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.
lol. Are you not au fait with the collected posts of @Dura_Ace including the one to which I was replying?
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.
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 couldn't fit Sunak's prepubescent penis into the gap between tory and Labour on policy but you'd get a better Brexit, to the limited extent that such a thing exists, from Labour because the EU don't hate them to quite the same quivering intensity as they do Johnson and Fat Frosty.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
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?
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?
I'm not at all convinced dreary, untrustworthy, boring Mogadon Man Keir is electable.
When he's viewed by the public as less trustworthy than Boris Johnson* in many polls, and for quite good reason, but has few redeeming qualities then how exactly is he electable?
Simply not being Corbyn is a necessary but not sufficient condition, to being electable.
* And I say that as someone who likes Boris, but I would never suggest that trustworthiness is his key attribute.
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
The betting markets haven't shown themselves to be good guides recently and I'm not sure they've got this one right either.
However, I think I would state the following fairly confidently
1. It is extremely unlikely that Boris Johnson will increase his majority
2. It is exceptionally unlikely that Labour will win an outright majority
There are therefore two plausible scenarios:
3. Hung parliament
or
4. A reduced tory majority
I still think 4. is the most likely outcome and I'm thinking along the lines of 1992
“1992” is the most likely outcome on the scale, probably 60% chance.
I’d put a Hung Parliament at 30%, increased majority at 8% and Lab Majority at 2%.
I’d also suggest October 2023 for Election Day, so two years from now. They won’t go long if they can avoid it, but also don’t want to go before the new boundaries are in place.
Indeed. And December 2019 sank forever the old-fashioned notion that winter elections go badly for governing parties. That belonged to the bygone days of gas lighting and smog, if it ever really belonged 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.
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.
lol. Are you not au fait with the collected posts of @Dura_Ace including the one to which I was replying?
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 had a Creme Egg yesterday; no need to wait. Grandchild picked it off a shop shelf unnoticed and unwrapped it. So we had to buy it and I had to eat it.
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'.
Agreed, and assuming his stated service in the RN is truthful (his posts seem pretty credible) he has done a bit more for his country than rant away on a political blog about the marvels of Brexit, write travel guides and the odd low-brow novel.
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
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.
The French company I worked for had the same approach of needing to be an old white French man to get to the top. To be fair they were diversifying rapdiy so that being white and a man were no longer pre-requisites. However, the one which was not changing was the requirement to be French.
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 couldn't fit Sunak's prepubescent penis into the gap between tory and Labour on policy but you'd get a better Brexit, to the limited extent that such a thing exists, from Labour because the EU don't hate them to quite the same quivering intensity as they do Johnson and Fat Frosty.
Confused. On the one hand you tell us the French don't give a shit about the Brits, on the other hand the EU - which is at least half French - loathes Boris Johnson and Lord Frost with a "quivering intensity"
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?
I'm not at all convinced dreary, untrustworthy, boring Mogadon Man Keir is electable.
When he's viewed by the public as less trustworthy than Boris Johnson* in many polls, and for quite good reason, but has few redeeming qualities then how exactly is he electable?
Simply not being Corbyn is a necessary but not sufficient condition, to being electable.
* And I say that as someone who likes Boris, but I would never suggest that trustworthiness is his key attribute.
Yea, but you absolutely adore Boris, so you judgement is, shall we say, both impartial and highly suspect.
Good article on Commonwealth Fusion Systems. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/can-nuclear-fusion-put-the-brakes-on-climate-change … In 1976, the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration published a study predicting how quickly nuclear fusion could become a reality, depending on how much money was invested in the field. For around nine billion a year in today’s dollars—described as the “Maximum Effective Effort”—it projected reaching fusion energy by 1990. The scale descended to about a billion dollars a year, which the study projected would lead to “Fusion Never.” “And that’s about what’s been spent,” the British physicist Steven Cowley told me. “Pretty close to the maximum amount you could spend in order to never get there.”…
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.
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
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.
Nah! I wanna see the lawn signs proclaiming 'Hope trumps all!' Or even "Hope trumps Trump"
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?
I'd be more interested to see the poll for those who voted Labour in 2017 but not 2019. And a Starmer vs Bojo for the same group.
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.
Don't confuse him with facts. This is new Gospel of Brexit According to St Paul. He probably thinks Nigel Farage is a heretic and too pro-European!
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?
Quite possibly correct. I would if I was Johnson.
I don't think a 2022 election is impossible, if an excuse can be engineered and the polls OK. But unlikely, as these hurdles are large. Boris will not want to go down as Mark II T May.
By the law of entropy the longer that passes the less predictable is a Tory victory, As I see it the chances of a Tory majority (326+) are drifting from 40%+ to 40%- in the last week or so.
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
Although by the same token an Act forbidding it could be passed pdq.
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 j
.. Edit.
Can't be bothered. Off for some fresh air.
Sean in all his guises has been banned or given time outs. He is always back because at his best he is the funniest and most thought provoking and challenging poster. And he can write beautifully when he puts his mind to it. This site is always the poorer when he is absent, and sometimes when he is present.
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?
Quite possibly correct. I would if I was Johnson.
I don't think a 2022 election is impossible, if an excuse can be engineered and the polls OK. But unlikely, as these hurdles are large. Boris will not want to go down as Mark II T May.
By the law of entropy the longer that passes the less predictable is a Tory victory, As I see it the chances of a Tory majority (326+) are drifting from 40%+ to 40%- in the last week or so.
Brenda from Bristol would not be happy with a 2022 election. Two years early with a majority of 80 - you've got to be kidding!
BJ would need a jolly good excuse to go in 2022, and even if he found/invented one it could easily backfire.
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
I think we have been here before. Neither NATO nor UN have overriding law making and law limiting powers over the UK parliament. Nor are they building a common currency and running an elected parliament.
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.
