The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
I agree entirely and I also agree that the UK hold the cards on this
The EU need to sort it, and then concentrate on the many problems they are seeing arise within the EU itself
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
That is option B as per my post. Extending the grace period is the EU acquiescing.
There are checks, etc to be performed but an agreement was reached not to implement them during a grace period.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Forever War- does this mean we have a PB team building exercise scheduled on Pluto?
The Economist (based on government’s own projections) is predicting a fall in real household income in 22 and 23.
Which might make a 23 election less likely.
In view of the rocketing worldwide prices of energy and real supply issues that will be applicable to most households across Europe and beyond
True, but probably not relevant to Mr and Mrs Floating Voter.
Remember how well "The financial crash, which started in America..." worked?
It may be terribly unfair if the biggest problem for the Johnson government is something they don't have much control over. But politics has never been fair.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Pence seems caught between two stools though. Too Trumpist for the rational/Lincoln wing of the party - and Judas for the Trumpites.
There are far more evangelicals in the Republican primary electorate, who Pence is popular with, than Lincoln Project Republicans, who you can now count on one hand.
Pence will thus be the main non Trump candidate if Trump runs again and the frontrunner if Trump does not run again
What proportion of evangelicals haven't drank the kool aid though?
Seems to be a large intersect between evangelicals, antivaxxers and QANON MAGA kool aid drinkers.
Which shouldn't be too surprising. In one group you have a rejection of evidence, an intolerance of science, a hatred of unbelievers and an unshakeable divine belief that you are right and in the other ...
Evangelicals would vote for Trump over a Democrat, they would vote for Pence over Trump however.
Remember in 2016 it was Cruz who won the most religious voters in the GOP primaries not Trump
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
That is option B as per my post. Extending the grace period is the EU acquiescing.
There are checks, etc to be performed but an agreement was reached not to implement them during a grace period.
Cold storage is an extension of the grace period.
Will the EU agree? Not 100% sure.
Extending the grace period by a matter of months isn't cold storage. That's just kicking the can and is entirely irresponsible. If that's the proposal then absolutely Article 16 should be invoked and resolve this right here, right now.
If the "grace period" is extended indefinitely so it never lapses until both the UK and EU are satisfied together with what replaces it, then that's cold storage.
The Economist (based on government’s own projections) is predicting a fall in real household income in 22 and 23.
Which might make a 23 election less likely.
In view of the rocketing worldwide prices of energy and real supply issues that will be applicable to most households across Europe and beyond
True, but probably not relevant to Mr and Mrs Floating Voter.
Remember how well "The financial crash, which started in America..." worked?
It may be terribly unfair if the biggest problem for the Johnson government is something they don't have much control over. But politics has never been fair.
I really would not disagree but the interesting question will be do the public realise this is due to circumstances beyond HMG control and also do the public consider labour would have any better a response
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Forever War- does this mean we have a PB team building exercise scheduled on Pluto?
Let’s start with Millom.
Instead of all this talk of war this I think would be the more sensible option to settle differences and determine the legality and applicability of invoking Article 16.
As the ECJ row deepens, I'm in Dunkirk where Ireland's Europe Minister @ThomasByrneTD is inaugurating a new Irish terminal. Since Jan 1 there have been 50,000 freight units moving from here to Rosslare, sidestepping the UK landbridge
A big one, less pollution, less road maintenance costs, less traffic. I've also been seeing that the Belgians are very inclined to win our import custom away from France, promising fast track customs infrastructure, customs pre-clearance and secure sites to minimise illegal immigrants.
One thing that @rcs1000 said at the beginning of the Brexit process that stuck with me and has consequently come true is that the UK turns into a customer and the 27 nations will compete to win our business. The French have tried to stop the Belgians from winning our business with an illegal offshore wind farm they don't intend to build but prevents the most direct UK -> Belgium route, but the fact that two EU countries are now fighting over our custom is changing the game for the UK.
