    Then the West has two potent alliances, Aukus/Five Eyes and the EU, and they can act in concert without feeling inferior to each other, and that's a proper bulwark against China.

    This really is the moment for Macron to step up and show imagination. But I fear his inner Gaullist will prevail
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,266
    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    Actually I was being literal - I have no real opinion on the merits of a trade deal, it's just that it's always described in terms of the chicken!
    The chicken was always a 'bogy man' argument, for one thing lost of food sold in the UK and EU has been clrinated, including cauliflowers and decaffeinated coffee, but its become normal so it does not get headlines anymore. for another the corinated chicken from the US is not the cheapest on the market, so there is little rezone to think it would come in large qunatys to the UK even if it was allowed.

    but it has wokeded as an effective weapon to decrees the chance of ever getting a deal, so victary to those who oppose the trade.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984
    I'd like to say - the UK won't join USMCA. The idea is ridiculous.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,491
    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,163
    HYUFD said:

    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support

    Yeah but... Johnson said a trade deal with the USA would be easy. Now you Boris fans are claiming Johnson never wanted a deal in the first place because he is a genius, and because he didn't want to import poor USA food hygiene standards. It was all a clever ruse.

    And then you all accuse former Remainers of double standards.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,723
    edited September 21
    Liz Truss appears to be a magician incapable of any error.
    Will this be put to a referendum?
    I don't wish to tolerate any dilution of my sovereignty without my express consent.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984
    edited September 21
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Italian MEP exposes French arrogance, posturing and hypocrisy. The French want EU help and they want an EU army (that the French lead) but the French will never give up the UNSC seat because it is French and La Gloire and croissants and etc etc etc

    France is guilty of all the things De Gaulle used to justify vetoing the UK in the 60s.
    This Italian MEP (if he is being quoted correctly, I haven't seen the article or the speech) has actually done France a big favour, and crystallised their dilemma


    Because this is it. Either France ploughs its own furrow, with the odd bit of support from the EU - here and there- and then sighs and semi-attaches to Aukus and the the US-led alliance - OR France actively bites the bullet and says Yes, we are merging our sovereignty at the UNSC with our EU brothers and allies, from now on the French seat at the UN is the EU seat, and foreign policy will be decided in Brussels

    It would be an incredibly brave step by a French prez, and they should probably do it. They are so dominant in the EU along with Berlin they would still have control, in essence, and then, wow, the EU is a global player (with massive French influence behind the scenes).

    Then the West has two potent alliances, Aukus/Five Eyes and the EU, and they can act in concert without feeling inferior to each other, and that's a proper bulwark against China.

    This really is the moment for Macron to step up and show imagination. But I fear his inner Gaullist will prevail
    I think the reason they won't go for it and share their seat is because deep down they know that they are second best in the EU. Their foreign policy objectives will take a backseat to Germany every time if they can ever get anything agreed.

    Option 1 - close association with Aukus once the election is done and the political heat goes away. That's the logical route that doesn't encumber French ambition with German appeasement.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,720

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
  • FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    stodge said:


    A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.

    I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".

    In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.

    Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?

    Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?

    I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.

    It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
    You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.

    I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.

    I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?

    No.
    How convenient for you that none of them are standing.

    I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
    Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?

    Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
    Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
    That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.

    If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
    Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).

    It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.

    Davey! No!

    Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
    I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.

    If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
    What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?

    Tempting?
    If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.

    On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.

    As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
    What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
    As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.

    Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
    Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
    That's a shame.

    A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.

    It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
    Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
    So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
    Abolish NI is what I hope for. Have one income tax that yes is paid the same whether by pensioners or employees.
    I am sorry I misunderstood.

    I thought you wanted NI applied to all earned income including pensions

    If you want a single tax to take its place what would your suggest basic and higher rates should be
    Ideally we shouldn't have basic and higher rates, the rate should be flat rather than creating issues with thresholds that makes it change.