Don't confuse him with facts. This is new Gospel of Brexit According to St Paul. He probably thinks Nigel Farage is a heretic and too pro-European!
William is not a Brexiteer - at least he was not prior to us actually leaving. He is (I believe and apologise if I misrepresent him) a pretty ardent federalist and he and I used to have very long arguments from opposite sides of the Brexit debate. But to be fair he is saying nothing now he didn't say when he was arguing against Brexit. He has always believed that EFTA membership is second class compared to EU membership. I was not sure before if that was simply because he was opposing something he considered to be a lure in favour of Brexit but his consistency now shows he still genuinely believes it is a poor way to go.
I disagree with him but would never accuse him of either inconsistency or opportunism on these matters. It is why I have always genuinely enjoyed debating with him.
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?
Quite possibly correct. I would if I was Johnson.
I don't think a 2022 election is impossible, if an excuse can be engineered and the polls OK. But unlikely, as these hurdles are large. Boris will not want to go down as Mark II T May.
By the law of entropy the longer that passes the less predictable is a Tory victory, As I see it the chances of a Tory majority (326+) are drifting from 40%+ to 40%- in the last week or so.
Market agrees with you. Notwithstanding the triumphalist mood of the Tory conf - and Muscly's rollicking sidesplitter of a speech - the betting drift is away from them and towards Lab and Starmer.
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.
65% of 2 week cancer waits were seen on time. That is useless.
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'.
If he's a construct his author has certainly shown more distinctive imagination than 'others'.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
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
I think we have been here before. Neither NATO nor UN have overriding law making and law limiting powers over the UK parliament. Nor are they building a common currency and running an elected parliament.
Neither is the EEA which is the body we were discussing.
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
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 had a Creme Egg yesterday; no need to wait. Grandchild picked it off a shop shelf unnoticed and unwrapped it. So we had to buy it and I had to eat it.
I'm sure the grandkid learned a valuable life lesson as he watched you consume it.
The Conservatives are losing their reputation as a low tax party - 64% of Britons think that taxes would rise under a future Tory government, but only 56% say the same of Labour
Good article on Commonwealth Fusion Systems. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/can-nuclear-fusion-put-the-brakes-on-climate-change … In 1976, the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration published a study predicting how quickly nuclear fusion could become a reality, depending on how much money was invested in the field. For around nine billion a year in today’s dollars—described as the “Maximum Effective Effort”—it projected reaching fusion energy by 1990. The scale descended to about a billion dollars a year, which the study projected would lead to “Fusion Never.” “And that’s about what’s been spent,” the British physicist Steven Cowley told me. “Pretty close to the maximum amount you could spend in order to never get there.”…
We’re now, finally, doing a little bit better.
I would actually say that a lot of fundamental research needed to be done. A crash program would have just... crashed into the obstacles faster. There is a fair amount of combined fundamental science and engineering to be worked out before you get a break-even tomak.
To get one that actually generates net power is even more work.
I am not convinced that throwing money at it will increase the rate of progress.
The betting markets haven't shown themselves to be good guides recently and I'm not sure they've got this one right either.
However, I think I would state the following fairly confidently
1. It is extremely unlikely that Boris Johnson will increase his majority
2. It is exceptionally unlikely that Labour will win an outright majority
There are therefore two plausible scenarios:
3. Hung parliament
or
4. A reduced tory majority
I still think 4. is the most likely outcome and I'm thinking along the lines of 1992
“1992” is the most likely outcome on the scale, probably 60% chance.
I’d put a Hung Parliament at 30%, increased majority at 8% and Lab Majority at 2%.
I’d also suggest October 2023 for Election Day, so two years from now. They won’t go long if they can avoid it, but also don’t want to go before the new boundaries are in place.
Indeed. And December 2019 sank forever the old-fashioned notion that winter elections go badly for governing parties. That belonged to the bygone days of gas lighting and smog, if it ever really belonged at all.
I think the winter of 2021 will not be one to try that out.
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?
Quite possibly correct. I would if I was Johnson.
I don't think a 2022 election is impossible, if an excuse can be engineered and the polls OK. But unlikely, as these hurdles are large. Boris will not want to go down as Mark II T May.
By the law of entropy the longer that passes the less predictable is a Tory victory, As I see it the chances of a Tory majority (326+) are drifting from 40%+ to 40%- in the last week or so.
Brenda from Bristol would not be happy with a 2022 election. Two years early with a majority of 80 - you've got to be kidding!
BJ would need a jolly good excuse to go in 2022, and even if he found/invented one it could easily backfire.
Even a glib and shameless liar like Johnson would struggle to come up with an enabling fabrication for a 2022 GE. Some bollocks about Brexit and the Six Counties? Maybe? A fresh mandate is required to consolidate the already stunning gains of the Brexit revolution?
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?
Quite possibly correct. I would if I was Johnson.
I don't think a 2022 election is impossible, if an excuse can be engineered and the polls OK. But unlikely, as these hurdles are large. Boris will not want to go down as Mark II T May.
By the law of entropy the longer that passes the less predictable is a Tory victory, As I see it the chances of a Tory majority (326+) are drifting from 40%+ to 40%- in the last week or so.
Brenda from Bristol would not be happy with a 2022 election. Two years early with a majority of 80 - you've got to be kidding!
BJ would need a jolly good excuse to go in 2022, and even if he found/invented one it could easily backfire.
Even a glib and shameless liar like Johnson would struggle to come up with an enabling fabrication for a 2022 GE. Some bollocks about Brexit and the Six Counties? Maybe? A fresh mandate is required to consolidate the already stunning gains of the Brexit revolution?
A Trudeauesque Covid recovery election? Load of balls of course but that would be no impediment.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
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
I think we have been here before. Neither NATO nor UN have overriding law making and law limiting powers over the UK parliament. Nor are they building a common currency and running an elected parliament.
Neither is the EEA which is the body we were discussing.