How long until UK tourists decide they don't want to wait in the "all other" queue at European airports and realise that Greece, Italy and a few other countries don't have that setup? It will shift people's holiday plans because no one wants to wait for 3 hours in an airport queue. Will the Netherlands and other Brexit derangement countries keep that policy when the likes of Belgium and Germany quietly add the UK to their e-gates with no fanfare so they can get a slice of UK to Europe tourism?
The Economist (based on government’s own projections) is predicting a fall in real household income in 22 and 23.
Which might make a 23 election less likely.
In view of the rocketing worldwide prices of energy and real supply issues that will be applicable to most households across Europe and beyond
True, but probably not relevant to Mr and Mrs Floating Voter.
Remember how well "The financial crash, which started in America..." worked?
It may be terribly unfair if the biggest problem for the Johnson government is something they don't have much control over. But politics has never been fair.
To paraphrase Dickens
Inflation 4.0%, Wage Rise 4.1%, result happiness. Inflation 4.0%, Wage Rise 3.9%, result misery.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
That is option B as per my post. Extending the grace period is the EU acquiescing.
There are checks, etc to be performed but an agreement was reached not to implement them during a grace period.
Cold storage is an extension of the grace period.
Will the EU agree? Not 100% sure.
Extending the grace period by a matter of months isn't cold storage. That's just kicking the can and is entirely irresponsible. If that's the proposal then absolutely Article 16 should be invoked and resolve this right here, right now.
If the "grace period" is extended indefinitely so it never lapses until both the UK and EU are satisfied together with what replaces it, then that's cold storage.
Ah I hadn't seen the precise definition of cold storage. It needs to be resolved because the EU needs it to be resolved, reading around their position, so no, cold storage for a few months is not an option. It is either permanent or the border and projected regs stay.
The figure that unvaccinated pregnant women are 1/5 of the total of serious cases is astonishingly sad.
If there are say 750,000 women pregnant at any time in the UK; that's ~1% of the population meaning they're around 20 times more likely than the average to be serious. You could weight that they're younger than average, but pregnancy lowers immune response so I think they perhaps should be slightly more likely to be a serious covid case but not ~ 20 times as likely. Vaccination rates I fear amongst pregnant women must be very very low. I hope this is addressed but from the exclusion of pregnant women in the clinical trials and subsequent non offering in the UK to pregnant women generally won't have helped. In addition the misinformation specifically targeting them on social media around miscarriage doesn't help either.
Democracy is an abstraction of an idea, with an infinity of ways to implement. None perfect.
As long as it contains and answers the essential elements of Tony Benn's 5 questions (especially the last) it is better than all the alternatives:
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Outfits from the Taliban to North Korea and even in part generally benign liberal outfits like the EU (elections to its parliament had insufficient links to policy and leadership change) clearly fail the tests.
In the case of the EU, the answers are:
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?” - never enough
“Where did you get it from?” - a mix of Treaty and stealth
“In whose interests do you use it?” those who will increase our power
“To whom are you accountable?” what is his "accountable" of which you speak?
As the ECJ row deepens, I'm in Dunkirk where Ireland's Europe Minister @ThomasByrneTD is inaugurating a new Irish terminal. Since Jan 1 there have been 50,000 freight units moving from here to Rosslare, sidestepping the UK landbridge
A big one, less pollution, less road maintenance costs, less traffic. I've also been seeing that the Belgians are very inclined to win our import custom away from France, promising fast track customs infrastructure, customs pre-clearance and secure sites to minimise illegal immigrants.
One thing that @rcs1000 said at the beginning of the Brexit process that stuck with me and has consequently come true is that the UK turns into a customer and the 27 nations will compete to win our business. The French have tried to stop the Belgians from winning our business with an illegal offshore wind farm they don't intend to build but prevents the most direct UK -> Belgium route, but the fact that two EU countries are now fighting over our custom is changing the game for the UK.
How long until UK tourists decide they don't want to wait in the "all other" queue at European airports and realise that Greece, Italy and a few other countries don't have that setup? It will shift people's holiday plans because no one wants to wait for 3 hours in an airport queue. Will the Netherlands and other Brexit derangement countries keep that policy when the likes of Belgium and Germany quietly add the UK to their e-gates with no fanfare so they can get a slice of UK to Europe tourism?
Indeed so. Areas like immigration control and residency are devolved to the member states, so they have every incentive to compete to offer the best deal to UK citizens.
The tourist areas won’t want to get a reputation for holding up visitors in hours-long queues at the airport, and if word gets around that flying through Frankfurt is easier than Amsterdam or Paris, then market forces will favour the German airport.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
Is it not the case that, as with most items related to employment law, MPs voted to exempt themselves from the laws that apply to everyone else? Ministers “work” for the Crown, and are responsible for maintaining their own schedules.
Unless I've missed something his holidaying certainly doesn't seem excessive. It might be better if it was codified to 25 days or whatever like the rest of us tbh - it'd probably result in more holiday for him mind !
The figure that unvaccinated pregnant women are 1/5 of the total of serious cases is astonishingly sad.
If there are say 750,000 women pregnant at any time in the UK; that's ~1% of the population meaning they're around 20 times more likely than the average to be serious. You could weight that they're younger than average, but pregnancy lowers immune response so I think they perhaps should be slightly more likely to be a serious covid case but not ~ 20 times as likely. Vaccination rates I fear amongst pregnant women must be very very low. I hope this is addressed but from the exclusion of pregnant women in the clinical trials and subsequent non offering in the UK to pregnant women generally won't have helped. In addition the misinformation specifically targeting them on social media around miscarriage doesn't help either.
Tricky one for government. The rational view is that pregnant women should get vaccinated because we know how bad COVID can be. But who wants to push that view? It only needs someone to lose a baby and the media to do their usual thing and the government has a big problem.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Forever War- does this mean we have a PB team building exercise scheduled on Pluto?
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Preposterous nonsense.
I've called everything right on Brexit, I can't think of a single thing on Brexit I got wrong. I was an almost lone opponent for a long time of May's deal, remaining principled against it even when Boris went weak at the knees and backed it. Many leavers said I was wrong not to accept the deal at the time, but now I think most leavers would acknowledge that I was right afterall. That thread by @mij_europe the other day [ignoring the final couple of Tweets] almost line for line repeated what I've been saying for years here now. Reality has shown that I called this right.
As for your "thorniness and magnitude" spin, that's not a criterion in the Article. The article quite literally simply says if the government believes there has been diversion of trade. You know there has been. That's that. You trying to invent new criteria like "thorniness" or "unforeseen" or anything else are simply adding in your own words to suit your own agenda that do not exist in the text. The text has its own conditions that are clearly met, you don't need to invent your own to suit your own agenda.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
Good idea. Boris Johnson can hide in the cold storage too if anyone tries to ask him anything too difficult.
The Economist (based on government’s own projections) is predicting a fall in real household income in 22 and 23.
Which might make a 23 election less likely.
In view of the rocketing worldwide prices of energy and real supply issues that will be applicable to most households across Europe and beyond
True, but probably not relevant to Mr and Mrs Floating Voter.
Remember how well "The financial crash, which started in America..." worked?
It may be terribly unfair if the biggest problem for the Johnson government is something they don't have much control over. But politics has never been fair.
I really would not disagree but the interesting question will be do the public realise this is due to circumstances beyond HMG control and also do the public consider labour would have any better a response
My take on elections in my lifetime is that, once things look bad enough, neither of those points really matters. The resurrection of Cameron in 2008 and Thatcher in 1978/9, the comfortable lead that Smith walked into in 1992, perhaps even the rehabilitation of Wilson in 1974... They weren't because of brilliant plans by the opposition or their leader. The government was pushed into a tar pit by external forces and was then doomed.
"A government survives until it is seen to have failed, and then an opposition that isn't obviously bonkers will take over" isn't a very inspiring theory of politics. It doesn't leave much space for Great Men and Women to leave their imprint on history, because it implies that they too are largely victims of events (dear boy). But it does match the observations pretty well.
The age of hybrid working is creating tensions in some offices, with disgruntled stalwarts labelling colleagues who only show their faces on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays as “TWATs”.
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves...
Unlikely, since they've said they won't cut it off. Just reduce the supply.
The report from Jersey's Minister this morning was they they have threatened to cut of the electricity and that is why they are dealing with Brussels, not France
Well it provoked your outrage, so I guess the rhetoric worked. The reality is that they made it clear several days ago that they were threatening a reduction, not a cut.
I am recounting a report from the Jersey Minister dealing with this
Outrage, not really just commenting on a real threat to Jersey electricity supply
Democracy is an abstraction of an idea, with an infinity of ways to implement. None perfect.
As long as it contains and answers the essential elements of Tony Benn's 5 questions (especially the last) it is better than all the alternatives:
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Outfits from the Taliban to North Korea and even in part generally benign liberal outfits like the EU (elections to its parliament had insufficient links to policy and leadership change) clearly fail the tests.
In the case of the EU, the answers are:
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?” - never enough
“Where did you get it from?” - a mix of Treaty and stealth
“In whose interests do you use it?” those who will increase our power
“To whom are you accountable?” what is his "accountable" of which you speak?
“How do we get rid of you?” Brexit....
'Whose was it?' 'His who is gone.' 'Who shall have it?' 'He who will come.' 'What was the month?' 'The sixth from the first.' 'Where was the sun?' 'Over the oak.' 'Where was the shadow?' 'Under the elm.' 'How was it stepped?' 'North by ten and by ten, east by five and by five, south by two and by two, west by one and by one, and so under.' 'What shall we give for it?' 'All that is ours.' 'Why should we give it?' 'For the sake of the trust.'
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Philip is highly suggestible. I legitimately insisted on a Y/N answer about something else yesterday, and he has taken up the idea and run with it. It is of course usually deployed fallaciously in "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, as here.
My response to most of his posts these days is from Frank N. Furter:
"How forceful you are, Philip. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. So... dominant. You must be awfully proud of him, Mrs Thompson."
The figure that unvaccinated pregnant women are 1/5 of the total of serious cases is astonishingly sad.
If there are say 750,000 women pregnant at any time in the UK; that's ~1% of the population meaning they're around 20 times more likely than the average to be serious. You could weight that they're younger than average, but pregnancy lowers immune response so I think they perhaps should be slightly more likely to be a serious covid case but not ~ 20 times as likely. Vaccination rates I fear amongst pregnant women must be very very low. I hope this is addressed but from the exclusion of pregnant women in the clinical trials and subsequent non offering in the UK to pregnant women generally won't have helped. In addition the misinformation specifically targeting them on social media around miscarriage doesn't help either.
Tricky one for government. The rational view is that pregnant women should get vaccinated because we know how bad COVID can be. But who wants to push that view? It only needs someone to lose a baby and the media to do their usual thing and the government has a big problem.
My wife was told at her first jab that she should not have it if pregnant (this was around May, I think). Completely against official advice at the time.
I complained to the local CCG, was told they'd be making sure everyone was aware of the guidance. We'd looked into 'the science' (which is my day job) and the official advice anyway, so had my wife been pregant she would still have asked to get jabbed. I don't know whether the person in question would have refused in that case... At second jab, she wasn't asked.
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves...
Unlikely, since they've said they won't cut it off. Just reduce the supply.
The report from Jersey's Minister this morning was they they have threatened to cut of the electricity and that is why they are dealing with Brussels, not France
Well it provoked your outrage, so I guess the rhetoric worked. The reality is that they made it clear several days ago that they were threatening a reduction, not a cut.
I am recounting a report from the Jersey Minister dealing with this
Outrage, not really just commenting on a real threat to Jersey electricity supply
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Philip is highly suggestible. I legitimately insisted on a Y/N answer about something else yesterday, and he has taken up the idea and run with it. It is of course usually deployed fallaciously in "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, as here.
My response to most of his posts these days is from Frank N. Furter:
"How forceful you are, Philip. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. So... dominant. You must be awfully proud of him, Mrs Thompson."
When he got schooled a few weeks ago on the lump of labour fallacy he was committing, he starting referring to the fallacy himself, trying to twist it to support his own point of view. It's sad more than anything.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
I think a compromise will be found so long as our lot don't get all prissy and ridiculous about the ECJ.
NI being both in the SM and the UK is the new GFA. It's like how NI is both Irish and British under that settlement. It needs people to go along with the constructive ambiguity. Part of this is the ECJ has a role but doesn't have a role in jurisdiction. This needs to be finessed.
So hopefully it will be. I can't imagine many business people in NI give a shit about the ECJ. Indeed hardly anybody does, inc most Leave voters. It's strictly for ye olde worlde victorian imperialist sovereignty wallahs, the Moggs, the Cashs, the Bones, these oddball type revolving bow-tie guys.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Preposterous nonsense.
I've called everything right on Brexit, I can't think of a single thing on Brexit I got wrong. I was an almost lone opponent for a long time of May's deal, remaining principled against it even when Boris went weak at the knees and backed it. Many leavers said I was wrong not to accept the deal at the time, but now I think most leavers would acknowledge that I was right afterall. That thread by @mij_europe the other day [ignoring the final couple of Tweets] almost line for line repeated what I've been saying for years here now. Reality has shown that I called this right.
As for your "thorniness and magnitude" spin, that's not a criterion in the Article. The article quite literally simply says if the government believes there has been diversion of trade. You know there has been. That's that. You trying to invent new criteria like "thorniness" or "unforeseen" or anything else are simply adding in your own words to suit your own agenda that do not exist in the text. The text has its own conditions that are clearly met, you don't need to invent your own to suit your own agenda.
May's deal would have entailed a lot less risk along the way. You've turned out mostly right on that but I'd not like to risk that path again. We could have finished up as humiliated second-class EU citizens with a Corbyn government.
The Economist (based on government’s own projections) is predicting a fall in real household income in 22 and 23.
Which might make a 23 election less likely.
In view of the rocketing worldwide prices of energy and real supply issues that will be applicable to most households across Europe and beyond
True, but probably not relevant to Mr and Mrs Floating Voter.
Remember how well "The financial crash, which started in America..." worked?
It may be terribly unfair if the biggest problem for the Johnson government is something they don't have much control over. But politics has never been fair.
To paraphrase Dickens
Inflation 4.0%, Wage Rise 4.1%, result happiness. Inflation 4.0%, Wage Rise 3.9%, result misery.
There will be a few winners, and rather more losers. And those figures are way too narrowly constrained. Double digit percentages somewhere in there seem quite likely.
The age of hybrid working is creating tensions in some offices, with disgruntled stalwarts labelling colleagues who only show their faces on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays as “TWATs”.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Philip is highly suggestible. I legitimately insisted on a Y/N answer about something else yesterday, and he has taken up the idea and run with it. It is of course usually deployed fallaciously in "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, as here.
My response to most of his posts these days is from Frank N. Furter:
"How forceful you are, Philip. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. So... dominant. You must be awfully proud of him, Mrs Thompson."
When he got schooled a few weeks ago on the lump of labour fallacy he was committing, he starting referring to the fallacy himself, trying to twist it to support his own point of view. It's sad more than anything.
Hm. The lump of labour fallacy is itself something of a fallacy. Or, it exists, at the macro level. Granted, as the supply of labour increases, the supply of jobs there are to do also increases. But it takes a long, long time to filter through, and labour is poorer in the short term and certainly no more rich in the long term. It is of no comfort to an individual low wage worker whose wages are being held down by a limitless supply of unskilled labour that in the long run that labour will also create a demand for more unskilled labour.
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
I think another less realised aspect of this and why getting unanimous consent for action against the UK will be impossible is the security angle. It's become patently obvious to even the least interested that the UK is pitching itself towards Asia and the Anglosphere. The US is doing likewise. For decades the UK has played a vital role in keeping the US onside for paying for Europe's defence and in that time the EU has been created and European nations are now considered extremely wealthy with most in the global top 50 for PPP per capita.
Destroying the TCA and UK/EU relationship will make the UK significantly less interested in maintaining that security relationship and much less interested in keeping the US onside for it as well and it makes the rest of Europe, especially Eastern Europe significantly more reliant on France and the EU, something none of them really want.
I'd be genuinely shocked if any single "trade war" measure was enacted by the EU. There's simply no appetite for it beyond Ireland and France. The other 25 nations just want to put Brexit behind them and have a productive relationship with the UK. Instead it will be more words and more concessions on the NI protocol until we get to the end state of neutral arbitration, an NI green channel and no border in the Irish sea. The EU will figure out how the latter will be achieved and keep Ireland in the single market and customs union, my best guess is still silent checks on incoming Irish goods to the continent.
The Economist (based on government’s own projections) is predicting a fall in real household income in 22 and 23.
Which might make a 23 election less likely.
In view of the rocketing worldwide prices of energy and real supply issues that will be applicable to most households across Europe and beyond
True, but probably not relevant to Mr and Mrs Floating Voter.
Remember how well "The financial crash, which started in America..." worked?
It may be terribly unfair if the biggest problem for the Johnson government is something they don't have much control over. But politics has never been fair.
To paraphrase Dickens
Inflation 4.0%, Wage Rise 4.1%, result happiness. Inflation 4.0%, Wage Rise 3.9%, result misery.
There will be a few winners, and rather more losers. And those figures are way too narrowly constrained. Double digit percentages somewhere in there seem quite likely.
I remember the day John Major threatened a 15% interest rate and I told my partner who was on holiday with his family in the US not to bother coming home
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Philip is highly suggestible. I legitimately insisted on a Y/N answer about something else yesterday, and he has taken up the idea and run with it. It is of course usually deployed fallaciously in "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, as here.
My response to most of his posts these days is from Frank N. Furter:
"How forceful you are, Philip. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. So... dominant. You must be awfully proud of him, Mrs Thompson."
When he got schooled a few weeks ago on the lump of labour fallacy he was committing, he starting referring to the fallacy himself, trying to twist it to support his own point of view. It's sad more than anything.
Hm. The lump of labour fallacy is itself something of a fallacy. Or, it exists, at the macro level. Granted, as the supply of labour increases, the supply of jobs there are to do also increases. But it takes a long, long time to filter through, and labour is poorer in the short term and certainly no more rich in the long term. It is of no comfort to an individual low wage worker whose wages are being held down by a limitless supply of unskilled labour that in the long run that labour will also create a demand for more unskilled labour.
But that is what is fundamentally wrong with everything Philip has to say about the free market. Yes it exists up to a point, yes it's a good thing up to a point, but its adjustments *even when beneficial in the long term* come at a cost in human misery which grown ups realise is something that has to be dealt with, and adolescent toryboys don't.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Philip is highly suggestible. I legitimately insisted on a Y/N answer about something else yesterday, and he has taken up the idea and run with it. It is of course usually deployed fallaciously in "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, as here.
My response to most of his posts these days is from Frank N. Furter:
"How forceful you are, Philip. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. So... dominant. You must be awfully proud of him, Mrs Thompson."
When he got schooled a few weeks ago on the lump of labour fallacy he was committing, he starting referring to the fallacy himself, trying to twist it to support his own point of view. It's sad more than anything.
I wasn't schooled on it, you've got that backwards, I called out the one who fallaciously using the lump of labour fallacy.
The lump of labour fallacy is that there's a fixed number of jobs and hence immigrants come in and "steal our jobs" (when of course they create new jobs by increasing demand). I've never made that fallacy because I understand it.
However the flipside to the fallacy is those who think there's a fixed number of jobs and hence immigrants are needed because of a "labour shortage". That's just as fallacious as the "steal our jobs" bullshit that I've always opposed.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Philip is highly suggestible. I legitimately insisted on a Y/N answer about something else yesterday, and he has taken up the idea and run with it. It is of course usually deployed fallaciously in "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, as here.
My response to most of his posts these days is from Frank N. Furter:
"How forceful you are, Philip. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. So... dominant. You must be awfully proud of him, Mrs Thompson."
When he got schooled a few weeks ago on the lump of labour fallacy he was committing, he starting referring to the fallacy himself, trying to twist it to support his own point of view. It's sad more than anything.
The scary thing about PT is that claims to work I think as an economist, but his economics are incredibly 101.
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
The age of hybrid working is creating tensions in some offices, with disgruntled stalwarts labelling colleagues who only show their faces on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays as “TWATs”.
Tuesday, Wednesday OR Thursday is my preference. Or none, as is the case this week. And I'm only going in next week for the after-work drinks.
Kind of funny seeing the increasingly desperate gaslighting of the PB Tories telling us that "as usual" the UK holds all the cards. I have spoken to lots of EU diplomats in the past week, including two EU foreign ministers, and it is clear that Johnson´s bluster and bad faith are simply not taken seriously. While the UK press (especially the Murdoch-Rothermere off-shore press) is trying to throw mud in the eye of British voters, so that they think that Brexit is only a small factor in the successive wave of crises hiiting the British economy at the moment, most people outside the UK, including the EU itself are in no doubt. The scale of the crisis that Brtiain is facing is down to Brexit, and no other European country is having anything the same problems, The general view is that the UK will ultimately have to pursue a new and better relationship with the EU, whther that is next year or next decade. Obviously this will be after BJ is gone, so they don´t feel the need to chuck us too many bones for as long as he is around. Unlike the PB Tories they can count, and they see that the options for the UK are getting worse by the day. Most don´t care if the six counties leave the UK, and some are indifferent about whether the UK survives otherwise. They will protect Ireland and anything the UK does that puts the Republic under threat will be countered. Goodwill towards Johnson is basically zero and there is growing irritation about the constant attempts by London to shift the goal posts. I dont think formal sanctions are necessarily on the table yet, since the feeling is that essentially the UK has sanctioned itself and the damage is already pretty serious, but any attempt by the UK to take action against the EU may still get a surprisingly stiff response.
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
Is it not the case that, as with most items related to employment law, MPs voted to exempt themselves from the laws that apply to everyone else? Ministers “work” for the Crown, and are responsible for maintaining their own schedules.
Unless I've missed something his holidaying certainly doesn't seem excessive. It might be better if it was codified to 25 days or whatever like the rest of us tbh - it'd probably result in more holiday for him mind !
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
Oh Jesus what a pain. Best of luck to both of you.
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
I think a compromise will be found so long as our lot don't get all prissy and ridiculous about the ECJ.
NI being both in the SM and the UK is the new GFA. It's like how NI is both Irish and British under that settlement. It needs people to go along with the constructive ambiguity. Part of this is the ECJ has a role but doesn't have a role in jurisdiction. This needs to be finessed.
So hopefully it will be. I can't imagine many business people in NI give a shit about the ECJ. Indeed hardly anybody does, inc most Leave voters. It's strictly for ye olde worlde victorian imperialist sovereignty wallahs, the Moggs, the Cashs, the Bones, these oddball type revolving bow-tie guys.
Trouble is that this government has a record of transforming issues that nobody gives a shit about into crunch moments, in fact that's their mo. 2 weeks ago, what the fuck is the ECJ and why should I care, today, Court of EUSSR Justice more like! Even gone yesterday pol Arlene is sticking her oar in.
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
I hope it is just a a mild dose for you both. Get well soon!
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
Does he even have a contract?
No, because the courts have no jurisdiction over the Crown.
Even I as a relatively junior Crown Servant have no contract, and am not covered by employment law. Instead there is a Civil Service Code which states that it will behave as if contract law and domestic employment law applies.
(The exception was rights which emanate from EU directives which were always directly binding on "emanations of the state". I presume that no longer applies)
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
I agree entirely and I also agree that the UK hold the cards on this
The EU need to sort it, and then concentrate on the many problems they are seeing arise within the EU itself
Hot potatoes have a remarkable capacity to become cold potatoes with the effluxion of time. Like whatever happened to the nuclear existential crisis and CND and the atomic destruction of the planet once CO2 came along to destroy the planet instead? (There's even a chance we will live to see this replaced by another and different existential crisis).
It is not impossible that the island of Ireland could, if left long enough, become a cold potato, with everyone forgetting that you can take a sausage from Armagh to Kilkenny because something else (Poland? Russian attack on Ukraine or a Baltic state? Hungary? France? Italian economy? Greece? EU defence policy? French elections?) seems more important.
Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Preposterous nonsense.
I've called everything right on Brexit, I can't think of a single thing on Brexit I got wrong. I was an almost lone opponent for a long time of May's deal, remaining principled against it even when Boris went weak at the knees and backed it. Many leavers said I was wrong not to accept the deal at the time, but now I think most leavers would acknowledge that I was right afterall. That thread by @mij_europe the other day [ignoring the final couple of Tweets] almost line for line repeated what I've been saying for years here now. Reality has shown that I called this right.
As for your "thorniness and magnitude" spin, that's not a criterion in the Article. The article quite literally simply says if the government believes there has been diversion of trade. You know there has been. That's that. You trying to invent new criteria like "thorniness" or "unforeseen" or anything else are simply adding in your own words to suit your own agenda that do not exist in the text. The text has its own conditions that are clearly met, you don't need to invent your own to suit your own agenda.
I see. So context and materiality is irrelevant and if the government believes trade of the value £2.50 (being a box of lightbulbs) has been "diverted" this for you is adequate grounds to trigger Article 16. I wonder about you sometimes, Philip, I really do.
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
Hope you are feeling ok and quickly throw it off.
Thank you turbotubbs, Topping and everyone else who has wished us well. I had a rough afternoon yesterday, with a high temperature, but I feel better today. Bit tired, that's all. Wife seemed a day earlier with symptoms, but she seems a day behind, so far in recovery. Completing the app we found a nightmare!
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Preposterous nonsense.
I've called everything right on Brexit, I can't think of a single thing on Brexit I got wrong. I was an almost lone opponent for a long time of May's deal, remaining principled against it even when Boris went weak at the knees and backed it. Many leavers said I was wrong not to accept the deal at the time, but now I think most leavers would acknowledge that I was right afterall. That thread by @mij_europe the other day [ignoring the final couple of Tweets] almost line for line repeated what I've been saying for years here now. Reality has shown that I called this right.
As for your "thorniness and magnitude" spin, that's not a criterion in the Article. The article quite literally simply says if the government believes there has been diversion of trade. You know there has been. That's that. You trying to invent new criteria like "thorniness" or "unforeseen" or anything else are simply adding in your own words to suit your own agenda that do not exist in the text. The text has its own conditions that are clearly met, you don't need to invent your own to suit your own agenda.
I see. So context and materiality is irrelevant and if the government believes trade of the value £2.50 (being a box of lightbulbs) has been "diverted" this for you is adequate grounds to trigger Article 16. I wonder about you sometimes, Philip, I really do.
Scandalously, the Nobel Committee has once again ignored this site's resident experts in awarding the Economics Prize. They've given it to some clowns who exposed the real world limitations of free market dogma instead. Virtue signalling imbeciles!
Democracy is an abstraction of an idea, with an infinity of ways to implement. None perfect.
As long as it contains and answers the essential elements of Tony Benn's 5 questions (especially the last) it is better than all the alternatives:
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Outfits from the Taliban to North Korea and even in part generally benign liberal outfits like the EU (elections to its parliament had insufficient links to policy and leadership change) clearly fail the tests.
In the case of the EU, the answers are:
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?” - never enough
“Where did you get it from?” - a mix of Treaty and stealth
“In whose interests do you use it?” those who will increase our power
“To whom are you accountable?” what is his "accountable" of which you speak?
“How do we get rid of you?” Brexit....
'Whose was it?' 'His who is gone.' 'Who shall have it?' 'He who will come.' 'What was the month?' 'The sixth from the first.' 'Where was the sun?' 'Over the oak.' 'Where was the shadow?' 'