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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by 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?
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
#2 Tipping can now be done electronically. The issue with that is #1 though, tips were always supposed to be declared to the taxman previously but as if anyone did! If the company is paying you tips via a card machine then while you'll get every penny paid to you by the company, it will be with the taxes deducted I'm assuming.
#4 This has rather moved online nowadays hasn't it? Plus you can get paid for views via YouTube etc - no idea how this compares to busking.
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?
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.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
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
On 2, in the US now it is common for each waiter and bar person to have their own card reader, and when you insert your card, it automatically gives you the option of 25%, 20%, 15% tip so you don't even have to calculate it, just press which button you want.
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.
To all those you also have to add the defeat of trade unions, which tilted the balance of power between workers and bosses, and so reduced the share of profits that went to workers.
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.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
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.
I have an acquaintance who is a professional busker in the EU. Very talented. Used to make great money, now makes OK money. Covid hasn't helped, of course, but he also blames the decline on the disappearance of cash
I was quite happy to toss a pound coin in the cap of a skilled guitarist on a street corner. They add to the gaiety of nations. But now I never have pound coins. And am I ever going to tap their contactless machine or scan a QR code? I doubt it
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
On 2, in the US now it is common for each waiter and bar person to have their own card reader, and when you insert your card, it automatically gives you the option of 25%, 20%, 15% tip so you don't even have to calculate it, just press which button you want.
Not here in NY. I’ve yet to find a restaurant etc where they bring the reader to your table, European-style. They still whisk your card off who-knows-where and bring you back a paper slip sign and put the tip amount on.
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.
Can subsidiarity co-exist with monetary union iyo?
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.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
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.
To all those you also have to add the defeat of trade unions, which tilted the balance of power between workers and bosses, and so reduced the share of profits that went to workers.
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
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.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
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?
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.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
As far as I can see it is merely a discussion as to whether Holyrood can hold a referendum which Westminster would ignore the result of anyway or not.
Either way it would have no affect on the Union which would remain reserved to Westminster to decide
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.
Can subsidiarity co-exist with monetary union iyo?
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.
The euro was both those things
It was hoped that it would increase trade and growth. Did it? Maybe a bit, but not much, and definitely not as much as hoped
"There is little evidence that the creation of the euro has had an effect on trade between the original members"
At the same time the euro was a geopolitical push to Ever Closer Union in the EU. The French demanded it (is is said) in return for allowing Germany to reunify. The price Germany had to pay was giving up the Mark - or sharing its strength with the other member states. Ironically, Germany probably benefited more than any other EU state from the euro, as they shared the DM at a low rate, locking in a permanent trade advantage
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
The EU appear to be fighting quite a few wild fires at present with NI protocol, France and now Poland
Who next ?
True but I think you're ignoring Hungary, Switzerland, the Balkans, Russia and quite a few others.
One day it'll dawn on the EU that maybe its arrogance and inflexibility is the main reason it has bad relations with all its neighbours, benign or malign. But I won't hold my breath.
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. "
Just another way the EU was essentially alien to us
Talking of the Catholic Church today is the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, established by Pope Pius Vth to commemorate his naval forces victory at the Battle of Lepanto, 450 years ago today in 1571 https://twitter.com/cnalive/status/1446037855944515586?s=20
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
5. Much harder for the feckless to spend money on feckless things without their partner finding out.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
So writing a Times leader is more proof of intelligence than writing Hamlet?
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
The EU appear to be fighting quite a few wild fires at present with NI protocol, France and now Poland
Who next ?
True but I think you're ignoring Hungary, Switzerland, the Balkans, Russia and quite a few others.
One day it'll dawn on the EU that maybe its arrogance and inflexibility is the main reason it has bad relations with all its neighbours, benign or malign. But I won't hold my breath.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
So writing a Times leader is more proof of intelligence than writing Hamlet?
A chimpanzee is statistically far more likely to write a Times leader than [edit] to write Hamlet.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
So writing a Times leader is more proof of intelligence than writing Hamlet?
Analytical vs creative is not a useful distinction for you?
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.
The euro was both those things
It was hoped that it would increase trade and growth. Did it? Maybe a bit, but not much, and definitely not as much as hoped
No, it devastated growth, especially in southern Europe, as the microeconomic advantages of trade facilitation were swamped by the macroeconomic disadvantages of different countries having the same monetary and exchange rate policies.
As predicted by virtually every reputable economist.