And, in fact, the UN does have such powers over most nations. Chapter 7 UNSCRs are binding on all Member States. The UK and other P5 have the power of veto within the Council, so I suppose it is true, but only with the proviso 'over the UK/French/Russian/Chinese/US'.
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?
Quite possibly correct. I would if I was Johnson.
I don't think a 2022 election is impossible, if an excuse can be engineered and the polls OK. But unlikely, as these hurdles are large. Boris will not want to go down as Mark II T May.
By the law of entropy the longer that passes the less predictable is a Tory victory, As I see it the chances of a Tory majority (326+) are drifting from 40%+ to 40%- in the last week or so.
Brenda from Bristol would not be happy with a 2022 election. Two years early with a majority of 80 - you've got to be kidding!
BJ would need a jolly good excuse to go in 2022, and even if he found/invented one it could easily backfire.
Even a glib and shameless liar like Johnson would struggle to come up with an enabling fabrication for a 2022 GE. Some bollocks about Brexit and the Six Counties? Maybe? A fresh mandate is required to consolidate the already stunning gains of the Brexit revolution?
I can't imagine NI being an election-winning issue in GB outside one or two Scottish central belt constituencies.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
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 j
.. Edit.
Can't be bothered. Off for some fresh air.
Sean in all his guises has been banned or given time outs. He is always back because at his best he is the funniest and most thought provoking and challenging poster. And he can write beautifully when he puts his mind to it. This site is always the poorer when he is absent, and sometimes when he is present.
I like his posts when he's not talking about what he's always talking about.
Given the site's anthing or one but Noris stance, I am interested to speculate how an appalling poll for Labour might be spun on a future thread as somehow good for Starmer.
Anyone care what form this premise might be expounded ? I suspect the poll will be ignored.
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.
Serious question:
In the last twenty five years, median wage growth was rubbish in the UK, the US, and in Japan. Indeed, it was dreadful across the developed world, except in Australia and Canada (which had resources booms), and Germany (where the rise in wages in the East made up for stagnation in the West).
If it's all to do with immigration, why have the same trends also been seen in countries with very low levels of immigration?
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
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 j
.. Edit.
Can't be bothered. Off for some fresh air.
Sean in all his guises has been banned or given time outs. He is always back because at his best he is the funniest and most thought provoking and challenging poster. And he can write beautifully when he puts his mind to it. This site is always the poorer when he is absent, and sometimes when he is present.
I don't know who this "Sean" guy he is but he sounds amazing. Witty, wise and provocative. I for one wish he'd post a lot more
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.
Serious question:
In the last twenty five years, median wage growth was rubbish in the UK, the US, and in Japan. Indeed, it was dreadful across the developed world, except in Australia and Canada (which had resources booms), and Germany (where the rise in wages in the East made up for stagnation in the West).
If it's all to do with immigration, why have the same trends also been seen in countries with very low levels of immigration?
I think Piketty suggested an alternative explanation, did he not?
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
BTW did you see my reply to your question the other day? About 20 posts from last in 'Big Speech Reactoin'.
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.
Serious question:
In the last twenty five years, median wage growth was rubbish in the UK, the US, and in Japan. Indeed, it was dreadful across the developed world, except in Australia and Canada (which had resources booms), and Germany (where the rise in wages in the East made up for stagnation in the West).
If it's all to do with immigration, why have the same trends also been seen in countries with very low levels of immigration?
I think Piketty suggested an alternative explanation, did he not?
The Conservatives are losing their reputation as a low tax party - 64% of Britons think that taxes would rise under a future Tory government, but only 56% say the same of Labour
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 j
.. Edit.
Can't be bothered. Off for some fresh air.
Sean in all his guises has been banned or given time outs. He is always back because at his best he is the funniest and most thought provoking and challenging poster. And he can write beautifully when he puts his mind to it. This site is always the poorer when he is absent, and sometimes when he is present.
I don't know who this "Sean" guy he is but he sounds amazing. Witty, wise and provocative. I for one wish he'd post a lot more
You keep linking to that trite fcuking piece on Brexit as childbirth by him, so I'm a teensy bit surprised you don't know who he is.
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.
Serious question:
In the last twenty five years, median wage growth was rubbish in the UK, the US, and in Japan. Indeed, it was dreadful across the developed world, except in Australia and Canada (which had resources booms), and Germany (where the rise in wages in the East made up for stagnation in the West).
If it's all to do with immigration, why have the same trends also been seen in countries with very low levels of immigration?
Because it is not so much to do with immigration per se as globalisation. If you can import cheap labour then fine. If not then you export your business to a country that already has cheap labour. Look at those numbers I dug out earlier in the year on the destruction of the US Middle Classes. In 1978 US companies offshored 150,000 jobs to other countries. In 2018 that number was 14.4 million.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
This goes straight to the heart of the Remain/Brexit dilemma. And was compounded by the degree of evasion and denial around in the campaigns about what the issues were.
National sovereignty both does and does not make sense. EU sovereignty both does and does not make sense.
This is why instead of silly games the two sides, both correct in very big ways, need to understand each other better.
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 j
.. Edit.
Can't be bothered. Off for some fresh air.
Sean in all his guises has been banned or given time outs. He is always back because at his best he is the funniest and most thought provoking and challenging poster. And he can write beautifully when he puts his mind to it. This site is always the poorer when he is absent, and sometimes when he is present.
I don't know who this "Sean" guy he is but he sounds amazing. Witty, wise and provocative. I for one wish he'd post a lot more
You keep linking to that trite fcuking piece on Brexit as childbirth by him, so I'm a teensy bit surprised you don't know who he is.
Is that by the same guy???!
Ah. Now it makes sense. That piece was genius. No wonder you're all obsessed with him
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
No you're confusing it I'm afraid. The Scotland Act (as amended) specifies what can't be done, rather than what is allowed. As such anything not forbidden is permitted applies.
