With regards to the argument, higher wages automatically means higher prices, that is not necessarily true. Companies can also choose to absorb them and see a reduction in margins. Company operating margins have been rising over time and corporates have also benefited from lower corporate tax rates. There is a case for arguing they should now share some of the burden when it comes to society.
Not a doubt in my mind.
Industries offering high wages to attract an ever twindling supply of people qualified to fill vacancies is not wage growth it's a labour shortage.
If productivity doesn’t increase then we will see inflation.
Take your own example there apply it to the restaurant, hotel, pub, closed because it can’t get staff. And that’s your answer? It’s economic illiteracy.
Brexit wasn’t a drawbridge up approach to filling gaps and shortages with immigration, it was a vote to take back control of immigration, anyone now claiming otherwise is a liar. The shortages problem is not an issue about wages, but shortage of people available to do the work in the low wage economy. If Boris thinks he can get round this domestically simply paying higher wages, he’s insane. Don’t tie yourself to this Boris madness, the Tories will u turn in a year.
This flagship, die in a ditch policy at the very foundation of this governments economic policy, It’s as if Top Tories have got together in a room, decided they have ruled this country too long and agreed to press the political suicide button.
This is a big moment in sea change in UK politics. Because of what Boris is being allowed to press on here, in 10 years there will be no Scotland in UK and we will have PR.
You're being economically innumerate and falling for a lump of labour fallacy.
There is no such thing as a "labour shortage" that can be filled with immigration, nor a "labour abundance" that can be solved by emigration. There is only an imbalance in our country and that imbalance has been caused by getting hooked on using below-market rate wages.
Our population has surged by ten million people in a generation and there's still supposedly a labour shortage. We've had over 300k net immigration every year for years now and there's still supposedly a labour shortage.
No, that's pure lump of labour fallacy nonsense. Wages need to rise until demand for labour drops enough to eliminate the shortage. Yes that may cause some inflation - but then the imbalance in the economy is resolved.
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Lord Frost really is very good at his job, isn't he?
No. The EU are just more conscious of how easily NI could unravel than either Frost or Johnson are. That is something the EU are keen to avoid.
So what you're saying is that we hold all the cards?
I said all along if we were more willing than them to let it unravel, they'd back down.
The EU is dealing with a government that doesn’t care if NI implodes as long as they can deflect the blame onto the EU . The EU genuinely cares for the peace process and realizes that it’s dealing with a clown in no 10 so needs to be the adult in the room.
Yet, their "adult in the room" is Ursula von der Leyen. You know, the one that understands the peace process so well, she put a fucking hard border across Ireland. For an hour. Until, er, some adults entered the room in Brussels....
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Just been pinged by the friend who found a lump in her breast and, 10 days ago, was referred to the 2-week wait cancer clinic after three sessions with the GP surgery.
They are so full because of the Covid backlog that the 2-week wait will now be "4-5 weeks". Which we know in the NHS will be 7-8 weeks if she's lucky.
The 2 week wait is until seen, there are seperate targets for treatment. 31 days and 62 days to commence treatment.
On my Trust dashboard 65% of 2 week cancer waits were seen on time, 79% of Breast suspects. 98% start chemo within 31 days, but only 70% get surgery in that time.
This is because of staff shortages and redeployment to ICU from theatres etc.
Nestlé ‘working hard’ to trigger panic buying by idiots.
A friend in the supermarket biz tells me that they (his company) are deliberately trying to get people to stock up on non-perishable Christmas goods early, so they can keep the perishable stuff in stock later on.
Miliband was beating Cameron on Both Net Satisfaction & Gross Positives, whilst Labour led on VI mid term. The Tories went from coalition partners to outright majority at the following GE.
And PB said NOM was buying money at odds on
Dark Blue Cam GP lead Light Blue Cam Net Sat lead Red Con VI lead
Mid term means jack- shit if Johnson loses control of the economy over the next two years, which seems highly plausible to me.
If, maybes, black swans, & "this time it will be different" is all the haters have
The haters outnumber the lovers, don't they?
They're just louder because they haven't got their own way for once
Haha. Boris haters are mostly Labour supporters, who haven't won an election in 16 years. We are more than accustomed to not getting our own way, believe me!
Boris hatred seems to be most prevalent among younger demographics. The idea that they have had their way on anything much over recent years is for the fairies.
By contrast, he is most popular among older demographics who have pretty much done best out of the last decade.
Boris haters is just a colourful term for people with their head screwed on.
Hate in politics should be reserved for people like Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
It has no place in a democracy.
I agree - unless the politician in question deals in it as stock in trade, eg Donald Trump.
How far down the line do you want to go with that? How about Priti Patel? Seen a fair few posters of her imposes on Goering’s uniform. What about BJ?
There are truly rulers who are evil who deserve hate. But you seem to be extending that line.
No, I have Trump in a league of his own on this. He's a very special individual.
Yougov this morning though still sees the Conservatives with a clear lead on 39% to 31% for Labour. Boris would win a comfortable majority again on those numbers.
The Cons. seem stuck on circa 40% with little suggestion of decline. I do not believe Labour on 31%. If there was an election today 40 plays 35 looks likely to me.
42:34 at best for Labour.
I don't disagree with 34, but 42 is outside the range of the polling.
The current range, yes. But it is hardly unprecedented for this Govt to get 42, and more.
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Yes, not at all fussed. Non, Monsieur
They're really playing it up for domestic consumption too.
The French minister responsible for fishing published her diary in the form of a graphic showing all her activities to win in the showdown (literally 'arm wrestle') with the UK.
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Yes, not at all fussed. Non, Monsieur
Yup that's just a Croque... Monsieur!
The term "Anglo-Saxon" is not necessarily a pejorative. Many French people I have spoken to have said how they prefer to work for "Anglo-Saxon" corporations. They see such companies as having a better world view than their French counterparts. Obviously this is a self-selecting demographic because my French is absolutely crap, so by in order to express their view they are fluent English speakers.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
We've already started diverging actually, see the plans to criminalise the import of foie gros and divergence will continue for years to come.
But you know that. Just because you start at the same starting point doesn't mean you'll remain aligned if you head off in other directions.
Wow. Nobody is going to torpedo a deal over Foie Gras. Incidentally the UK has not banned its import and the European Parliament has instructed the commission to start work on its own ban. So we are currently aligned and we are both going in the same direction on Foie Gras.
Any deal will have fuzz around the edges. That is what arbitration is for if required. As it will be with our Australian deal as and when that eventually takes effect in 2035.
So your solution to the NI situation is to abolish the Protocol and replace it with arbitration if the UK and EU diverge far? So NI would be fully in the UK and the UK including NI would be free to diverge from the EU?
Depending upon the details I could live with that.
It’s possible the government were in a much better place calling for a negotiation rather than having one. This is unacceptable something must be done can be a better place than, here’s the new agreement?
The problem the EU has is the UK holds all the cards.
If we invoke Article 16 then we can dictate what the new rules are for NI, since NI is legally still a part of the UK, and that's the end of it. They can "retaliate", or they can build a border (but won't) but they have no say and can't force us to back down.
So we can and should go for maximalist demands. Sucks to be EU.
Well. No. A16 doesn’t work like that. Not a press to get advantage over EU button.
You know article 16 is only a temporary time out to agree new rules, not an end to something you don’t like? The EU agreeing to talk is merely the same as UK forcing it pressing A16.
You, being you, of course think a UK government can then brush off retaliatory measures like whacking key British imports into the EU with tariffs, or suspension of the broader free-trade deal. Not so easy for government to actually fuck business like that, Frost and Boris would have to go into commons and on TV to defend that.
We’ll see if you are right. This is coming to crunch time 🙂
I stand by my original suggestion, Peak Frost has probably passed.
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Yougov this morning though still sees the Conservatives with a clear lead on 39% to 31% for Labour. Boris would win a comfortable majority again on those numbers.
The Cons. seem stuck on circa 40% with little suggestion of decline. I do not believe Labour on 31%. If there was an election today 40 plays 35 looks likely to me.
42:34 at best for Labour.
I don't disagree with 34, but 42 is outside the range of the polling.
The current range, yes. But it is hardly unprecedented for this Govt to get 42, and more.
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Could be something to do with expelling Jezza as an MP
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Maybe he just thinks he isn't very good? I don't either.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Yes, not at all fussed. Non, Monsieur
They're really playing it up for domestic consumption too.
The French minister responsible for fishing published her diary in the form of a graphic showing all her activities to win in the showdown (literally 'arm wrestle') with the UK.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
If he is an "overgrown man-child" I am surprised you don't see a little of yourself in him. Maybe your apparent dislike is just self-loathing through psychological projection?
By-the-way your view of the French not being too keen on us English is probably largely based on the fact that when they meet you they think you are an objectionable knob end and treat you accordingly! You don't have to be French to see that!
F is clueless, it clearly is extra money in hand. Here’s five extra beans, beanbeanbeanbeanbean. Now we have to take 5 extra beans off you though in cost of your pub lunch, new jeans, petrol etc etc. Oh and couple more beans because of council tax going up. And another for the new build NHS back better with Brexit dividend tax.
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Yes, not at all fussed. Non, Monsieur
They're really playing it up for domestic consumption too.
The French minister responsible for fishing published her diary in the form of a graphic showing all her activities to win in the showdown (literally 'arm wrestle') with the UK.
Yes, of course, both sides get a political boost from this age-old rivalry
Hopefully the French will calm down after the election, because they are now harming themselves within the EU as they overdo it. And much as I like to point and laugh at the French, we need a prosperous, civilised, friendly EU on our doorstep
Indeed I hope that one day Britain can find an arms-length relationship with the EU that nonetheless satisfies those Brits (like Dura Ace and Foxy) who want to feel more "European"
Some new form of nuanced, regulated Freedom of Movement - that satisfies both sides- should not be beyond the wit of man. A lot of young Europeans still want to come to London and work, and get better English (bringing their labour). A lot of Brits would still like to retire to Spain (bringing money with them)
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
OT a bit. But not entirely re shortages. Am astonished by the number of friends who have Christmas plans already set in stone. Was it always this way in the first week of October? Or has last year's experience affected it?
Nestlé ‘working hard’ to trigger panic buying by idiots.
A friend in the supermarket biz tells me that they (his company) are deliberately trying to get people to stock up on non-perishable Christmas goods early, so they can keep the perishable stuff in stock later on.
Does that make sense? You need fridges for the latter but not the former.
You know that I am happy to point to genuine issues. But Nestle can fuck right off. Halifax is a long term disaster of a factory with archaic kit and generationally shit management. 15 years ago they were so short of sweets that they had to divert individually wrapped Yorkie blocks from travel packs to fill the hole.
Christmas spikes in demand on QS and the other tubs are very well understood and mapped, with production well ahead of time. They may well be short of plastic tubs but so is everyone. A labour shortage in the factory and supply chain maybe a factor but its long life ambient and retailers have taken swathes of the stuff already.
So to translate his message "there may be a shortage at Christmas so why not buy now? And then when you've eaten them buy some more".
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Could be something to do with expelling Jezza as an MP
Maybe. But Jezza's front-line career was finished at that point anyway. Would seem an odd thing for a columnist who's supposedly deep in the rough-and-tumble of politics to get obsessed about.
Hardly a surprise. In order to be a 2019 Labour voter, where there was a distinct possibility that Mr Thicky was going to be PM, you have to be very deluded. I suppose the only surprising element is that said voters are that thick themselves that they still like him even though he led them to the worst GE result since the 1930s.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
It may happen, but - given his veganism - I doubt that Dura has, as of yet, had un oeuf...
So everyone now agrees that Boris and Frosty's Brexit deal is unworkable, obviously in many aspects but in relation to Northern Ireland in particular. What a bugger's muddle. I suppose 'back to the drawing board' is better than sticking with the current dangerous impasse, but it reduces 'Got Brexit Done' into a hollow mockery. Will this ever end?
The EU buckle and are to put new proposal's forward and you say it is mockery
It is the determination by Frost to obtain a sensible deal
It's interesting to see this being spun differently in Ireland, where they're making much of an EU statement that there are limits to the renegotiation, and the limit is the protocol, implying these discussions are still about implementation, rather than principle.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see which side has a greater share of the face-saving bluster.
Yougov this morning though still sees the Conservatives with a clear lead on 39% to 31% for Labour. Boris would win a comfortable majority again on those numbers.
The Cons. seem stuck on circa 40% with little suggestion of decline. I do not believe Labour on 31%. If there was an election today 40 plays 35 looks likely to me.