And thoroughly ignored by the EU establishment, Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and many others.
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?
I don't like Miller and she was a lying &$£~# claiming that her actions were not about stopping Brexit. As all her subsequent actions and comments showed, that was clearly her aim.
But.
I am glad she took the action she did and glad that the SC ruled in favour of Parliament and also against Prorogation. It was for Parliament to decide how we left the EU, not the Government. Giving power back to our elected Parliament was supposed to be one of the key points of Brexit. In the same way the Henry VIII powers were and are an affront to democracy. Boris has tried very hard to make Brexit a hollow victory. Thankfully for me at least he has not succeeded. Though I will only truly feel good about it when he is gone.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
So writing a Times leader is more proof of intelligence than writing Hamlet?
A chimpanzee is statistically far more likely to write a Times leader than Hamlet.
That's not a fair fight - Hamlet died centuries before The Times was first published!
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
The EU appear to be fighting quite a few wild fires at present with NI protocol, France and now Poland
Who next ?
True but I think you're ignoring Hungary, Switzerland, the Balkans, Russia and quite a few others.
One day it'll dawn on the EU that maybe its arrogance and inflexibility is the main reason it has bad relations with all its neighbours, benign or malign. But I won't hold my breath.
Actually, those were my next but I did not want to cause a meltdown with some of our more excitable pro EU posters
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.
The euro was both those things
It was hoped that it would increase trade and growth. Did it? Maybe a bit, but not much, and definitely not as much as hoped
No, it devastated growth, especially in southern Europe, as the microeconomic advantages of trade facilitation were swamped by the macroeconomic disadvantages of different countries having the same monetary and exchange rate policies.
As predicted by virtually every reputable economist.
Those countries that survived by allowing their currency to depreciate slightly against the Deutsche Mark, (so Greece, Italy, even France) have suffered because they've never been in a position to catch up with German Productivity.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
So writing a Times leader is more proof of intelligence than writing Hamlet?
A chimpanzee is statistically far more likely to write a Times leader than Hamlet.
That's not a fair fight - Hamlet died centuries before The Times was first published!
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
5. Much harder for the feckless to spend money on feckless things without their partner finding out.
Indeed. I've just realised, in addition, that the end of cash is probably going to be great for Treasuries. So much tax evasion becomes impossible, black economies will shrink, tax revenues will surge
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
The EU appear to be fighting quite a few wild fires at present with NI protocol, France and now Poland
Who next ?
True but I think you're ignoring Hungary, Switzerland, the Balkans, Russia and quite a few others.
One day it'll dawn on the EU that maybe its arrogance and inflexibility is the main reason it has bad relations with all its neighbours, benign or malign. But I won't hold my breath.
Not to mention the US and Aus
And the energy price crisis and dependency on Russian gas
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.
Which 12-16 are not eligible, exactly?
About 95% of them for the second dose.
Yes, if 2nd doses are based against 12+ rather than 18+ that's wrong on current vaccination policy.
To get it a bit better on the one block chart, should be a 2nd dose, single dose, 1st dose split. Then if they do decide to second dose the youngest cohorts, they can absorb those back in to 1st dose stats.
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.
The euro was both those things
It was hoped that it would increase trade and growth. Did it? Maybe a bit, but not much, and definitely not as much as hoped
No, it devastated growth, especially in southern Europe, as the microeconomic advantages of trade facilitation were swamped by the macroeconomic disadvantages of different countries having the same monetary and exchange rate policies.
As predicted by virtually every reputable economist.
And thoroughly ignored by the EU establishment, Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and many others.
Fair. I was possibly overkind to the euro-creators.
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.
Can subsidiarity co-exist with monetary union iyo?
Yes. It's called the USA.
But surely France has more autonomy than Texas. Or does it? Interesting question to ponder. I'd have thought it does.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Indeed, the few court lawyers I know all stress how presenting a good case is really just storytelling. And simplifying down to just one or two points, not the entire kitchen sink. But what would Shakespeare know about storytelling?
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
5. Much harder for the feckless to spend money on feckless things without their partner finding out.
Indeed. I've just realised, in addition, that the end of cash is probably going to be great for Treasuries. So much tax evasion becomes impossible, black economies will shrink, tax revenues will surge
My dad employed lots of labourers. He preferred paying them by cheque, as it meant not dealing with cash. About a third to a half wanted cash, paid weekly. Not because they did not trust my dad (some had worked with him for decades); but because if they got paid by cheque, their spouses/gfs might know what they're earning.