    Obviously need to work on numbers to make it work but something along the lines of a UBI of £8,000 per adult over 18, £4,000 per dependent under 18, with a single unitary flat tax rate of 40%

    For a 2 adult, 2 child household that would be a UBI of £24,000. If both parents had a £30k salary on average then that would be the breakeven point so there would be not a penny in benefits and not a penny in tax either. Take home pay would be £60k.

    Change the numbers to suit to make it work, but the tax rate should never as a matter of principle to me be over 50%.
    I'm all in favour of a flat rate tax. Not so sure about UBI. I'd like to see another country try it out first to see if it worked. But I cant see any system where a couple earning 60k pays no tax at all. If their UBI allowance was 24k under your numbers shouldn't they start paying tax from 24001 up?
    UBI+Flat Tax is what Milton Friedman called a Negative Income Tax. And you can effectively 'start paying tax' from £1 not £24,001 as there'd no longer be a need for a tax-free allowance. But until you reach crossover point the 'tax' is eating away at your UBI, its only past the crossover that you start paying net tax.

    Essentially at any income X, with a UBI of Y, a tax rate of R, then your tax T follows the simple formula: T = X.R - Y

    So for the example given £24001 * 0.4 - £24000 = - £14,399.60 so you'd 'pay' negative £14,399.60 in tax. So total net income received would be £38,399.60

    As I said, the numbers were just round number picked from the air, you'd need to tweak it to make it actually work.
  • gealbhan said:

    gealbhan said:

    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    Do we pool any democracy and sovereignty into the Canada-Mexico-US arrangement our government seems desperate to gate crash?

    To have benefits of being in any Trade club we will have to use some sovereignty as currency to buy benefits we need in return?
    Trust in Truss
    Absolutely. And then open up everything she is doing and look at the detail.

    I wasn’t actually having a go at you Big G, I was dismantling Leon’s brexiteer drivel. He doesn’t understand, yet, you have to use sovereignty as currency to buy everything lost from exiting the EU trade membership.

    A US UK trade deal, Trump kept implying was oven ready once we finally divorced Europe, will be an economic blow to UK if it’s still five years off, and, on topic, Mike is right in the header, it’s politically damaging to this Brexit government.

    The Express, predictably, talks up the chaff put out to disguise the bad news: UK gate crashing Canada-Mexico-US as a given, but I am far from convinced that is any quick win either. As I implied in the first sentence, the devil will be found in the detail.

    Am I wrong on any of these points?
    I agree to a degree but I do not see this as a route back to the EU

    And it is the Times reporting the switch to the existing US - Canada - Mexico deal as well as the Express

    I genuinely look forward to Liz Truss's comments
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,971
    edited September 21
    'Ursula von der Leyen
    @vonderleyen
    Congratulations dear @JustinTrudeau!

    Your re-election gives us the opportunity to strengthen further our unique Flag of European Union Flag of Canada partnership.

    We share the same values & the view that multilateralism is crucial to address today’s global challenges.

    You’ll always have friends in Brussels.

    https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1440355049335447557?s=20

    @JustinTrudeau
    10m

    Officiel du gouvernement - Canada
    Replying to
    @vonderleyen
    With shared values and goals, I know we'll be able to address today's global challenges together. Thanks for your message, Ursula.'
    https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1440441801450557445?s=20

    Boris did send a congratulatory tweet earlier and got a reply but not quite the same love in as between Ursula and Justin

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1440385068464160768?s=20

    https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1440440170814193675?s=20
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 559
    Everytime Johnson meets Biden the fawning right wing press come up with any old tosh regarding some super trade deal . After a few days this disappears until the next meeting .

    The idea that the UK would join Canada , the USA and Mexico is risible given that would need a whole new negotiation for all the countries and would take years .

    Some of the UK press wouldn’t look out of place in North Korea given the hero worship of their Dear Leaders!
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    gealbhan said:

    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    Do we pool any democracy and sovereignty into the Canada-Mexico-US arrangement our government seems desperate to gate crash?

    To have benefits of being in any Trade club we will have to use some sovereignty as currency to buy benefits we need in return?
    No, not really.