42:34 at best for Labour.
I don't disagree with 34, but 42 is outside the range of the polling.
The current range, yes. But it is hardly unprecedented for this Govt to get 42, and more.
I said if there was an election today.
It’s about the timing of it. An election next spring, and most posters on here will expect a comfortable Tory majority, the Labour rubbing their hands with glee at at coming economic shitstorm, next spring comes far too early for them, Torys in for another 5 years. Probably hardens up Boris position inside his party too, his victory next spring.
If it’s left till 2023 though. Hm. Might be more interesting.
So anyone think yesterday’s bombast actually the first campaign speech of next years election? We are now within six months?
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
If he is an "overgrown man-child" I am surprised you don't see a little of yourself in him. Maybe your apparent dislike is just self-loathing through psychological projection?
By-the-way your view of the French not being too keen on us English is probably largely based on the fact that when they meet you they think you are an objectionable knob end and treat you accordingly! You don't have to be French to see that!
I've got friends in France. In my experience ordinary French people are perfectly friendly to the Brits, some curious, some indifferent, but friendly either way. About the same as the Brits treat the French in real life. Or the same way any neighbouring nationality is treated in any civilised country
The obsession with "The Anglo-Saxons" is mainly a French elite thing (and I probably should have specified that). The Parisian chatterati. Journalists and politicians, pundits and enarques, thinkers, writers and Twitterers. But that is who we mostly hear on this side of the Channel
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
It is pretty clear on here that arch Remainers "European identity" is just as much a bloody minded, my-side-right-or-wrong, nationalism as exists for any other country.
It's another irregular verb
I am not a nationalist, just perfectly clear sighted. You are nationalist He is a Nazi
Therein lies your problem. Not enough voted for Corbyn in 2019 for a Labour Government which makes your point...well pointless. The more important metric will be the uplift from those who didn't vote Labour in 2019.
Via @YouGov , 3rd quarter of 2021 (+/- since 2nd quarter)
Andy Burnham is on 31% BTW
Voters feel less negative about Starmer than Corbyn though.
Voters are more positive about Burnham than Starmer and less negative about Burnham than Corbyn, so Burnham would it seems be a better Labour leader than both
So everyone now agrees that Boris and Frosty's Brexit deal is unworkable, obviously in many aspects but in relation to Northern Ireland in particular. What a bugger's muddle. I suppose 'back to the drawing board' is better than sticking with the current dangerous impasse, but it reduces 'Got Brexit Done' into a hollow mockery. Will this ever end?
The EU buckle and are to put new proposal's forward and you say it is mockery
It is the determination by Frost to obtain a sensible deal
It's interesting to see this being spun differently in Ireland, where they're making much of an EU statement that there are limits to the renegotiation, and the limit is the protocol, implying these discussions are still about implementation, rather than principle.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see which side has a greater share of the face-saving bluster.
More to the point, if there is “ sensible deal” as a way out, why has it all up to this point not been so obvious. Can anyone hopeful of one paint a picture what it looks like?
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
It is pretty clear on here that arch Remainers "European identity" is just as much a bloody minded, my-side-right-or-wrong, nationalism as exists for any other country.
It's another irregular verb
I am not a nationalist, just perfectly clear sighted. You are nationalist He is a Nazi
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Could be something to do with expelling Jezza as an MP
Maybe. But Jezza's front-line career was finished at that point anyway. Would seem an odd thing for a columnist who's supposedly deep in the rough-and-tumble of politics to get obsessed about.
When people lose, they often point out every negative about their victor, whilst pretending to still want the best possible outcome. It’s all just a long winded way of saying ‘you should have listened to me, I was right all along’
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
So everyone now agrees that Boris and Frosty's Brexit deal is unworkable, obviously in many aspects but in relation to Northern Ireland in particular. What a bugger's muddle. I suppose 'back to the drawing board' is better than sticking with the current dangerous impasse, but it reduces 'Got Brexit Done' into a hollow mockery. Will this ever end?
The EU buckle and are to put new proposal's forward and you say it is mockery
It is the determination by Frost to obtain a sensible deal
It's interesting to see this being spun differently in Ireland, where they're making much of an EU statement that there are limits to the renegotiation, and the limit is the protocol, implying these discussions are still about implementation, rather than principle.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see which side has a greater share of the face-saving bluster.
More to the point, if there is “ sensible deal” as a way out, why has it all up to this point not been so obvious. Can anyone hopeful of one paint a picture what it looks like?
Carroll had a poem about hunting for, it seems, the NI Protocol:
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."
So everyone now agrees that Boris and Frosty's Brexit deal is unworkable, obviously in many aspects but in relation to Northern Ireland in particular. What a bugger's muddle. I suppose 'back to the drawing board' is better than sticking with the current dangerous impasse, but it reduces 'Got Brexit Done' into a hollow mockery. Will this ever end?
The EU buckle and are to put new proposal's forward and you say it is mockery
It is the determination by Frost to obtain a sensible deal
It's interesting to see this being spun differently in Ireland, where they're making much of an EU statement that there are limits to the renegotiation, and the limit is the protocol, implying these discussions are still about implementation, rather than principle.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see which side has a greater share of the face-saving bluster.
More to the point, if there is “ sensible deal” as a way out, why has it all up to this point not been so obvious. Can anyone hopeful of one paint a picture what it looks like?
A trusted trader scheme that eliminates 99% of the issues, followed by enforcement targeted towards actual smuggling between GB and RoI where it occurs.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
It is pretty clear on here that arch Remainers "European identity" is just as much a bloody minded, my-side-right-or-wrong, nationalism as exists for any other country.
It's another irregular verb
I am not a nationalist, just perfectly clear sighted. You are nationalist He is a Nazi
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Could be something to do with expelling Jezza as an MP
Maybe. But Jezza's front-line career was finished at that point anyway. Would seem an odd thing for a columnist who's supposedly deep in the rough-and-tumble of politics to get obsessed about.
OJ saw himself as Gorky to Corbo's Lenin. Ever since the revolutionary moment failed to eventuate he has been of rapidly declining relevance and is thereby dickhurt.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
If firms think the cost of labour is too high, they can automate. They didn’t though previously because labour was so cheap. Many will choose - and I use the word choose - because it means investment cost and they would much rather protect margins, cash etc.