Even more oddly. the reason some wanted paying weekly is that they knew they'd spend their money in five or six days, knowing they'd have a lean day before payday. If they got paid monthly, they'd have a lean week or two. This wasn't due to poor pay (my dad paid above the average because of the type of work); it was because they could not budget. Some would leave site after payday, go to the nearest pub (a large site had one just outside), and spend much of their earnings.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
And I wouldn't call it intelligence.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Indeed, the few court lawyers I know all stress how presenting a good case is really just storytelling. And simplifying down to just one or two points, not the entire kitchen sink. But what would Shakespeare know about storytelling?
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
5. Much harder for the feckless to spend money on feckless things without their partner finding out.
Indeed. I've just realised, in addition, that the end of cash is probably going to be great for Treasuries. So much tax evasion becomes impossible, black economies will shrink, tax revenues will surge
My dad employed lots of labourers. He preferred paying them by cheque, as it meant not dealing with cash. About a third to a half wanted cash, paid weekly. Not because they did not trust my dad (some had worked with him for decades); but because if they got paid by cheque, their spouses/gfs might know what they're earning.
Even more oddly. the reason some wanted paying weekly is that they knew they'd spend their money in five or six days, knowing they'd have a lean day before payday. If they got paid monthly, they'd have a lean week or two. This wasn't due to poor pay (my dad paid above the average because of the type of work); it was because they could not budget. Some would leave site after payday, go to the nearest pub (a large site had one just outside), and spend much of their earnings.
I wonder how such people are going to manage now.
Also, out in the countryside the banks have been steadily closing their branches. My local burgh had around 4 banks and/or building societies plus the GPO for most of my life. Now there is only one bank and the PO.
If Poland doesn’t like EU law then it should leave together with Hungary . They seem happy to take EU funds but not the responsibilities that go with that.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 2h Sweden 🇸🇪 has dropped to 50th in the ranking of total Covid deaths per capita since the pandemic began. Almost every other country ranked above Sweden had lockdowns, mask mandates and draconian restrictions. Sweden meanwhile, largely kept its society open and freedoms intact.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Indeed, the few court lawyers I know all stress how presenting a good case is really just storytelling. And simplifying down to just one or two points, not the entire kitchen sink. But what would Shakespeare know about storytelling?
I am a former court lawyer, and it isn't.
What is it, in your view? How do you sway a jury? And, no, I won't accept facts and points of law as the answer. They may be a sine qua non, but perhaps not even that.
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
Orwell was wrong about a thing.
As opposed to the interesting fact that in every country to have emerged from authoritarian/totalitarian rule, it turned out that "Animal Farm" and "1984" were read by dissidents, often as a banned book. Said dissidents uniformly reported the works as having spoken to the truth of their situation.
I wonder what Orwell would have thought - that he had written Goldstein's book, made it real.....
If Poland doesn’t like EU law then it should leave together with Hungary . They seem happy to take EU funds but not the responsibilities that go with that.
I'm not sure I understand why they haven't been thrown out.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
And I wouldn't call it intelligence.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
Are you OK? Sincere question
You're generally a wise and astute commenter but you're advancing some odd arguments
I've heard the "Beatles are crap" argument before. The broadcaster Robert Elms use to assert it (he's an acquaintance) he now blushes and thinks it was an embarrassing pose. But fair enough, it's an argument
Saying that "Orwell is not very bright" on the basis of a couple of odd paragraphs about comics, when you have the overwhelming evidence of "1984", "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" etc etc to set against them, is simply peculiar. To be frank
Orwell wrote two of the most important novels in history. His name now summarises entire political systems, because he had insights which become more prescient over time. The word "Orwellian" is chillingly apt when you look at modern China and the new surveillance state.
Orwell was very definitely a clever man. I don't believe that can be honestly disputed
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Indeed, the few court lawyers I know all stress how presenting a good case is really just storytelling. And simplifying down to just one or two points, not the entire kitchen sink. But what would Shakespeare know about storytelling?
I am a former court lawyer, and it isn't.
What is it, in your view? How do you sway a jury? And, no, I won't accept facts and points of law as the answer. They may be a sine qua non, but perhaps not even that.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
We definitely saw some of that after the prorogation case (as a non-expert I was surprised it was unanimous as while the government's argument may not have been liked, the argument seemed reasonably argued), made even sillier (were it not serious) by all the judges being labelled as bitter remainers, even the ones who had sided with the government in the Article 50 case.
If Poland doesn’t like EU law then it should leave together with Hungary . They seem happy to take EU funds but not the responsibilities that go with that.
I'm not sure I understand why they haven't been thrown out.
It takes all other 26 to do so, and Hungary and Poland have each other's back.
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.
went to the RAF museum up at Cosford recently, near the entrance they had a small set of card machines set up for £5 and £10 contactless donations. Can see buskers following suit but perhaps not beggars, vagrants and other down and outs.
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.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
Dan Bloom @danbloom1 · 3h Tory minister Nadine Dorries claims Universal Credit cut won't push a single person into poverty
I don't usually go for strong language, but this cut really is the single most revolting political act since the Tories won power in 2010. Dressed up as "reversing an uplift", whereas in fact inflation and living costs are spiralling very significantly higher than it was introduced ; economically idiotic, in extracting demand from the economy just at the moment it heads into the most uncertain period of last few years ; and crowning it all, morally dishonest, dressed up as "in favour of the workers of the workshy", when in fact very significant numbers affected will already be in work.
Discussing with two people I know serving on the management of Trussel, they expect foodbank use to explode again ; homelessness will also rise again, as was documented during the 2014-2015 cut ; and rates of mental illness will rise again.
I didn't think Johnson and others would be so backward, especially after Johnson's noises on keeping welfare "security " during his first budget, and that they take account of polled shifts of public opinion during the pandemic ; but no, back to the very moral and economic worst and dregs of the Osborne era.
I hope Johnson, Dorries, and others will have some of the wide-ranging results of this on their conscience some point, because they will deserve to.
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
5. Much harder for the feckless to spend money on feckless things without their partner finding out.
Indeed. I've just realised, in addition, that the end of cash is probably going to be great for Treasuries. So much tax evasion becomes impossible, black economies will shrink, tax revenues will surge
My dad employed lots of labourers. He preferred paying them by cheque, as it meant not dealing with cash. About a third to a half wanted cash, paid weekly. Not because they did not trust my dad (some had worked with him for decades); but because if they got paid by cheque, their spouses/gfs might know what they're earning.
Even more oddly. the reason some wanted paying weekly is that they knew they'd spend their money in five or six days, knowing they'd have a lean day before payday. If they got paid monthly, they'd have a lean week or two. This wasn't due to poor pay (my dad paid above the average because of the type of work); it was because they could not budget. Some would leave site after payday, go to the nearest pub (a large site had one just outside), and spend much of their earnings.
I wonder how such people are going to manage now.
The alt-banks are queuing up. They make money by reducing their overheads to a near zero as is practical. The marginal cost of a customer is tiny. So even someone with £20 on deposit is profitable for them.
If Poland doesn’t like EU law then it should leave together with Hungary . They seem happy to take EU funds but not the responsibilities that go with that.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
Fascinating. At the same time we have Barnier in France demanding basically the same thing
Is the EU fracturing in some fundamental way? You can certainly hear crackles in the ice
Poland is outside the inner core of the EU not being in the Eurozone.
If France started to reclaim powers then that might be more of a challenge but that would require a Macron defeat next year which looks unlikely
You don't think Poland challenging the EU legitimacy is not an important moment, really
There is a banana skin for the UK in the goings on in Eastern Europe at the moment. There are a handful of somewhat unsavoury political regimes currently in an uneasy relationship with the EU of which they are part (but highly unlikely to leave given the economic benefits they get from membership). They may well come looking for allies in their neighbourhood to support them against the big bosses in Brussels. Russia is one obvious place to turn for some, though clearly not for Poland, and the other is the UK.
I could see our government getting sucked in as a bit of a convenient pawn in this game. There is no benefit to be had from this for Britain, none at all, except some short term frisson to be had from "sticking it to the man".
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
If Poland doesn’t like EU law then it should leave together with Hungary . They seem happy to take EU funds but not the responsibilities that go with that.
I'm not sure I understand why they haven't been thrown out.
Polish court rules that EU law is not compatible with the country's constitution and asserts primacy of Polish law, and says EU cannot intervene in Polish judicial system.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Indeed, the few court lawyers I know all stress how presenting a good case is really just storytelling. And simplifying down to just one or two points, not the entire kitchen sink. But what would Shakespeare know about storytelling?
I am a former court lawyer, and it isn't.
Screenwriters have lied to us for decades! I wonder why storytellers might suggest a court case it just about storytelling?
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.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
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?
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.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
As far as I can see it is merely a discussion as to whether Holyrood can hold a referendum which Westminster would ignore the result of anyway or not.
Either way it would have no affect on the Union which would remain reserved to Westminster to decide
At least we're all clear now that it is not a union of consent.
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.
went to the RAF museum up at Cosford recently, near the entrance they had a small set of card machines set up for £5 and £10 contactless donations. Can see buskers following suit but perhaps not beggars, vagrants and other down and outs.
For reasons which are too tedious to explain my wife and I took taxis to and from the local hospital this morning. To the hospital was a local chap, quite well known to us, with a card machine. Charge £20. On the way home someone from a company based near the hospital, with no card machine. Charge £18. Which of course, ended up as £20! Although, to be fair, he did offer me the coins.
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
5. Much harder for the feckless to spend money on feckless things without their partner finding out.
Indeed. I've just realised, in addition, that the end of cash is probably going to be great for Treasuries. So much tax evasion becomes impossible, black economies will shrink, tax revenues will surge
My dad employed lots of labourers. He preferred paying them by cheque, as it meant not dealing with cash. About a third to a half wanted cash, paid weekly. Not because they did not trust my dad (some had worked with him for decades); but because if they got paid by cheque, their spouses/gfs might know what they're earning.
Even more oddly. the reason some wanted paying weekly is that they knew they'd spend their money in five or six days, knowing they'd have a lean day before payday. If they got paid monthly, they'd have a lean week or two. This wasn't due to poor pay (my dad paid above the average because of the type of work); it was because they could not budget. Some would leave site after payday, go to the nearest pub (a large site had one just outside), and spend much of their earnings.
I wonder how such people are going to manage now.
I was chatting to someone on Sunday who used to work at Ladbrokes during the summer holidays (quiet branch in Durham). She was asked once to work in Sunderland and on their quiet counter in 1 Saturday she took £3,000 (this is the early 80s).
She also had multiple stories of people betting (and losing) the entire wage packet...
Reason it came up was we were talking to someone who works at Tombola who have a rule of £250 a week max (preferably less) and now have a 24/7 welfare team to refer cases to.
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
Got it. Thanks. But from Googling I see that Charles Hamilton is in the Guinness Book of Records as the most prolific writer in history, so perhaps Orwell could be forgiven for assuming that this vast output was the work of many hands writing under the same in-house pseudonyms.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
And I wouldn't call it intelligence.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
Are you OK? Sincere question
You're generally a wise and astute commenter but you're advancing some odd arguments
I've heard the "Beatles are crap" argument before. The broadcaster Robert Elms use to assert it (he's an acquaintance) he now blushes and thinks it was an embarrassing pose. But fair enough, it's an argument
Saying that "Orwell is not very bright" on the basis of a couple of odd paragraphs about comics, when you have the overwhelming evidence of "1984", "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" etc etc to set against them, is simply peculiar. To be frank
Orwell wrote two of the most important novels in history. His name now summarises entire political systems, because he had insights which become more prescient over time. The word "Orwellian" is chillingly apt when you look at modern China and the new surveillance state.
Orwell was very definitely a clever man. I don't believe that can be honestly disputed
I'm fine, not even drunk yet. We do seem to be going round the houses about what intelligence means though. I think world class literary genius is compatible with being not overly bright, and pointing to specific examples of lack of brightness. Not just the Magnet thing, also the unconscious English nationalism in the anti nationalism piece. You can add in the wholly misjudged attempt to rehabilitate Kipling if you like.
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.
Can subsidiarity co-exist with monetary union iyo?
Yes. It's called the USA.
But surely France has more autonomy than Texas. Or does it? Interesting question to ponder. I'd have thought it does.
Legally the US states remain sovereign, but they are constrained by the federal Constitution in ways that the EU member states aren’t, although practically things like the ECHR (which of course is not an EU institution) have a similar effect in regard to fundamental rights.
But also practically, a lot of the power of the states is constrained by the federal government’s economic and financial power. For instance the drinking age in the US is 21 in every state, but that is strictly a state power and the states could set it to whatever they want. But if they set it to under 21, the feds would pull all highway funding from that state, and no state could afford to fund highways themselves.
The EU does indeed redistribute development funds from rich to poor states, but it has no revenue of its own to hand out and the development funds are orders of magnitude less significant than federal subsidies are to the states in the US.
If the EU really does want to become a superstate, then becoming the major source of revenue for its member states is what it should be doing.
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.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
I pretty much accept that as how things went down. But don't forget that national interests can be pursued under cover of high-minded ideal. These are the same folks who, with no fisheries to speak of, created the Common Fisheries Policy during accession talks with the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Norway - i.e. almost the entire Eastern (north) Atlantic fishing grounds.
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
On 2, in the US now it is common for each waiter and bar person to have their own card reader, and when you insert your card, it automatically gives you the option of 25%, 20%, 15% tip so you don't even have to calculate it, just press which button you want.
When I was in Vegas, the options were (and I'm not kidding): 20%, 30% and 40%!
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
And I wouldn't call it intelligence.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
Are you OK? Sincere question
You're generally a wise and astute commenter but you're advancing some odd arguments
I've heard the "Beatles are crap" argument before. The broadcaster Robert Elms use to assert it (he's an acquaintance) he now blushes and thinks it was an embarrassing pose. But fair enough, it's an argument
Saying that "Orwell is not very bright" on the basis of a couple of odd paragraphs about comics, when you have the overwhelming evidence of "1984", "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" etc etc to set against them, is simply peculiar. To be frank
Orwell wrote two of the most important novels in history. His name now summarises entire political systems, because he had insights which become more prescient over time. The word "Orwellian" is chillingly apt when you look at modern China and the new surveillance state.
Orwell was very definitely a clever man. I don't believe that can be honestly disputed
I'm fine, not even drunk yet. We do seem to be going round the houses about what intelligence means though. I think world class literary genius is compatible with being not overly bright, and pointing to specific examples of lack of brightness. Not just the Magnet thing, also the unconscious English nationalism in the anti nationalism piece. You can add in the wholly misjudged attempt to rehabilitate Kipling if you like.
And I genuinely don't like the Beatles.
It seems you believe that there is one kind of intelligence. I thought the world had moved on from that idea.
Dan Bloom @danbloom1 · 3h Tory minister Nadine Dorries claims Universal Credit cut won't push a single person into poverty
I don't usually go for strong language, but this cut really is the single most revolting political act since the Tories won power in 2010. Dressed up as "reversing an uplift", whereas in fact inflation and living costs are spiralling very significantly higher than it was introduced ; economically idiotic, in extracting demand from the economy just at the moment it heads into the most uncertain period of last few years ; and crowning it all, morally dishonest, dressed up as "in favour of the workers of the workshy", when in fact very significant numbers affected will already be in work.
Discussing with two people I know serving on the management of Trussel, they expect foodbank use to explode again ; homelessness will also rise again, as was documented during the 2014-2015 cut ; and rates of mental illness will rise again.
I didn't think Johnson and others would be so backward, especially after Johnson's noises on keeping welfare "security " during his first budget, and that they take account of polled shifts of public opinion during the pandemic ; but no, back to the very moral and economic worst and dregs of the Osborne era.
I hope Johnson, Dorries, and others will have some of the wide-ranging results of this on their conscience some point, because they will deserve to.
Truly repulsive.
Maybe wait for the budget where I expect the issue and minimum wage to be addressed
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
Got it. Thanks. But from Googling I see that Charles Hamilton is in the Guinness Book of Records as the most prolific writer in history, so perhaps Orwell could be forgiven for assuming that this vast output was the work of many hands writing under the same in-house pseudonyms.
Golly. 100m words, equivalent to 1200 average length novels.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
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
On 2, in the US now it is common for each waiter and bar person to have their own card reader, and when you insert your card, it automatically gives you the option of 25%, 20%, 15% tip so you don't even have to calculate it, just press which button you want.
When I was in Vegas, the options were (and I'm not kidding): 20%, 30% and 40%!
20% - no cheapstakes here 40% - you've been (or at least hope to be) lucky on the slots.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
And I wouldn't call it intelligence.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
Are you OK? Sincere question
You're generally a wise and astute commenter but you're advancing some odd arguments
I've heard the "Beatles are crap" argument before. The broadcaster Robert Elms use to assert it (he's an acquaintance) he now blushes and thinks it was an embarrassing pose. But fair enough, it's an argument
Saying that "Orwell is not very bright" on the basis of a couple of odd paragraphs about comics, when you have the overwhelming evidence of "1984", "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" etc etc to set against them, is simply peculiar. To be frank
Orwell wrote two of the most important novels in history. His name now summarises entire political systems, because he had insights which become more prescient over time. The word "Orwellian" is chillingly apt when you look at modern China and the new surveillance state.
Orwell was very definitely a clever man. I don't believe that can be honestly disputed
I'm fine, not even drunk yet. We do seem to be going round the houses about what intelligence means though. I think world class literary genius is compatible with being not overly bright, and pointing to specific examples of lack of brightness. Not just the Magnet thing, also the unconscious English nationalism in the anti nationalism piece. You can add in the wholly misjudged attempt to rehabilitate Kipling if you like.
And I genuinely don't like the Beatles.
It seems you believe that there is one kind of intelligence.
I actually read his comment as saying the opposite, hence a genius of one thing could be not bright elsewhere.
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
Got it. Thanks. But from Googling I see that Charles Hamilton is in the Guinness Book of Records as the most prolific writer in history, so perhaps Orwell could be forgiven for assuming that this vast output was the work of many hands writing under the same in-house pseudonyms.
Golly. 100m words, equivalent to 1200 average length novels.
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.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
And I wouldn't call it intelligence.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
Are you OK? Sincere question
You're generally a wise and astute commenter but you're advancing some odd arguments
I've heard the "Beatles are crap" argument before. The broadcaster Robert Elms use to assert it (he's an acquaintance) he now blushes and thinks it was an embarrassing pose. But fair enough, it's an argument
Saying that "Orwell is not very bright" on the basis of a couple of odd paragraphs about comics, when you have the overwhelming evidence of "1984", "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" etc etc to set against them, is simply peculiar. To be frank
Orwell wrote two of the most important novels in history. His name now summarises entire political systems, because he had insights which become more prescient over time. The word "Orwellian" is chillingly apt when you look at modern China and the new surveillance state.
Orwell was very definitely a clever man. I don't believe that can be honestly disputed
I'm fine, not even drunk yet. We do seem to be going round the houses about what intelligence means though. I think world class literary genius is compatible with being not overly bright, and pointing to specific examples of lack of brightness. Not just the Magnet thing, also the unconscious English nationalism in the anti nationalism piece. You can add in the wholly misjudged attempt to rehabilitate Kipling if you like.
And I genuinely don't like the Beatles.
It seems you believe that there is one kind of intelligence.
I actually read his comment as saying the opposite, hence a genius of one thing could be not bright elsewhere.
Ah! My bad. But if that were the case, surely it can't be argued that Orwell was lacking in intelligence?
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?
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.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
Comments
Red being her Net Satisfaction lead, Blue the Conservatives VI lead
Pretty much how I remember 83-87 - Unpopular govt, 3m unemployed, family certain Labour are getting back in power all through mid term
Tory landslide
#4 This has rather moved online nowadays hasn't it? Plus you can get paid for views via YouTube etc - no idea how this compares to busking.
I was quite happy to toss a pound coin in the cap of a skilled guitarist on a street corner. They add to the gaiety of nations. But now I never have pound coins. And am I ever going to tap their contactless machine or scan a QR code? I doubt it
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
This is a major escalation of the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels
https://twitter.com/henryjfoy/status/1446134779070586880
Either way it would have no affect on the Union which would remain reserved to Westminster to decide
It was hoped that it would increase trade and growth. Did it? Maybe a bit, but not much, and definitely not as much as hoped
"There is little evidence that the creation of the euro has had an effect on trade between the original members"
https://personal.lse.ac.uk/TENREYRO/euro.pdf
At the same time the euro was a geopolitical push to Ever Closer Union in the EU. The French demanded it (is is said) in return for allowing Germany to reunify. The price Germany had to pay was giving up the Mark - or sharing its strength with the other member states. Ironically, Germany probably benefited more than any other EU state from the euro, as they shared the DM at a low rate, locking in a permanent trade advantage
Who next ?
One day it'll dawn on the EU that maybe its arrogance and inflexibility is the main reason it has bad relations with all its neighbours, benign or malign. But I won't hold my breath.
https://twitter.com/cnalive/status/1446037855944515586?s=20
Is the EU fracturing in some fundamental way? You can certainly hear crackles in the ice
As predicted by virtually every reputable economist.
And thoroughly ignored by the EU establishment, Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and many others.
But.
I am glad she took the action she did and glad that the SC ruled in favour of Parliament and also against Prorogation. It was for Parliament to decide how we left the EU, not the Government. Giving power back to our elected Parliament was supposed to be one of the key points of Brexit. In the same way the Henry VIII powers were and are an affront to democracy. Boris has tried very hard to make Brexit a hollow victory. Thankfully for me at least he has not succeeded. Though I will only truly feel good about it when he is gone.
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
If France started to reclaim powers then that might be more of a challenge but that would require a Macron defeat next year which looks unlikely
@danbloom1
·
3h
Tory minister Nadine Dorries claims Universal Credit cut won't push a single person into poverty
To get it a bit better on the one block chart, should be a 2nd dose, single dose, 1st dose split. Then if they do decide to second dose the youngest cohorts, they can absorb those back in to 1st dose stats.
Andrew Teale has published his write up of today's by-elections, including the infamous Cranleigh East ward.
Even more oddly. the reason some wanted paying weekly is that they knew they'd spend their money in five or six days, knowing they'd have a lean day before payday. If they got paid monthly, they'd have a lean week or two. This wasn't due to poor pay (my dad paid above the average because of the type of work); it was because they could not budget. Some would leave site after payday, go to the nearest pub (a large site had one just outside), and spend much of their earnings.
I wonder how such people are going to manage now.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
And Tesco Bank is shutting down current accounts.
Edit: cvashpoints going steadily down, too.
@JamesMelville
·
2h
Sweden 🇸🇪 has dropped to 50th in the ranking of total Covid deaths per capita since the pandemic began. Almost every other country ranked above Sweden had lockdowns, mask mandates and draconian restrictions. Sweden meanwhile, largely kept its society open and freedoms intact.
As opposed to the interesting fact that in every country to have emerged from authoritarian/totalitarian rule, it turned out that "Animal Farm" and "1984" were read by dissidents, often as a banned book. Said dissidents uniformly reported the works as having spoken to the truth of their situation.
I wonder what Orwell would have thought - that he had written Goldstein's book, made it real.....
You're generally a wise and astute commenter but you're advancing some odd arguments
I've heard the "Beatles are crap" argument before. The broadcaster Robert Elms use to assert it (he's an acquaintance) he now blushes and thinks it was an embarrassing pose. But fair enough, it's an argument
Saying that "Orwell is not very bright" on the basis of a couple of odd paragraphs about comics, when you have the overwhelming evidence of "1984", "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" etc etc to set against them, is simply peculiar. To be frank
Orwell wrote two of the most important novels in history. His name now summarises entire political systems, because he had insights which become more prescient over time. The word "Orwellian" is chillingly apt when you look at modern China and the new surveillance state.
Orwell was very definitely a clever man. I don't believe that can be honestly disputed
Discussing with two people I know serving on the management of Trussel, they expect foodbank use to explode again ; homelessness will also rise again, as was documented during the 2014-2015 cut ; and rates of mental illness will rise again.
I didn't think Johnson and others would be so backward, especially after Johnson's noises on keeping welfare "security " during his first budget, and that they take account of polled shifts of public opinion during the pandemic ; but no, back to the very moral and economic worst and dregs of the Osborne era.
I hope Johnson, Dorries, and others will have some of the wide-ranging results of this on their conscience some point, because they will deserve to.
Truly repulsive.
I could see our government getting sucked in as a bit of a convenient pawn in this game. There is no benefit to be had from this for Britain, none at all, except some short term frisson to be had from "sticking it to the man".
So, means tested.
Sounds like it will create a heck of a lot of hoop jumping and local form filling and assessment, compared to the payment of a basic benefit.
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
Although, to be fair, he did offer me the coins.
She also had multiple stories of people betting (and losing) the entire wage packet...
Reason it came up was we were talking to someone who works at Tombola who have a rule of £250 a week max (preferably less) and now have a 24/7 welfare team to refer cases to.
And I genuinely don't like the Beatles.
But also practically, a lot of the power of the states is constrained by the federal government’s economic and financial power. For instance the drinking age in the US is 21 in every state, but that is strictly a state power and the states could set it to whatever they want. But if they set it to under 21, the feds would pull all highway funding from that state, and no state could afford to fund highways themselves.
The EU does indeed redistribute development funds from rich to poor states, but it has no revenue of its own to hand out and the development funds are orders of magnitude less significant than federal subsidies are to the states in the US.
If the EU really does want to become a superstate, then becoming the major source of revenue for its member states is what it should be doing.
40% - you've been (or at least hope to be) lucky on the slots.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.