There is an argument that an independence referendum is forbidden as it relates to the union [which is reserved and thus forbidden] but there is a counter-argument that as per Miller a referendum is purely advisory and therefore does not relate to the union. Sounds perverse, but could be right legally.
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Yes - a reason that I like it so much, is that it makes you *think*
Despite disagreeing with Orwell on many, many things, I would love to have had an evening of conversation with him. I would probably have received the intellectual equivalent of popping in the ring with Mike Tyson, but worth it.
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.
Serious question:
In the last twenty five years, median wage growth was rubbish in the UK, the US, and in Japan. Indeed, it was dreadful across the developed world, except in Australia and Canada (which had resources booms), and Germany (where the rise in wages in the East made up for stagnation in the West).
If it's all to do with immigration, why have the same trends also been seen in countries with very low levels of immigration?
Because it is not so much to do with immigration per se as globalisation. If you can import cheap labour then fine. If not then you export your business to a country that already has cheap labour. Look at those numbers I dug out earlier in the year on the destruction of the US Middle Classes. In 1978 US companies offshored 150,000 jobs to other countries. In 2018 that number was 14.4 million.
I'd argue that's one of four factors:
1. Globalisation 2. Automation 3. Ageing populations 4. Low interest rates that pushed up asset prices, and raised the cost of living for the ordinary people.
Between them, they have stuffed everyone who isn't in the top quartile.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
This goes straight to the heart of the Remain/Brexit dilemma. And was compounded by the degree of evasion and denial around in the campaigns about what the issues were.
National sovereignty both does and does not make sense. EU sovereignty both does and does not make sense.
This is why instead of silly games the two sides, both correct in very big ways, need to understand each other better.
My own disillusionment with the EU began when I realized that the principle of subsidiarity was not really respected at all and would never be as it is at odds with the human nature of (EC) bureaucrats. Subsidiarity was and is the way to square the circle on national vs EU sovereignty. Without it, I go for national sovereignty.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
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 j
.. Edit.
Can't be bothered. Off for some fresh air.
Sean in all his guises has been banned or given time outs. He is always back because at his best he is the funniest and most thought provoking and challenging poster. And he can write beautifully when he puts his mind to it. This site is always the poorer when he is absent, and sometimes when he is present.
I don't know who this "Sean" guy he is but he sounds amazing. Witty, wise and provocative. I for one wish he'd post a lot more
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
I think we have been here before. Neither NATO nor UN have overriding law making and law limiting powers over the UK parliament. Nor are they building a common currency and running an elected parliament.
Neither is the EEA which is the body we were discussing.
And, in fact, the UN does have such powers over most nations. Chapter 7 UNSCRs are binding on all Member States. The UK and other P5 have the power of veto within the Council, so I suppose it is true, but only with the proviso 'over the UK/French/Russian/Chinese/US'.
In practise the UN is fairly toothless - unless you are way, way down the international pecking order.
- Iraq invades Kuwait. UN sanctions war. - If China invades Taiwan, there may or may not be a resolution (which will be vetoed by China) that may or may not say "play nice, children, please".
Good article on Commonwealth Fusion Systems. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/can-nuclear-fusion-put-the-brakes-on-climate-change … In 1976, the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration published a study predicting how quickly nuclear fusion could become a reality, depending on how much money was invested in the field. For around nine billion a year in today’s dollars—described as the “Maximum Effective Effort”—it projected reaching fusion energy by 1990. The scale descended to about a billion dollars a year, which the study projected would lead to “Fusion Never.” “And that’s about what’s been spent,” the British physicist Steven Cowley told me. “Pretty close to the maximum amount you could spend in order to never get there.”…
We’re now, finally, doing a little bit better.
I would actually say that a lot of fundamental research needed to be done. A crash program would have just... crashed into the obstacles faster. There is a fair amount of combined fundamental science and engineering to be worked out before you get a break-even tomak.
To get one that actually generates net power is even more work.
I am not convinced that throwing money at it will increase the rate of progress.
The new German W-7X stellarator is an example. The use of weird configurations to keep plasma more stable than in Tokamaks has been known for decades. Designing one has required massive amounts of computer processing power.
Given the site's anthing or one but Noris stance, I am interested to speculate how an appalling poll for Labour might be spun on a future thread as somehow good for Starmer.
Anyone care what form this premise might be expounded ? I suspect the poll will be ignored.
You seemed to have moved on from complaining about all the biased articles to the bias in ones that haven't been written yet.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
One ramification will be people switching to the new banks most of who don't add a 3% charge on foreign transactions.
I use First Direct while in the UK. Once I'm heading abroad money is shifted to Revolut, Monzo and Starling (all three as I've had problems in the past with them in weird places).
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Given the site's anthing or one but Noris stance, I am interested to speculate how an appalling poll for Labour might be spun on a future thread as somehow good for Starmer.
Anyone care what form this premise might be expounded ? I suspect the poll will be ignored.
The only pollster that has Sir Keir ahead in either gross positive, or net satisfaction, leader ratings is Opinium, who have him trailing on GP but leading on NS, and their NS seem to be the only leader ratings that are used.
Here are the 8 pollsters on wiki's leadership approval page, with their last GP and NS scores - Boris leads by 9.8 GP and 5.3 Net on average
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
I’ve been to Sweden several times in recent years since joining a Swedish-based company. I have never seen, let alone touched, a Swedish kroner note or coin.
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
I think we have been here before. Neither NATO nor UN have overriding law making and law limiting powers over the UK parliament. Nor are they building a common currency and running an elected parliament.
Neither is the EEA which is the body we were discussing.
And, in fact, the UN does have such powers over most nations. Chapter 7 UNSCRs are binding on all Member States. The UK and other P5 have the power of veto within the Council, so I suppose it is true, but only with the proviso 'over the UK/French/Russian/Chinese/US'.