Re the hospitality industry, yes I don’t want them to class but maybe it is not such a great idea to base your business model on low cost labour. If Primark turned round tomorrow and said “sorry we are struggling because we can’t use low cost labour from Bangladesh, sympathy would be limited.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
You know that I am happy to point to genuine issues. But Nestle can fuck right off. Halifax is a long term disaster of a factory with archaic kit and generationally shit management. 15 years ago they were so short of sweets that they had to divert individually wrapped Yorkie blocks from travel packs to fill the hole.
Christmas spikes in demand on QS and the other tubs are very well understood and mapped, with production well ahead of time. They may well be short of plastic tubs but so is everyone. A labour shortage in the factory and supply chain maybe a factor but its long life ambient and retailers have taken swathes of the stuff already.
So to translate his message "there may be a shortage at Christmas so why not buy now? And then when you've eaten them buy some more".
I had an email from Sainsburys which was, pretty much, to the same point.
Admirable grift from the confectionary manufacturers and supermarkets.
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Yes, not at all fussed. Non, Monsieur
Yup that's just a Croque... Monsieur!
The term "Anglo-Saxon" is not necessarily a pejorative. Many French people I have spoken to have said how they prefer to work for "Anglo-Saxon" corporations. They see such companies as having a better world view than their French counterparts. Obviously this is a self-selecting demographic because my French is absolutely crap, so by in order to express their view they are fluent English speakers.
Having worked for a French company for 18 years all over the world, I was amazed at how badly they treated their own French employees compared to the international ones. I was told this was very common - for French companies to treat their international employees far better than French nationals. No idea why except I suppose that they could and so they did.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Sounds like you're sick and tired of hearing things from uptight shortsighted narrowminded brexiteers. 😡
In honour of my new photochromic little round John Lennon specs in which I look ... well it's not for me to say.
I think the only difference between you and @Dura_Ace is that you're polite, whereas he doesn't bother with a mask at all.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
It is pretty clear on here that arch Remainers "European identity" is just as much a bloody minded, my-side-right-or-wrong, nationalism as exists for any other country.
It's another irregular verb
I am not a nationalist, just perfectly clear sighted. You are nationalist He is a Nazi
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
Entirely possible. Unless you are a child and think the EEA is the EU.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
I don't take him too seriously.
I don't think he's half as left-wing as he makes out to be: if he really hated Britain he wouldn't constantly make models of Sea Harriers and go around the country delivering (by all accounts, popular and well-enjoyed) lectures about the Royal Navy, nor stand for parish councils.
I think he has an anarcho-libertarian bent, is self-destructive (possibly affected by his time in the military) and aggressive but I suspect holds a level of affection for the country and the navy somewhere and uses this forum to simply play the rebel.
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Yes, not at all fussed. Non, Monsieur
Yup that's just a Croque... Monsieur!
The term "Anglo-Saxon" is not necessarily a pejorative. Many French people I have spoken to have said how they prefer to work for "Anglo-Saxon" corporations. They see such companies as having a better world view than their French counterparts. Obviously this is a self-selecting demographic because my French is absolutely crap, so by in order to express their view they are fluent English speakers.
Having worked for a French company for 18 years all over the world, I was amazed at how badly they treated their own French employees compared to the international ones. I was told this was very common - for French companies to treat their international employees far better than French nationals. No idea why except I suppose that they could and so they did.
I think there is also an element of it's hard to move job in France so we can treat them badly while international workers are perceived to have a lot more choice so they work harder to keep them.
Miliband was beating Cameron on Both Net Satisfaction & Gross Positives, whilst Labour led on VI mid term. The Tories went from coalition partners to outright majority at the following GE.
And PB said NOM was buying money at odds on
Dark Blue Cam GP lead Light Blue Cam Net Sat lead Red Con VI lead
Mid term means jack- shit if Johnson loses control of the economy over the next two years, which seems highly plausible to me.
If, maybes, black swans, & "this time it will be different" is all the haters have
You know that I am happy to point to genuine issues. But Nestle can fuck right off. Halifax is a long term disaster of a factory with archaic kit and generationally shit management. 15 years ago they were so short of sweets that they had to divert individually wrapped Yorkie blocks from travel packs to fill the hole.
Christmas spikes in demand on QS and the other tubs are very well understood and mapped, with production well ahead of time. They may well be short of plastic tubs but so is everyone. A labour shortage in the factory and supply chain maybe a factor but its long life ambient and retailers have taken swathes of the stuff already.
So to translate his message "there may be a shortage at Christmas so why not buy now? And then when you've eaten them buy some more".
I had an email from Sainsburys which was, pretty much, to the same point.
Admirable grift from the confectionary manufacturers and supermarkets.
The reason why Christmas season starts 1st September and Easter on Boxing Day is to maximise seasonal confectionery sales. Special packs of Quality Street or sharing boxes of Matchmakers are the ultimate in expandable consumption.
The only thing that isn't expandable is the pack itself. Back in my day we had a 1.7kg tin of Quality Street and a smaller 1.4kg tin for convenience stores. These days the plastic tub is 650g selling at half the price of the old 1.7kg tin.
Anecdotage. Woolworths (God bless them) loved upselling, with multibuys on everything through Christmas. A couple of years before they went pop they had a brilliant 3 for on tins of Quality Street, Roses, Celebrations etc.
Great value but they didn't redeem anywhere as many deals as they expected. I remember one meeting with them pointing out that with so many high street stores the promo was asking Granny to take 5 kilos of twistwrap home on the bus and maybe thats too much weight...
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Only if you are deranged enough to believe national membership (or perhaps associate membership) of a supranational organisation makes a country a "satellite". Under such twisted logic we are also satellites of NATO and the UN
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
No it doesn't. Because EFTA countries are fully involved in the development of legislation on those areas that affect them and in the end it only becomes legislation in the EFTA countries if agreed by the EFTA court and the individual countries. There is no qualified majority voting and each EFTA member has to agree individually.
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Could be something to do with expelling Jezza as an MP
Maybe. But Jezza's front-line career was finished at that point anyway. Would seem an odd thing for a columnist who's supposedly deep in the rough-and-tumble of politics to get obsessed about.
When people lose, they often point out every negative about their victor, whilst pretending to still want the best possible outcome. It’s all just a long winded way of saying ‘you should have listened to me, I was right all along’
Good point. It's very much human nature to let your desires, regrets and forebodings cloud your judgement. Personally, I only ever assess a case through the application of rigorous, hard, untainted reason - emotion never plays a part - but I admit I'm extremely rare.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
I don't take him too seriously.
I don't think he's half as left-wing as he makes out to be: if he really hated Britain he wouldn't constantly make models of Sea Harriers and go around the country delivering (by all accounts, popular and well-enjoyed) lectures about the Royal Navy, nor stand for parish councils.
I think he has an anarcho-libertarian bent, is self-destructive (possibly affected by his time in the military) and aggressive but I suspect holds a level of affection for the country and the navy somewhere and uses this forum to simply play the rebel.
An inference too far, perhaps, in that the SHAR models were for his comrades' leaving dos. MIlitary loyalty is all about comrades, not so much HMTQ, CofE and Mr Johnson.
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Could be something to do with expelling Jezza as an MP
Maybe. But Jezza's front-line career was finished at that point anyway. Would seem an odd thing for a columnist who's supposedly deep in the rough-and-tumble of politics to get obsessed about.
When people lose, they often point out every negative about their victor, whilst pretending to still want the best possible outcome. It’s all just a long winded way of saying ‘you should have listened to me, I was right all along’
Good point. It's very much human nature to let your desires, regrets and forebodings cloud your judgement. Personally, I only ever assess a case through the application of rigorous, hard, untainted reason - emotion never plays a part - but I admit I'm extremely rare.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
I don't take him too seriously.
I don't think he's half as left-wing as he makes out to be: if he really hated Britain he wouldn't constantly make models of Sea Harriers and go around the country delivering (by all accounts, popular and well-enjoyed) lectures about the Royal Navy, nor stand for parish councils.
I think he has an anarcho-libertarian bent, is self-destructive (possibly affected by his time in the military) and aggressive but I suspect holds a level of affection for the country and the navy somewhere and uses this forum to simply play the rebel.
I don't take him seriously at all, but he can entertain
I am increasingly sure he is a comic construction. Too many contradictions
Which one of those got Labour into power? Was it a) the most popular with 2019 Labour voters, or b) one of those equally most unpopular with 2019 Labour voters?
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Sounds like you're sick and tired of hearing things from uptight shortsighted narrowminded brexiteers. 😡
In honour of my new photochromic little round John Lennon specs in which I look ... well it's not for me to say.
I think the only difference between you and @Dura_Ace is that you're polite, whereas he doesn't bother with a mask at all.
I thought we had decided that masks were ineffective.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
I don't take him too seriously.
I don't think he's half as left-wing as he makes out to be: if he really hated Britain he wouldn't constantly make models of Sea Harriers and go around the country delivering (by all accounts, popular and well-enjoyed) lectures about the Royal Navy, nor stand for parish councils.
I think he has an anarcho-libertarian bent, is self-destructive (possibly affected by his time in the military) and aggressive but I suspect holds a level of affection for the country and the navy somewhere and uses this forum to simply play the rebel.
I don't take him seriously at all, but he can entertain
I am increasingly sure he is a comic construction. Too many contradictions
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
It's a law firm in central Newcastle. Exactly how many Eco things relating to the firm is there to actually deal with.
One reason why these committees end up spending hours on little things is because they have no say over anything big.
Also Parkinson’s law
Years ago when I was in training for something a wise bloke took me to a committee which existed only for the benefit of people who liked being on committees and attending meetings. I have never forgotten the experience. It is never to early to learn the difference between being on a committee and being on a committee that does stuff. And it saves a huge amount of time.
If firms think the cost of labour is too high, they can automate. They didn’t though previously because labour was so cheap. Many will choose - and I use the word choose - because it means investment cost and they would much rather protect margins, cash etc.
Re the hospitality industry, yes I don’t want them to class but maybe it is not such a great idea to base your business model on low cost labour. If Primark turned round tomorrow and said “sorry we are struggling because we can’t use low cost labour from Bangladesh, sympathy would be limited.
There’s two points there, and I broadly agree with both. If problem is Labour shortage, and it’s possible to automate, that is a measure that will help. Not an overnight answer though, surely good government helps automate first pulls up drawbridge second.
Second point, why is anyone defending not just slave wage shops particularly in rag trade putting things on hangers in our shops, you say Bangladesh but why not say Leicester, England, too?
That’s not the point I am making though. Nor am I making it alone, think tanks across political spectrum all saying
The shortages crisis is not an issue about wages but shortage of people available right now to do the work. They actually steal the pool off each other, not solved, but transferred. Industries offering high wages to attract an ever twindling supply of people qualified to fill vacancies is not real wage growth based on greater productivity, it's a labour shortage. Just paying higher wages doesn’t sort something that is not a wage issue but shortage issue. To raise prices to raise wages doesn’t make anyone better off so shouldn’t be sold as that.
and Boris lied yesterday, for many leave voters Brexit was not about completely stopping immigration by pulling up a draw bridge, it was about taking back control. The Adam Smith institute particularly scathing about Boris extreme line on immigration, saying it’s claimed to be needed to solve a problem that is not really there.
Is Boris actually boxed in by promises to working class voters of sunlit uplands. Could Brexit actually be implemented more strongly by Starmer’s Labour government?
You know that I am happy to point to genuine issues. But Nestle can fuck right off. Halifax is a long term disaster of a factory with archaic kit and generationally shit management. 15 years ago they were so short of sweets that they had to divert individually wrapped Yorkie blocks from travel packs to fill the hole.
Christmas spikes in demand on QS and the other tubs are very well understood and mapped, with production well ahead of time. They may well be short of plastic tubs but so is everyone. A labour shortage in the factory and supply chain maybe a factor but its long life ambient and retailers have taken swathes of the stuff already.
So to translate his message "there may be a shortage at Christmas so why not buy now? And then when you've eaten them buy some more".
I had an email from Sainsburys which was, pretty much, to the same point.
Admirable grift from the confectionary manufacturers and supermarkets.
The reason why Christmas season starts 1st September and Easter on Boxing Day is to maximise seasonal confectionery sales. Special packs of Quality Street or sharing boxes of Matchmakers are the ultimate in expandable consumption.