    Legitimate trade clubs as opposed to nascent federal states have agreed rules that the nations agreed to and stick to them. They may evolve a bit due to court cases etc but until the nations involved change the rules that's it.

    The EU was completely different to every other trade club on the planet because the EU had the power to change its own rules. It has its own Parliament, its own initiative, its own executive. Does NAFTA the USMCA have that?
    I except the point, the Federal States Of Europe membership was different to an ordinary trade deal, in fact you explained why quite succinctly.

    However, you still need to concede two points. Sovereignty does work like currency, and is pooled in all agreements, including those that aren’t economic or trade, such as security, like NATO security or IMF.

    Secondly, the actual possibilities for a trade arrangement with the United states of Europe was not simply what was offered from Cameron’s renegotiation, or what we currently have with Boris Brexit deal (that the Brexit government who negotiated and signed it wouldn’t do again tomorrow.). It was only framed as in or out to try and force a remain win.

    Anything I have said in this reply not factual or fair?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,971

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support

    Actually the conversation has moved on to joining the US - Mexico - Canada deal which is headlining in the Times and Express tomorrow
    That is the plan but while the Democrats hold Congress little sign of any enthusiasm for a UK trade deal at present with Mexico and Canada involved or not, it may need the GOP to retake the House at least for it to get anywhere

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440433075511390213?s=20

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440433522867462144?s=20
    That is your own unique take on things

    Maybe wait and see and hear from Liz Truss
    It was the comments of the Democratic Congressman on the House Ways and Means Cttee on Newsnight this evening and whatever Truss may want she has to get it through Congress first
  • theProletheProle Posts: 537

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Big change is the collapse in case numbers around the 20-30 age range and huge growth in kids. The top of the chart doesn't look wildly different, although it's shrunk slightly.
    Does trading 20-30s for kids make much difference to hospitalisations, given both groups have pretty low rates?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,491
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
    The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.

    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg
  • gealbhan said:

    gealbhan said:

    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    Do we pool any democracy and sovereignty into the Canada-Mexico-US arrangement our government seems desperate to gate crash?

    To have benefits of being in any Trade club we will have to use some sovereignty as currency to buy benefits we need in return?
    No, not really.

    Legitimate trade clubs as opposed to nascent federal states have agreed rules that the nations agreed to and stick to them. They may evolve a bit due to court cases etc but until the nations involved change the rules that's it.

    The EU was completely different to every other trade club on the planet because the EU had the power to change its own rules. It has its own Parliament, its own initiative, its own executive. Does NAFTA the USMCA have that?
    I except the point, the Federal States Of Europe membership was different to an ordinary trade deal, in fact you explained why quite succinctly.

    However, you still need to concede two points. Sovereignty does work like currency, and is pooled in all agreements, including those that aren’t economic or trade, such as security, like NATO security or IMF.

    Secondly, the actual possibilities for a trade arrangement with the United states of Europe was not simply what was offered from Cameron’s renegotiation, or what we currently have with Boris Brexit deal (that the Brexit government who negotiated and signed it wouldn’t do again tomorrow.). It was only framed as in or out to try and force a remain win.

    Anything I have said in this reply not factual or fair?
    Sovereignty isn't pooled with NATO or IMF etc, its exercised. A choice is made to join it and follow pre-determined rules. A choice can be made to leave it. No rules can be changed without our agreement.

    The EU is pooled sovereignty because the rules can be dynamically changed without our agreeing to it - as far as I'm aware that's the only major international organisation for which that is true. Its true for most other countries as far as the UNSC is concerned too, but since we have our UNSC veto it isn't true for us there either. Since the UNGA is advisory and not rule setting our lack of a veto for that is irrelevant.