In practise the UN is fairly toothless - unless you are way, way down the international pecking order.
- Iraq invades Kuwait. UN sanctions war. - If China invades Taiwan, there may or may not be a resolution (which will be vetoed by China) that may or may not say "play nice, children, please".
Indeed, but I was thinking more of UNSCR 1540 (2004), which is not an enforcement action a la Iraq, but imposes a vast array of legal and enforcement requirements upon national governments pertaining to the actions of their citizens and all those private and legal entities operating in territories under their jurisdiction and control as they relate to terrorism.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
This goes straight to the heart of the Remain/Brexit dilemma. And was compounded by the degree of evasion and denial around in the campaigns about what the issues were.
National sovereignty both does and does not make sense. EU sovereignty both does and does not make sense.
This is why instead of silly games the two sides, both correct in very big ways, need to understand each other better.
My own disillusionment with the EU began when I realized that the principle of subsidiarity was not really respected at all and would never be as it is at odds with the human nature of (EC) bureaucrats. Subsidiarity was and is the way to square the circle on national vs EU sovereignty. Without it, I go for national sovereignty.
Too too true
I remember when "subsidiarity" was paraded before us, as the answer to the EU's Federalising urges, and a salve for British euroscepticism. What a load of nonsense. The strange clumsiness of the word (derived from Catholic doctrine?) was a clue.
I cannot think of a single significant example of "subsidiarity" in operation. I cannot think of one notable power that the EU handed back to member states
British EU membership was always a rearguard action against Ever Closer Union, and generally a series of defeats, with the odd minor stalemate
The EU is still going the same road, so Brexit in some form would have happened eventually. The later we left it, the more painful it was going to be
We should have quasi Brexited in the 1990s, after a referendum on Maastricht or Lisbon. Much less traumatic. Some kind of semi detachment within the Single Market would have been the likely result. But the europhiles knew best.....
Good article on Commonwealth Fusion Systems. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/can-nuclear-fusion-put-the-brakes-on-climate-change … In 1976, the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration published a study predicting how quickly nuclear fusion could become a reality, depending on how much money was invested in the field. For around nine billion a year in today’s dollars—described as the “Maximum Effective Effort”—it projected reaching fusion energy by 1990. The scale descended to about a billion dollars a year, which the study projected would lead to “Fusion Never.” “And that’s about what’s been spent,” the British physicist Steven Cowley told me. “Pretty close to the maximum amount you could spend in order to never get there.”…
We’re now, finally, doing a little bit better.
I would actually say that a lot of fundamental research needed to be done. A crash program would have just... crashed into the obstacles faster. There is a fair amount of combined fundamental science and engineering to be worked out before you get a break-even tomak.
To get one that actually generates net power is even more work.
I am not convinced that throwing money at it will increase the rate of progress.
The new German W-7X stellarator is an example. The use of weird configurations to keep plasma more stable than in Tokamaks has been known for decades. Designing one has required massive amounts of computer processing power.
(All AFAICR; might be wrong...)
We are still a few decades away from being able to simulate high intensity magnetic fields and their reactions with particles to the point that we can design this stuff in a computer and see if it works.
I remember a very good thread on this on the Polywell discussion board - someone worked out how many decades it would take to get a result from a simulation at a sufficient resolution.
It was one of the those problems where the answer was to wait for more compute power, since super computers are getting faster at such a rate that before your slow simulation was done, the latest super would run it for you in 10 minutes....
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
I’ve been to Sweden several times in recent years since joining a Swedish-based company. I have never seen, let alone touched, a Swedish kroner note or coin.
Two years ago when in Bulgaria weekly I used to get £100 or so out of a cash point at Sofia airport every 6 weeks or so.
It was what I needed to pay for the taxi from there to the hotel for that period of time. Beyond that the only cash I spent was the occasional drink from the vending machine.
And remember this is Bulgaria which is way make backward than anywhere else and where you did need cash for taxis as my colleague complained about weekly and usually then needed to borrow cash off me.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
No you're confusing it I'm afraid. The Scotland Act (as amended) specifies what can't be done, rather than what is allowed. As such anything not forbidden is permitted applies.
There is an argument that an independence referendum is forbidden as it relates to the union [which is reserved and thus forbidden] but there is a counter-argument that as per Miller a referendum is purely advisory and therefore does not relate to the union. Sounds perverse, but could be right legally.
I never understood all the criticism of the SC in its judgement by the Leave side when the Article 50 ruling just made clear that any government can’t remove the rights of its citizens without MPs voting on it . The disgraceful treatment of the original 3 judges in the lower court by the right wing press totally ignored that if the government had won the case in future a minister could use Henry Vlll powers to remove citizens rights at the stroke of a pen . The Enemies of the People disgusting headline was utterly despicable given the judges in effect should have been lauded for protecting the same people !
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
The issue is not immediate transactions - that is pretty much frictionless now.
The problem is you set a price on day X, and are scheduled to pay on day Y. At that point you start purchasing swaps...
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
This goes straight to the heart of the Remain/Brexit dilemma. And was compounded by the degree of evasion and denial around in the campaigns about what the issues were.
National sovereignty both does and does not make sense. EU sovereignty both does and does not make sense.
This is why instead of silly games the two sides, both correct in very big ways, need to understand each other better.
My own disillusionment with the EU began when I realized that the principle of subsidiarity was not really respected at all and would never be as it is at odds with the human nature of (EC) bureaucrats. Subsidiarity was and is the way to square the circle on national vs EU sovereignty. Without it, I go for national sovereignty.
"Subsidiarity" is indeed derived from Catholic theology
"The development of the concept of subsidiarity has roots in the natural law philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, and was mediated by the social scientific theories of Luigi Taparelli, SJ, in his 1840–43 natural law treatise on the human person in society.[2] In that work, Taparelli established the criteria of just social order, which he referred to as "hypotactical right" and which came to be termed subsidiarity following German influences.[3]
"The term subsidiarity as employed in Catholic social thought was inspired by the teaching of Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler, who served as Bishop of Mainz in the mid- to late 19th century.[4] It is most well-known, however, from its subsequent incorporation into Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo anno. "
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 j
.. Edit.