The only thing that isn't expandable is the pack itself. Back in my day we had a 1.7kg tin of Quality Street and a smaller 1.4kg tin for convenience stores. These days the plastic tub is 650g selling at half the price of the old 1.7kg tin.
Anecdotage. Woolworths (God bless them) loved upselling, with multibuys on everything through Christmas. A couple of years before they went pop they had a brilliant 3 for on tins of Quality Street, Roses, Celebrations etc.
Great value but they didn't redeem anywhere as many deals as they expected. I remember one meeting with them pointing out that with so many high street stores the promo was asking Granny to take 5 kilos of twistwrap home on the bus and maybe thats too much weight...
So if retail runs out of chocolate boxes, we get to see the Creme Eggs before Christmas?
I've often thought that Britain and France are two countries with a mutual inferiority complex. A truly peculiar, maybe unique relationship.
In my experience (went to university there, own a house there) French people spend far less time thinking about England than English people imagine. They view the USA as their cultural usurper. They are just not that into you.
The obsession with France is weird isn't it. It's definitely a one-sided affair. You don't see it in Scotland, either. Seems to be mainly a thing with posh English blokes. Maybe some cultural memory of all those aristos going to the guillotine?
And yet this is the country where an MP has proposed making French the only official language of the EU in order to get rid of the Anglo-Saxons and their world view. And which got into an almighty strop over the US-Australia-U.K. deal and made a point of saying how little it thought of Britain by not removing its ambassador
Perhaps it is not quite as one-sided as all that.
The English (or the ones on here anyway) getting aerated over what *one* French MP has proposed is decent evidence of OLB's observation. If it's two way traffic the French certainly have tons of dumbfuckery issued by individual British MPs upon which to fixate.
I remember being in meetings with the French regulator decades ago where they talked about the Anglo-Saxons with a degree of distaste and about how they did not want Anglo-Saxon financial regulation. At one financial seminar one academic tried to claim that Compliance - as a function - had been first invented by some French King in the Middle Ages.
My point is that the obsession with competing with the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps a bit more widespread and long-standing in France than people are assuming - and in surprising places. The French may not be obsessed with the English on a day to day level but then I don't really think the English are that obsessed with the French either - even if some PB posters are.
Quite. To me it's a bit like believing exceptionalism is exceptional - that there has to be something really unique about such talk.
The French are indeed obsessed with "the Anglo-Saxons", in a pretty negative way. The focus of this varies, however. Sometimes it is the Americans, sometimes it is the Brits (about equally so, I'd say). Occasionally it is Australia.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Yes, not at all fussed. Non, Monsieur
Yup that's just a Croque... Monsieur!
The term "Anglo-Saxon" is not necessarily a pejorative. Many French people I have spoken to have said how they prefer to work for "Anglo-Saxon" corporations. They see such companies as having a better world view than their French counterparts. Obviously this is a self-selecting demographic because my French is absolutely crap, so by in order to express their view they are fluent English speakers.
Having worked for a French company for 18 years all over the world, I was amazed at how badly they treated their own French employees compared to the international ones. I was told this was very common - for French companies to treat their international employees far better than French nationals. No idea why except I suppose that they could and so they did.
Yes that is quite common. I went for a job with a French company many years ago before I set up my own business. Having previously worked for a big US corp it was a bit of a shock. Obviously it was in the days before diversity was a big thing, but it was clear that everyone in the Paris HQ was French, middle aged, white and male; a complete contrast to the US company I was then part of. I declined a further interview, though I probably wouldn't have got the job anyway, not being French.
Signs are already here and will be very obvious in hindsight.
Similar feeling re the economy but not so much on the GE impact. Still think Con maj should be fav over NOM.
What's your view on my nap of Cons most seats at 1.55?
I wouldn't take it beneath 1.8 at the moment.
I think people are extrapolating trends and features of the last 10-12 years onto the future, and assuming it's more of the same.
The truth is we just don't know so I price that risk in.
Ok thanks. I have some at nearly 2 from a while back so my average is higher than 1.55 but I do still really like it at that. Agree on the economy, things are pointing south, but the Johnson brand is so so strong in the places key to a FPTP election that I find it hard to see him going from here to below Lab in seats in just a couple of years. Course it's money I'd be ok losing if I'm wrong.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
Off topic
What an absolutely vile post.
And the two people who gave you a like should be ashamed of themselves.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
You know that I am happy to point to genuine issues. But Nestle can fuck right off. Halifax is a long term disaster of a factory with archaic kit and generationally shit management. 15 years ago they were so short of sweets that they had to divert individually wrapped Yorkie blocks from travel packs to fill the hole.
Christmas spikes in demand on QS and the other tubs are very well understood and mapped, with production well ahead of time. They may well be short of plastic tubs but so is everyone. A labour shortage in the factory and supply chain maybe a factor but its long life ambient and retailers have taken swathes of the stuff already.
So to translate his message "there may be a shortage at Christmas so why not buy now? And then when you've eaten them buy some more".
I had an email from Sainsburys which was, pretty much, to the same point.
Admirable grift from the confectionary manufacturers and supermarkets.
The reason why Christmas season starts 1st September and Easter on Boxing Day is to maximise seasonal confectionery sales. Special packs of Quality Street or sharing boxes of Matchmakers are the ultimate in expandable consumption.
The only thing that isn't expandable is the pack itself. Back in my day we had a 1.7kg tin of Quality Street and a smaller 1.4kg tin for convenience stores. These days the plastic tub is 650g selling at half the price of the old 1.7kg tin.
Anecdotage. Woolworths (God bless them) loved upselling, with multibuys on everything through Christmas. A couple of years before they went pop they had a brilliant 3 for on tins of Quality Street, Roses, Celebrations etc.
Great value but they didn't redeem anywhere as many deals as they expected. I remember one meeting with them pointing out that with so many high street stores the promo was asking Granny to take 5 kilos of twistwrap home on the bus and maybe thats too much weight...
So if retail runs out of chocolate boxes, we get to see the Creme Eggs before Christmas?
EAster eggs. You can't get Quality Street into a Creme Egg.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
Exporters can be compliant in products they produce, while being non-compliant in products made for domestic consumption though.
There's no need to have the same domestic laws, just to produce goods for export.
On latest YG finding EVEN Corbyn more positively viewed than SKS Owen is spot on.
@OwenJones84 Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Owen does seem to harbour an animosity towards Sir Keir that verges on the personal vendetta. Why? I get that Labour centrists would have taken the piss out of him when Corbyn crashed and burned, but shouldn't he have gotten over that by now? And that wasn't Sir Keir himself, who was relatively loyal to Jezza as these things go - he didn't plot to destroy Jezza from the backbenches as, say, Boris did with Theresa. I don't get it.
Looking at this the wrong way.
He betrayed Corbyn and the Corbynites won't let him forget it. So this journalism is his penance.
Which one of those got Labour into power? Was it a) the most popular with 2019 Labour voters, or b) one of those equally most unpopular with 2019 Labour voters?
Poor old SKS is electable. It's his MPs, the party and now the Labour voters that stand in the way of his being a credible alternative.
Who is there who doesn't already vote Labour that will switch to vote with the Corbynites?
Miliband was beating Cameron on Both Net Satisfaction & Gross Positives, whilst Labour led on VI mid term. The Tories went from coalition partners to outright majority at the following GE.
And PB said NOM was buying money at odds on
Dark Blue Cam GP lead Light Blue Cam Net Sat lead Red Con VI lead
Mid term means jack- shit if Johnson loses control of the economy over the next two years, which seems highly plausible to me.
If, maybes, black swans, & "this time it will be different" is all the haters have
The haters outnumber the lovers, don't they?
They're just louder because they haven't got their own way for once
Haha. Boris haters are mostly Labour supporters, who haven't won an election in 16 years. We are more than accustomed to not getting our own way, believe me!
Boris hatred seems to be most prevalent among younger demographics. The idea that they have had their way on anything much over recent years is for the fairies.
By contrast, he is most popular among older demographics who have pretty much done best out of the last decade.
Boris haters is just a colourful term for people with their head screwed on.
Hate in politics should be reserved for people like Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
It has no place in a democracy.
I agree - unless the politician in question deals in it as stock in trade, eg Donald Trump.
I was kinda hoping the Dems would find someone called Hope (first or surname) to run against Trump, with the slogan 'Hope, not hate'
Talking of which, do you realise there is no Hope in the House of Commons? The nearest we've got is Chope and - for me - he's not a vision of hope The House of Lords, however, is not Hopeless
I still think that chap named Whitehouse should be the nominee. Send Whitehouse to the White House.
The suspicion is the UK government will only accept an agreement that renders the protocol so ineffective that the EU could never agree to it. Unionists want effectively no consequences of Brexit and will only stop moaning if they get everything they want .
Why can you not accept the EU has buckled under pressure and yes, Frost is right to seek his objectives
Why are EU supporters blind to the adverse actions of UVDL and others or do they look on the EU as some omnipotent presence
Because we have a European identity and fucking despise the simple minded nationalism and retrogressive world view that Brexit represents. Leavers are never going to come to terms with their victory until they understand that.
Why don't you just fuck off to France? I don't fucking understand it. You hate Britain, you love the EU, you constantly tell us you are about to commit fucking suicide on your stupid fucking motorbikes, you fucking overgrown man-child. So climb on your fucking bike and fuck off
I don't take him too seriously.
I don't think he's half as left-wing as he makes out to be: if he really hated Britain he wouldn't constantly make models of Sea Harriers and go around the country delivering (by all accounts, popular and well-enjoyed) lectures about the Royal Navy, nor stand for parish councils.
I think he has an anarcho-libertarian bent, is self-destructive (possibly affected by his time in the military) and aggressive but I suspect holds a level of affection for the country and the navy somewhere and uses this forum to simply play the rebel.
I don't take him seriously at all, but he can entertain
I am increasingly sure he is a comic construction. Too many contradictions
As far as obviously constructed personas on this forum go, his is certainly more entertaining than others'.
Yougov this morning though still sees the Conservatives with a clear lead on 39% to 31% for Labour. Boris would win a comfortable majority again on those numbers.
The Cons. seem stuck on circa 40% with little suggestion of decline. I do not believe Labour on 31%. If there was an election today 40 plays 35 looks likely to me.
42:34 at best for Labour.
I don't disagree with 34, but 42 is outside the range of the polling.
The current range, yes. But it is hardly unprecedented for this Govt to get 42, and more.
I said if there was an election today.
It’s about the timing of it. An election next spring, and most posters on here will expect a comfortable Tory majority, the Labour rubbing their hands with glee at at coming economic shitstorm, next spring comes far too early for them, Torys in for another 5 years. Probably hardens up Boris position inside his party too, his victory next spring.
If it’s left till 2023 though. Hm. Might be more interesting.
So anyone think yesterday’s bombast actually the first campaign speech of next years election? We are now within six months?
Comments
There is no such thing as a "labour shortage" that can be filled with immigration, nor a "labour abundance" that can be solved by emigration. There is only an imbalance in our country and that imbalance has been caused by getting hooked on using below-market rate wages.
Our population has surged by ten million people in a generation and there's still supposedly a labour shortage. We've had over 300k net immigration every year for years now and there's still supposedly a labour shortage.
No, that's pure lump of labour fallacy nonsense. Wages need to rise until demand for labour drops enough to eliminate the shortage. Yes that may cause some inflation - but then the imbalance in the economy is resolved.
Right at the moment, unusually, it is all three
And the idea the French "aren't fussed" about England is piquant, on the same day the French are threatening to block exports to England, blockade ports against England, blockade all English students, and blockade electricity going to England.
Yes, not at all fussed. Non, Monsieur
On Covid, my village had a rate reported yesterday of 1,106 infections per 100,000 people.
That's a lot. It's worrying, even with vaccinations.
What's your view on my nap of Cons most seats at 1.55?
@OwenJones84
Well, that’s just nuked one of the remaining defences of Keir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership
Corbyn: 51%
Brown 49%
Miliband: 44%
Starmer: 34%
Blair: 25%
Kinnock: 25%
All ratings data via YouGov, 3rd quarter of 2021.
On my Trust dashboard 65% of 2 week cancer waits were seen on time, 79% of Breast suspects. 98% start chemo within 31 days, but only 70% get surgery in that time.
This is because of staff shortages and redeployment to ICU from theatres etc.
The French minister responsible for fishing published her diary in the form of a graphic showing all her activities to win in the showdown (literally 'arm wrestle') with the UK.
https://twitter.com/AnnickGirardin/status/1445393887753875465
A French MEP replied with a photo of himself on the phone with the Commission promising to keep the pressure on the British.
https://twitter.com/Pierre_Ka/status/1445430220115300364
You know article 16 is only a temporary time out to agree new rules, not an end to something you don’t like? The EU agreeing to talk is merely the same as UK forcing it pressing A16.
You, being you, of course think a UK government can then brush off retaliatory measures like whacking key British imports into the EU with tariffs, or suspension of the broader free-trade deal. Not so easy for government to actually fuck business like that, Frost and Boris would have to go into commons and on TV to defend that.
We’ll see if you are right. This is coming to crunch time 🙂
I stand by my original suggestion, Peak Frost has probably passed.
Inflation - not a reduction in immigration - is responsible for the rise in wages
NIGEL FARAGE
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/07/wont-celebrating-called-wage-rise/
I don't either.
Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
By-the-way your view of the French not being too keen on us English is probably largely based on the fact that when they meet you they think you are an objectionable knob end and treat you accordingly! You don't have to be French to see that!
Hopefully the French will calm down after the election, because they are now harming themselves within the EU as they overdo it. And much as I like to point and laugh at the French, we need a prosperous, civilised, friendly EU on our doorstep
Indeed I hope that one day Britain can find an arms-length relationship with the EU that nonetheless satisfies those Brits (like Dura Ace and Foxy) who want to feel more "European"
Some new form of nuanced, regulated Freedom of Movement - that satisfies both sides- should not be beyond the wit of man. A lot of young Europeans still want to come to London and work, and get better English (bringing their labour). A lot of Brits would still like to retire to Spain (bringing money with them)
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
Am astonished by the number of friends who have Christmas plans already set in stone. Was it always this way in the first week of October? Or has last year's experience affected it?
Christmas spikes in demand on QS and the other tubs are very well understood and mapped, with production well ahead of time. They may well be short of plastic tubs but so is everyone. A labour shortage in the factory and supply chain maybe a factor but its long life ambient and retailers have taken swathes of the stuff already.
So to translate his message "there may be a shortage at Christmas so why not buy now? And then when you've eaten them buy some more".
I suppose we'll have to wait and see which side has a greater share of the face-saving bluster.
If it’s left till 2023 though. Hm. Might be more interesting.
So anyone think yesterday’s bombast actually the first campaign speech of next years election? We are now within six months?
The obsession with "The Anglo-Saxons" is mainly a French elite thing (and I probably should have specified that). The Parisian chatterati. Journalists and politicians, pundits and enarques, thinkers, writers and Twitterers. But that is who we mostly hear on this side of the Channel
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/07/tory-councillor-in-worthing-suspended-over-alleged-support-of-far-right
Wise up!
Voters are more positive about Burnham than Starmer and less negative about Burnham than Corbyn, so Burnham would it seems be a better Labour leader than both
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
Oh! According to Steve Barker it already is!
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19627876.nicola-sturgeon-douglas-ross-placed-50-bet-fm-quitting-next-election/
If firms think the cost of labour is too high, they can automate. They didn’t though previously because labour was so cheap. Many will choose - and I use the word choose - because it means investment cost and they would much rather protect margins, cash etc.
Re the hospitality industry, yes I don’t want them to class but maybe it is not such a great idea to base your business model on low cost labour. If Primark turned round tomorrow and said “sorry we are struggling because we can’t use low cost labour from Bangladesh, sympathy would be limited.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
Admirable grift from the confectionary manufacturers and supermarkets.
I think people are extrapolating trends and features of the last 10-12 years onto the future, and assuming it's more of the same.
The truth is we just don't know so I price that risk in.
I don't think he's half as left-wing as he makes out to be: if he really hated Britain he wouldn't constantly make models of Sea Harriers and go around the country delivering (by all accounts, popular and well-enjoyed) lectures about the Royal Navy, nor stand for parish councils.
I think he has an anarcho-libertarian bent, is self-destructive (possibly affected by his time in the military) and aggressive but I suspect holds a level of affection for the country and the navy somewhere and uses this forum to simply play the rebel.
"Something Will Come Up"
The only thing that isn't expandable is the pack itself. Back in my day we had a 1.7kg tin of Quality Street and a smaller 1.4kg tin for convenience stores. These days the plastic tub is 650g selling at half the price of the old 1.7kg tin.
Anecdotage. Woolworths (God bless them) loved upselling, with multibuys on everything through Christmas. A couple of years before they went pop they had a brilliant 3 for on tins of Quality Street, Roses, Celebrations etc.
Great value but they didn't redeem anywhere as many deals as they expected. I remember one meeting with them pointing out that with so many high street stores the promo was asking Granny to take 5 kilos of twistwrap home on the bus and maybe thats too much weight...
I am increasingly sure he is a comic construction. Too many contradictions
Which one of those got Labour into power?
Was it a) the most popular with 2019 Labour voters, or b) one of those equally most unpopular with 2019 Labour voters?
Second point, why is anyone defending not just slave wage shops particularly in rag trade putting things on hangers in our shops, you say Bangladesh but why not say Leicester, England, too?
That’s not the point I am making though. Nor am I making it alone, think tanks across political spectrum all saying
The shortages crisis is not an issue about wages but shortage of people available right now to do the work. They actually steal the pool off each other, not solved, but transferred. Industries offering high wages to attract an ever twindling supply of people qualified to fill vacancies is not real wage growth based on greater productivity, it's a labour shortage. Just paying higher wages doesn’t sort something that is not a wage issue but shortage issue. To raise prices to raise wages doesn’t make anyone better off so shouldn’t be sold as that.
and Boris lied yesterday, for many leave voters Brexit was not about completely stopping immigration by pulling up a draw bridge, it was about taking back control. The Adam Smith institute particularly scathing about Boris extreme line on immigration, saying it’s claimed to be needed to solve a problem that is not really there.
Is Boris actually boxed in by promises to working class voters of sunlit uplands. Could Brexit actually be implemented more strongly by Starmer’s Labour government?
What an absolutely vile post.
And the two people who gave you a like should be ashamed of themselves.
There's no need to have the same domestic laws, just to produce goods for export.
He betrayed Corbyn and the Corbynites won't let him forget it. So this journalism is his penance.
Who is there who doesn't already vote Labour that will switch to vote with the Corbynites?