    Of course there's a myriad of possible agreements we can form with the EU but only if we're out. While we're in we need to follow EU rules, so if you wish to have a different 'flavour' of arrangement then you need to be out and elect a government that can get that agreed with the EU.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,226
    Why Sane Republicans Are Purging Themselves
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/21/why-sane-republicans-are-self-deporting-themselves-513445

    It seems pretty well over for the Republican party as an ordinary conservative party. Those who oppose Trump are giving up fighting for it, as they see it as beyond redemption.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support

    Actually the conversation has moved on to joining the US - Mexico - Canada deal which is headlining in the Times and Express tomorrow
    That is the plan but while the Democrats hold Congress little sign of any enthusiasm for a UK trade deal at present with Mexico and Canada involved or not, it may need the GOP to retake the House at least for it to get anywhere

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440433075511390213?s=20

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440433522867462144?s=20
    That is your own unique take on things

    Maybe wait and see and hear from Liz Truss
    It was the comments of the Democratic Congressman on the House Ways and Means Cttee on Newsnight this evening and whatever Truss may want she has to get it through Congress first
    He was referring in the first instance to the US - UK trade deal and on joining the US - Mexico Canada deal he said he hadn't heard about that one, which is hardly surprising as it has only come out tonight that the UK may seek to join

    You really are poor with interpretation of words
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    HYUFD said:

    'Ursula von der Leyen
    @vonderleyen
    Congratulations dear @JustinTrudeau!

    Your re-election gives us the opportunity to strengthen further our unique Flag of European Union Flag of Canada partnership.

    We share the same values & the view that multilateralism is crucial to address today’s global challenges.

    You’ll always have friends in Brussels.

    https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1440355049335447557?s=20

    @JustinTrudeau
    10m

    Officiel du gouvernement - Canada
    Replying to
    @vonderleyen
    With shared values and goals, I know we'll be able to address today's global challenges together. Thanks for your message, Ursula.'
    https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1440441801450557445?s=20

    Boris did send a congratulatory tweet earlier and got a reply but not quite the same love in as between Ursula and Justin

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1440385068464160768?s=20

    https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1440440170814193675?s=20

    She knows he’s not a black man with (and if you are ultra woke look away now) a big dick?
  • Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    A lot of the Brexit vote was simply because many local economies were going down the toilet and neither main party cared or even noticed. Brexit was NOTA (and so probably is the SNP). Brexit was Take Back Control. Brexit was levelling up.

    But for at least some MPs, if not the public, Brexit was about trade deals.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    nico679 said:

    Everytime Johnson meets Biden the fawning right wing press come up with any old tosh regarding some super trade deal . After a few days this disappears until the next meeting .

    The idea that the UK would join Canada , the USA and Mexico is risible given that would need a whole new negotiation for all the countries and would take years .

    Some of the UK press wouldn’t look out of place in North Korea given the hero worship of their Dear Leaders!

    Rule 1 of North Korean comparisons is that they hardly ever bear relation to reality.

    We have some fawning press, but surely a key point of North Korean press is that it is uniform in output, and ours certainly ain't that. Fawning can be overlooked when the opposite gets plenty of attention too.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    MaxPB said:

    France are not offering up their permanent UNSC seat to the EU. An Italian MEP has said it should be part of the discussion if France wants an EU army.

    Rubbish headline from The Telegraph.

    Why let petty facts spoil a damn good headline?

    Or spoil the fantasy we are well rid of any proper relationship with an EU that’s lost it’s marbles?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,720
    Biden's diary, September 21

    Met with terrible jolly fat French fellow. Very amiable. I may have slept through some of his longer jokes.
  • Time to rest

    Good night folks
  • Time to rest

    Good night folks

    Goodnight Jo. Hope you enjoyed your chat with Boris.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,285
    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    In fact, I think a trade deal with the States might turn out to be unpopular. Food standards there are poorer than here, so we’d be importing groceries of lower quality.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,720
    edited September 21

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
    The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.

    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg
    It's funny how much "longer" some of the female bars are than the male ones - specifically the 30 to 49 year old range.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    edited September 21
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    HYUFD said:

    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support

    Rightly castigating him for not delivering the promises Brexit was built on.

    And expect more.
  • Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    A lot of the Brexit vote was simply because many local economies were going down the toilet and neither main party cared or even noticed. Brexit was NOTA (and so probably is the SNP). Brexit was Take Back Control. Brexit was levelling up.

    But for at least some MPs, if not the public, Brexit was about trade deals.
    And trade deals are coming.

    I don't think any MPs expected trade deals on a preset clock. That's not how negotiations work.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,491
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
    The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.

    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg
    It's funny how much "longer" some of the female bars are than the male ones - specifically the 30 to 49 year old range.
    Mothers of 10-14 year olds?
  • gealbhan said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
    We have a better deal with Europe now than the one that we had before.

    Anything else beyond that now will be bonus.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    edited September 21
    They are not stupid enough to think this is a quick win alternative?

    The only other reason for raising this, put out some chaff to distract from the bad news.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    So apparently the leader of Unite won't be going to the Labour conference (which I guess is a big thing?) - and from there I see on wikipedia that she led a walkout at 17. I'm not sure I have enough of a crap about anything at 17 to walkout.

    I don't know, I walked out of a lot of pubs at 17 because they wouldn't sell me beer. 🤷‍♂️
    There wasn't a local pub where all the underage people drank? I thought everywhere had at least one.
    Yeah the Cherry Tree but it got shut down for allowing underage drinking about 6 months before I turned 18!
    Perhaps some point hence, the Andrew formally known as Prince would be the best person to run such an establishment.
  • gealbhan said:

    They are not stupid enough to think this is a quick win alternative?

    The only other reason for raising this, put out some chaff to distract from the bad news.
    It is a fantastic quick win alternative.

    CPTPP + USA joining it is better.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,491
    Finished Sebastian Payne’s book on Labours lost heartlands - number of mentions of “trade deals” - zero.

    Well worth a read - surprised to be impressed by one leading Labour politician who seemed to “get it” - Angela Rayner. Labour have quite a mountain to climb, and not just in terms of electoral arithmetic.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,491
    Presiding Officer in Holyrood has right idea - if minister makes statement outside Parliament he doesn’t get to make it again inside but just goes straight to opposition questions. Over to you Lindsay Hoyle

    https://twitter.com/mgoldenmsp/status/1440345880368857104?s=21
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
    It is one of those very clear in what it is saying to us. Ten to fourteen year olds are getting Covid due to an explosion in their sex lives.

    Perhaps sex pyramids should be used to answer a lot of other great questions of the day.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    gealbhan said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
    We have a better deal with Europe now than the one that we had before.

    Anything else beyond that now will be bonus.
    “ We have a better deal with Europe now than the one that we had before. “

    Despite many great things you have added to this forum, that is the weakest thing you have ever said.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 559

    gealbhan said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
    We have a better deal with Europe now than the one that we had before.

    Anything else beyond that now will be bonus.
    From your point of view as a Leaver on the overall deal but you can’t seriously be saying in terms of trade that the UK has a better deal now with the EU .
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    Leon said:

    No one - but no one - gives a tiny flying scintilla of a fucklet about an instant UK-US trade deal

    Leave voters divide primarily into two groups. Those who cared about democracy and sovereignty (eg me). For us, Brexit is done, and good, but its benefits will take years to emerge (if they do, it was always a wager). For others, it was about immigration and controlling the borders. I don't know how they feel, you will have to ask them

    About 1% of 1% thought it was about "immediately getting better trade deals". Sure, free trade deals are good, but whether they are done in 2023 or 2026 is of no great concern to anyone

    This will not shift public opinion one iota

    In fact, I think a trade deal with the States might turn out to be unpopular. Food standards there are poorer than here, so we’d be importing groceries of lower quality.
    So we don’t need one then, for any reason known to you?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,491
    VILNIUS, Sept 21 (Reuters) - Lithuania's Defense Ministry recommended that consumers avoid buying Chinese mobile phones and advised people to throw away the ones they have now after a government report found the devices had built-in censorship capabilities.

    Flagship phones sold in Europe by China's smartphone giant Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK) have a built-in ability to detect and censor terms such as "Free Tibet", "Long live Taiwan independence" or "democracy movement", Lithuania's state-run cybersecurity body said on Tuesday.

    The capability in Xiaomi's Mi 10T 5G phone software had been turned off for the "European Union region", but can be turned on remotely at any time, the Defence Ministry's National Cyber Security Centre said in the report.


    https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/lithuania-says-throw-away-chinese-phones-due-censorship-concerns-2021-09-21/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,491
    Welsh call in Army for help with ambulance service too:

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1440454547214725125?s=20
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Everytime Johnson meets Biden the fawning right wing press come up with any old tosh regarding some super trade deal . After a few days this disappears until the next meeting .

    The idea that the UK would join Canada , the USA and Mexico is risible given that would need a whole new negotiation for all the countries and would take years .

    Some of the UK press wouldn’t look out of place in North Korea given the hero worship of their Dear Leaders!

    Rule 1 of North Korean comparisons is that they hardly ever bear relation to reality.

    We have some fawning press, but surely a key point of North Korean press is that it is uniform in output, and ours certainly ain't that. Fawning can be overlooked when the opposite gets plenty of attention too.
    Absolutely, Uniform in dress too probably. With a gun.

    It’s also true though, on no US trade deal news day, the press have bought into the government’s bit of chaff chucked out there.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Nigelb said:

    Why Sane Republicans Are Purging Themselves
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/21/why-sane-republicans-are-self-deporting-themselves-513445

    It seems pretty well over for the Republican party as an ordinary conservative party. Those who oppose Trump are giving up fighting for it, as they see it as beyond redemption.

    The difference between Conservatism and right win populism in US today? Is keeping Conservative votes on board simply because you are not a lefty liberal sustainable in long run if you are not yourself a conservative, merely a fellow traveller for personal gain on the beliefs and opinions behind that term?
  • theProletheProle Posts: 537
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
    The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.

    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg
    It's funny how much "longer" some of the female bars are than the male ones - specifically the 30 to 49 year old range.
    Is this catch up from the July "football" peak, which was predominantly in blokes of this age?
  • nico679 said:

    gealbhan said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
    We have a better deal with Europe now than the one that we had before.

    Anything else beyond that now will be bonus.
    From and your point of view as a Leaver on the overall deal but you can’t seriously be saying in terms of trade that the UK has a better deal now with the EU .
    Absolutely I can.

    We get a free trade agreement with zero tariffs and zero quotas but without any of the political entanglement, without any membership fees, without being subject to their jurisdiction or rules, and without them having exclusivity to determine what other deals we can sign.

    Simply having no fees at all to pay alone makes it a better deal than what we had.
  • HYUFD said:

    So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support

    Yeah but... Johnson said a trade deal with the USA would be easy. Now you Boris fans are claiming Johnson never wanted a deal in the first place because he is a genius, and because he didn't want to import poor USA food hygiene standards. It was all a clever ruse.

    And then you all accuse former Remainers of double standards.
    Did he? The only quote I can find is from 2019 when he said it would be a "tough old haggle". Perhaps you are confusing Boris with Douglas Carswell, who claimed that a deal with the USA would be "relatively straightforward".
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,720
    For those with a strong stomach, this is a pretty disturbing sub Reddit:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

    It's basically posts from FB and Twitter from people disbelieving Covid and vaccines, and then dying from Covid.

    It's disturbing in a number of ways: from the extent to which people believe bullshit, to people crowing over the deaths of others.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,720
    theProle said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
    The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.

    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg
    It's funny how much "longer" some of the female bars are than the male ones - specifically the 30 to 49 year old range.
    Is this catch up from the July "football" peak, which was predominantly in blokes of this age?
    I don't know, and I suspect there's no single explanation. But it is curious. I wonder if there's a meaningful difference in vaccine uptake between men and women.
  • pingping Posts: 1,287
    UK energy bills would soar by £550 without intervention, say industry experts

    Price cap for households would need to rise to £1,834 to cover the full costs of buying surging gas prices, EnAppSys revealed

    https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.ft.com/content/a33e38bb-1593-4d01-bd06-8fc66442068a
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    nico679 said:

    gealbhan said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
    We have a better deal with Europe now than the one that we had before.

    Anything else beyond that now will be bonus.
    From and your point of view as a Leaver on the overall deal but you can’t seriously be saying in terms of trade that the UK has a better deal now with the EU .
    Absolutely I can.

    We get a free trade agreement with zero tariffs and zero quotas but without any of the political entanglement, without any membership fees, without being subject to their jurisdiction or rules, and without them having exclusivity to determine what other deals we can sign.

    Simply having no fees at all to pay alone makes it a better deal than what we had.
    Spoken like best most truu Pirate Libertarian believer who posts here. Called Thompson.

    So rather than fucked, A huge range of UK commerce and trade hardly harmed at all, from fishing through to… well, everything has been hit by the added admin and other hidden costs away from headline zero tariffs you mentioned?

    Club Membership fee from government (that was barely 0.6% of GDP) versus the hidden costs on little business to whole industries like fishing? This way is better all round?

    Your wrong on this one Phil.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,720

    VILNIUS, Sept 21 (Reuters) - Lithuania's Defense Ministry recommended that consumers avoid buying Chinese mobile phones and advised people to throw away the ones they have now after a government report found the devices had built-in censorship capabilities.

    Flagship phones sold in Europe by China's smartphone giant Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK) have a built-in ability to detect and censor terms such as "Free Tibet", "Long live Taiwan independence" or "democracy movement", Lithuania's state-run cybersecurity body said on Tuesday.

    The capability in Xiaomi's Mi 10T 5G phone software had been turned off for the "European Union region", but can be turned on remotely at any time, the Defence Ministry's National Cyber Security Centre said in the report.


    https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/lithuania-says-throw-away-chinese-phones-due-censorship-concerns-2021-09-21/

    I *think* (and this is just a suspicion) that this will be Xiaomi's own Android keyboard*. So, if you happen to have a Xiaomi phone (and I do have one, albeit I'm not using it), I would recommend you switch it out for the standard Google keyboard. Then, you'll just get bizarre targeted advertising based on what you're typing, and not Chinese censorship.

    * This is a suspicion based on the fact that Xiaomi doesn't have that much software capability, and it'd be by far the easiest way to add censorship.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,416
    Austria is not joining in le strop:

    Good & interesting meeting with @ScottMorrisonMP today! Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have worked together closely with #Australia & held several videoconferences to exchange best practices.
    We will further deepen our bilateral cooperation through a Strategic Partnership Arrangement in areas such as research, youth exchange and the economy.


    image

    https://twitter.com/sebastiankurz/status/1440414000366297092
  • gealbhan said:

    nico679 said:

    gealbhan said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.

    +1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
    One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
    We have a better deal with Europe now than the one that we had before.

    Anything else beyond that now will be bonus.
    From and your point of view as a Leaver on the overall deal but you can’t seriously be saying in terms of trade that the UK has a better deal now with the EU .
    Absolutely I can.

    We get a free trade agreement with zero tariffs and zero quotas but without any of the political entanglement, without any membership fees, without being subject to their jurisdiction or rules, and without them having exclusivity to determine what other deals we can sign.

    Simply having no fees at all to pay alone makes it a better deal than what we had.
    Spoken like best most truu Pirate Libertarian believer who posts here. Called Thompson.

    So rather than fucked, A huge range of UK commerce and trade hardly harmed at all, from fishing through to… well, everything has been hit by the added admin and other hidden costs away from headline zero tariffs you mentioned?

    Club Membership fee from government (that was barely 0.6% of GDP) versus the hidden costs on little business to whole industries like fishing? This way is better all round?

    Your wrong on this one Phil.
    Membership fee 0.6% GDP
    "Admin burden" 0.01% of GDP if you're lucky.
    Having Parliamentary Sovereignty we can vote for: Priceless.

    Yes this way is far better all round.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,519
    On the minutiae of UN membership criteria, it would indeed be possible for the EU, if the member states and UN agreed, to adopt sovereignty and join the UN, and the EU27 would neither lose their own sovereignty nor UN membership.

    Between 1945 and 1991 the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics were members of the UN in their own right and in 1991 Belarus and Ukraine just carried on those memberships. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) did not have its own UN membership (or even its own local communist party until very late) and so the Russian Federation took up the UN membership and permanent Security Council seat from the USSR as the successor state. The independence of the Baltic states had already been conceded by the USSR and they had joined the UN prior to the final collapse. The remaining republics all joined after the collapse (fun fact: although Russia is the designated successor state, the last member of the USSR to secede was Kazakhstan!)

    The separate membership for Belarus and Ukraine was of course to give the USSR slightly more clout and was dressed up as a “reward” for the suffering they’d experienced in the war. Stalin, however, had originally demanded UN membership for all 16 soviet republics (including the Karelo-Finnish SSR which was downgraded to the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of the RSFSR in 1956). Truman responded with demanding all forty-eight US states getting UN membership too, so Stalin backed down.

    Interestingly, when we rehabilitated our house here in Sleepy Hollow some years back, we found an old newspaper under the lino with an article describing the Byelorussian and Ukrainian SSRs setting up their own “independent” ministries of defence and armed forces to “prove” they were really sovereign. US states also have the right to maintain their own armed forces, separate from the National Guard and not subject to federalization, and a few, even including New York, do.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    rcs1000 said:

    theProle said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
    The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.

    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg
    It's funny how much "longer" some of the female bars are than the male ones - specifically the 30 to 49 year old range.
    Is this catch up from the July "football" peak, which was predominantly in blokes of this age?
    I don't know, and I suspect there's no single explanation. But it is curious. I wonder if there's a meaningful difference in vaccine uptake between men and women.
    The most obvious explanation, they are longer bars to accommodate getting up and dancing. Though I appreciate you may not find this a satisfying answer.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    gealbhan said:

    Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?

    If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?

    Install a new gas combi boiler
    First up, thanks for the answer Big G.

    It does raise several questions. It’s a given gas bills are cheaper than electric at this sort of thing? Are you installing new gas combi this autumn rather than electric, because saving the planet and human race comes down those bad countries screwing it up with emissions, ie China, you paying higher heating bathing bills a mere drop in mighty planet saving ocean in comparison?

    Or, have you actually calculated through life running costs of new gas boiler? Will the bills always remain cheaper than electric combi? At what point in the boilers life might you find cost flip over? What does no new gas boilers after 2025 do to running costs?

    Is it really that straightforward a decision now?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,439

    Presiding Officer in Holyrood has right idea - if minister makes statement outside Parliament he doesn’t get to make it again inside but just goes straight to opposition questions. Over to you Lindsay Hoyle

    https://twitter.com/mgoldenmsp/status/1440345880368857104?s=21

    +1
  • rcs1000 said:

    theProle said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:
    Where the COVID cases are coming from:
    Age-sex pyramid today (left) compared to 4 weeks ago (right)


    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg/status/1440415496042528772?s=20

    Predominantly young and therefore at much lower risk of hospitalisation/death.

    Great chart @CarlottaVance
    The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.

    https://twitter.com/kallmemeg
    It's funny how much "longer" some of the female bars are than the male ones - specifically the 30 to 49 year old range.
    Is this catch up from the July "football" peak, which was predominantly in blokes of this age?
    I don't know, and I suspect there's no single explanation. But it is curious. I wonder if there's a meaningful difference in vaccine uptake between men and women.
    Entirely possible especially at that age.

    I think some women are worried that the vaccine could affect fertility and/or periods. That's a worry men don't have to worry about and could be especially affecting that age group.
Sign In or Register to comment.