Can't be bothered. Off for some fresh air.
Sean in all his guises has been banned or given time outs. He is always back because at his best he is the funniest and most thought provoking and challenging poster. And he can write beautifully when he puts his mind to it. This site is always the poorer when he is absent, and sometimes when he is present.
I don't know who this "Sean" guy he is but he sounds amazing. Witty, wise and provocative. I for one wish he'd post a lot more
I seek to emulate his idiosyncratic style exactly to keep the feeling of his presence alive. I leave it to others to say how well I've managed, but I think it's pretty close.
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.
The point of the single market is that a product compliant for the domestic German market is compliant for every other country in the single market.
Of course if we want to export to Germany we have to comply with German laws, but the point at issue is whether German products are free to enter the British market while compliant only with German laws, or if there might be British laws that they have to be compliant with.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
The issue is not immediate transactions - that is pretty much frictionless now.
The problem is you set a price on day X, and are scheduled to pay on day Y. At that point you start purchasing swaps...
The current bane of my life is VAT payments where the exchange rate has moved between the day of invoice and the day of payment.
AI systems runs correctly and then just quits screaming whenever it encounters such an example (which it does daily).
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
First the Beatles are crap, now Orwell is "not very bright"?
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
This goes straight to the heart of the Remain/Brexit dilemma. And was compounded by the degree of evasion and denial around in the campaigns about what the issues were.
National sovereignty both does and does not make sense. EU sovereignty both does and does not make sense.
This is why instead of silly games the two sides, both correct in very big ways, need to understand each other better.
My own disillusionment with the EU began when I realized that the principle of subsidiarity was not really respected at all and would never be as it is at odds with the human nature of (EC) bureaucrats. Subsidiarity was and is the way to square the circle on national vs EU sovereignty. Without it, I go for national sovereignty.
Too too true
I remember when "subsidiarity" was paraded before us, as the answer to the EU's Federalising urges, and a salve for British euroscepticism. What a load of nonsense. The strange clumsiness of the word (derived from Catholic doctrine?) was a clue.
I cannot think of a single significant example of "subsidiarity" in operation. I cannot think of one notable power that the EU handed back to member states
British EU membership was always a rearguard action against Ever Closer Union, and generally a series of defeats, with the odd minor stalemate
The EU is still going the same road, so Brexit in some form would have happened eventually. The later we left it, the more painful it was going to be
We should have quasi Brexited in the 1990s, after a referendum on Maastricht or Lisbon. Much less traumatic. Some kind of semi detachment within the Single Market would have been the likely result. But the europhiles knew best.....
"You can't buck the market"
The voters didn't want Maastricht. The voters didn't want Lisbon.
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
No you're confusing it I'm afraid. The Scotland Act (as amended) specifies what can't be done, rather than what is allowed. As such anything not forbidden is permitted applies.
There is an argument that an independence referendum is forbidden as it relates to the union [which is reserved and thus forbidden] but there is a counter-argument that as per Miller a referendum is purely advisory and therefore does not relate to the union. Sounds perverse, but could be right legally.
I never understood all the criticism of the SC in its judgement by the Leave side when the Article 50 ruling just made clear that any government can’t remove the rights of its citizens without MPs voting on it . The disgraceful treatment of the original 3 judges in the lower court by the right wing press totally ignored that if the government had won the case in future a minister could use Henry Vlll powers to remove citizens rights at the stroke of a pen . The Enemies of the People disgusting headline was utterly despicable given the judges in effect should have been lauded for protecting the same people !
It was a dispiriting time. I was still on the leave train at the time, and it seemed completely appropriate that parliament was sovereign on that matter. And while parliament did then spend years tying itself in knots with some seeking to reverse the whole business one way or another, as the vote on Article 50 showed there was no danger to that approach as it passed overwhelmingly.
There was some similar fudged thinking with performative outrage about the Queen acceding to Boris's prorogation request. I was to believe people outraged about her doing it as he asked for it actually wanted her to have the real (not just theoretical) ability to reject the wishes of the PM and/or Parliament?
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
This goes straight to the heart of the Remain/Brexit dilemma. And was compounded by the degree of evasion and denial around in the campaigns about what the issues were.
National sovereignty both does and does not make sense. EU sovereignty both does and does not make sense.
This is why instead of silly games the two sides, both correct in very big ways, need to understand each other better.
My own disillusionment with the EU began when I realized that the principle of subsidiarity was not really respected at all and would never be as it is at odds with the human nature of (EC) bureaucrats. Subsidiarity was and is the way to square the circle on national vs EU sovereignty. Without it, I go for national sovereignty.
"Subsidiarity" is indeed derived from Catholic theology
"The development of the concept of subsidiarity has roots in the natural law philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, and was mediated by the social scientific theories of Luigi Taparelli, SJ, in his 1840–43 natural law treatise on the human person in society.[2] In that work, Taparelli established the criteria of just social order, which he referred to as "hypotactical right" and which came to be termed subsidiarity following German influences.[3]
"The term subsidiarity as employed in Catholic social thought was inspired by the teaching of Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler, who served as Bishop of Mainz in the mid- to late 19th century.[4] It is most well-known, however, from its subsequent incorporation into Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo anno. "
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
First the Beatles are crap, now Orwell is "not very bright"?
Wait till you hear what he says about The Monkees and Jeffrey Archer.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
I’ve been to Sweden several times in recent years since joining a Swedish-based company. I have never seen, let alone touched, a Swedish kroner note or coin.
Two years ago when in Bulgaria weekly I used to get £100 or so out of a cash point at Sofia airport every 6 weeks or so.
It was what I needed to pay for the taxi from there to the hotel for that period of time. Beyond that the only money I spent was the occasional drink from the vending machine.
Four unexpected consequences of the End of Cash:
1 It gets much harder to evade or cheat the taxman. My local Moldovan car wash is still clinging on to cash (I wonder why) but the others are reluctantly succumbing to the contactless machine
2 Tipping. We've discussed this before. But what will happen to tipping in a tipping mad culture like, say, the USA? If no one carries dollar bills barkeepers will have to be given a proper wage. Finally
3 Homeless people. They are already going crazy. Begging doesn't work any more
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
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.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
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.
The point of the single market is that a product compliant for the domestic German market is compliant for every other country in the single market.
Of course if we want to export to Germany we have to comply with German laws, but the point at issue is whether German products are free to enter the British market while compliant only with German laws, or if there might be British laws that they have to be compliant with.
Except that these days, almost all free trade agreements prohibit using product standards as non-tariff barriers, *and* increasingly everyone's local standards bodies just rewrite those from the ISO.
The UK COVID dashboard has updated its vaccine uptake graphic, but in a way that makes it inherently understate the rate of uptake in those eligible, in that the denominator is now the 12+ population, whereas not all 12-16 year-olds are eligible.
It is almost as though someone is intent on keeping uptake figures low - i.e. <90% for 1 dose and <80% for double-dosed.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
1984 is arguably the most influential novel of all time. It actually gets more profound as the decades pass, and the concepts it conjured become more resonant. "Thoughtcrime" - who knew it would become a an actual thing: in the West
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
I’ve been to Sweden several times in recent years since joining a Swedish-based company. I have never seen, let alone touched, a Swedish kroner note or coin.
Two years ago when in Bulgaria weekly I used to get £100 or so out of a cash point at Sofia airport every 6 weeks or so.
It was what I needed to pay for the taxi from there to the hotel for that period of time. Beyond that the only money I spent was the occasional drink from the vending machine.
Four unexpected consequences of the End of Cash:
1 It gets much harder to evade or cheat the taxman. My local Moldovan car wash is still clinging on to cash (I wonder why) but the others are reluctantly succumbing to the contactless machine
2 Tipping. We've discussed this before. But what will happen to tipping in a tipping mad culture like, say, the USA? If no one carries dollar bills barkeepers will have to be given a proper wage. Finally
3 Homeless people. They are already going crazy. Begging doesn't work any more
4. Street performers. The end of busking
I rarely carry cash here in the US, but when I do it’s because I expect to be tipping. That said, almost all tipping contexts here can be added to the card charge, but I prefer to tip in cash to ensure the recipient gets it.
As to busking, my wife teaches at a language school and she was told by her Chinese students that buskers in China show QR codes that you scan and tip them through.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
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.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
I've experienced this on recent trips to the continent. Contactless payment is now ubiquitous, so you don't really notice that you are using a different currency. It is frictionless
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
I’ve been to Sweden several times in recent years since joining a Swedish-based company. I have never seen, let alone touched, a Swedish kroner note or coin.
Two years ago when in Bulgaria weekly I used to get £100 or so out of a cash point at Sofia airport every 6 weeks or so.
It was what I needed to pay for the taxi from there to the hotel for that period of time. Beyond that the only money I spent was the occasional drink from the vending machine.
Four unexpected consequences of the End of Cash:
1 It gets much harder to evade or cheat the taxman. My local Moldovan car wash is still clinging on to cash (I wonder why) but the others are reluctantly succumbing to the contactless machine
2 Tipping. We've discussed this before. But what will happen to tipping in a tipping mad culture like, say, the USA? If no one carries dollar bills barkeepers will have to be given a proper wage. Finally
3 Homeless people. They are already going crazy. Begging doesn't work any more
4. Street performers. The end of busking
1) taxi drivers saw their pay increase by more than any other sector of the economy since 2010 (guess why) 4) A lot of buskers have card machines set at a small amount, it's not perfect but better than nothing.
Comments
When he's viewed by the public as less trustworthy than Boris Johnson* in many polls, and for quite good reason, but has few redeeming qualities then how exactly is he electable?
Simply not being Corbyn is a necessary but not sufficient condition, to being electable.
* And I say that as someone who likes Boris, but I would never suggest that trustworthiness is his key attribute.
Cheers Mexican Pete!
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
Some dissonance here. Not for the first time
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/can-nuclear-fusion-put-the-brakes-on-climate-change
… In 1976, the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration published a study predicting how quickly nuclear fusion could become a reality, depending on how much money was invested in the field. For around nine billion a year in today’s dollars—described as the “Maximum Effective Effort”—it projected reaching fusion energy by 1990. The scale descended to about a billion dollars a year, which the study projected would lead to “Fusion Never.” “And that’s about what’s been spent,” the British physicist Steven Cowley told me. “Pretty close to the maximum amount you could spend in order to never get there.”…
We’re now, finally, doing a little bit better.
Edit.
Can't be bothered. Off for some fresh air.
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
By the law of entropy the longer that passes the less predictable is a Tory victory, As I see it the chances of a Tory majority (326+) are drifting from 40%+ to 40%- in the last week or so.
BJ would need a jolly good excuse to go in 2022, and even if he found/invented one it could easily backfire.
I disagree with him but would never accuse him of either inconsistency or opportunism on these matters. It is why I have always genuinely enjoyed debating with him.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/10/07/most-britons-now-say-government-are-handling-econo?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=adam_tories_tax https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123300648669193/photo/1
Public opinion on the government's handling of the economy, tax and inflation has become much more negative recently
% saying handling badly:
Economy: 54% (+7 from 6 Sep)
Inflation: 53% (+15)
Tax: 60% (+13)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/10/07/most-britons-now-say-government-are-handling-econo?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=adam_tories_tax https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123306294267909/photo/1
To get one that actually generates net power is even more work.
I am not convinced that throwing money at it will increase the rate of progress.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
Anyone care what form this premise might be expounded ? I suspect the poll will be ignored.
In the last twenty five years, median wage growth was rubbish in the UK, the US, and in Japan. Indeed, it was dreadful across the developed world, except in Australia and Canada (which had resources booms), and Germany (where the rise in wages in the East made up for stagnation in the West).
If it's all to do with immigration, why have the same trends also been seen in countries with very low levels of immigration?
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
National sovereignty both does and does not make sense.
EU sovereignty both does and does not make sense.
This is why instead of silly games the two sides, both correct in very big ways, need to understand each other better.
Ah. Now it makes sense. That piece was genius. No wonder you're all obsessed with him
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
There is an argument that an independence referendum is forbidden as it relates to the union [which is reserved and thus forbidden] but there is a counter-argument that as per Miller a referendum is purely advisory and therefore does not relate to the union. Sounds perverse, but could be right legally.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
Despite disagreeing with Orwell on many, many things, I would love to have had an evening of conversation with him. I would probably have received the intellectual equivalent of popping in the ring with Mike Tyson, but worth it.
1. Globalisation
2. Automation
3. Ageing populations
4. Low interest rates that pushed up asset prices, and raised the cost of living for the ordinary people.
Between them, they have stuffed everyone who isn't in the top quartile.
In four weeks of European travel I had to use cash once, for a taxi in Switzerland, requiring me to go to an actual ATM and get out weird "Swiss Francs". I doubt that cab driver will get much business if he continues insisting on cash
For individuals, the hassle of different currencies has gone (apart from the FOREX rate obvs)
I'm not sure we've yet understood the many ramifications of the End of Cash
- Iraq invades Kuwait. UN sanctions war.
- If China invades Taiwan, there may or may not be a resolution (which will be vetoed by China) that may or may not say "play nice, children, please".
(All AFAICR; might be wrong...)
Other than needing a mandate to go war with France there's not going to be an election in 2022 so Brenda's safe.
2023 is the year methinks. June 1st/June 8th or possibly October 5th look strong possibilities.
I use First Direct while in the UK. Once I'm heading abroad money is shifted to Revolut, Monzo and Starling (all three as I've had problems in the past with them in weird places).
Here are the 8 pollsters on wiki's leadership approval page, with their last GP and NS scores - Boris leads by 9.8 GP and 5.3 Net on average
I remember when "subsidiarity" was paraded before us, as the answer to the EU's Federalising urges, and a salve for British euroscepticism. What a load of nonsense. The strange clumsiness of the word (derived from Catholic doctrine?) was a clue.
I cannot think of a single significant example of "subsidiarity" in operation. I cannot think of one notable power that the EU handed back to member states
British EU membership was always a rearguard action against Ever Closer Union, and generally a series of defeats, with the odd minor stalemate
The EU is still going the same road, so Brexit in some form would have happened eventually. The later we left it, the more painful it was going to be
We should have quasi Brexited in the 1990s, after a referendum on Maastricht or Lisbon. Much less traumatic. Some kind of semi detachment within the Single Market would have been the likely result. But the europhiles knew best.....
I remember a very good thread on this on the Polywell discussion board - someone worked out how many decades it would take to get a result from a simulation at a sufficient resolution.
It was one of the those problems where the answer was to wait for more compute power, since super computers are getting faster at such a rate that before your slow simulation was done, the latest super would run it for you in 10 minutes....
It was what I needed to pay for the taxi from there to the hotel for that period of time. Beyond that the only cash I spent was the occasional drink from the vending machine.
And remember this is Bulgaria which is way make backward than anywhere else and where you did need cash for taxis as my colleague complained about weekly and usually then needed to borrow cash off me.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
The problem is you set a price on day X, and are scheduled to pay on day Y. At that point you start purchasing swaps...
"The development of the concept of subsidiarity has roots in the natural law philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, and was mediated by the social scientific theories of Luigi Taparelli, SJ, in his 1840–43 natural law treatise on the human person in society.[2] In that work, Taparelli established the criteria of just social order, which he referred to as "hypotactical right" and which came to be termed subsidiarity following German influences.[3]
"The term subsidiarity as employed in Catholic social thought was inspired by the teaching of Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler, who served as Bishop of Mainz in the mid- to late 19th century.[4] It is most well-known, however, from its subsequent incorporation into Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo anno. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)
Just another way the EU was essentially alien to us
Of course if we want to export to Germany we have to comply with German laws, but the point at issue is whether German products are free to enter the British market while compliant only with German laws, or if there might be British laws that they have to be compliant with.
AI systems runs correctly and then just quits screaming whenever it encounters such an example (which it does daily).
The voters didn't want Maastricht.
The voters didn't want Lisbon.
Eventually the voters took back control.
There was some similar fudged thinking with performative outrage about the Queen acceding to Boris's prorogation request. I was to believe people outraged about her doing it as he asked for it actually wanted her to have the real (not just theoretical) ability to reject the wishes of the PM and/or Parliament?
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
1 It gets much harder to evade or cheat the taxman. My local Moldovan car wash is still clinging on to cash (I wonder why) but the others are reluctantly succumbing to the contactless machine
2 Tipping. We've discussed this before. But what will happen to tipping in a tipping mad culture like, say, the USA? If no one carries dollar bills barkeepers will have to be given a proper wage. Finally
3 Homeless people. They are already going crazy. Begging doesn't work any more
4. Street performers. The end of busking
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
It is almost as though someone is intent on keeping uptake figures low - i.e. <90% for 1 dose and <80% for double-dosed.
As to busking, my wife teaches at a language school and she was told by her Chinese students that buskers in China show QR codes that you scan and tip them through.
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
4) A lot of buskers have card machines set at a small amount, it's not perfect but better than nothing.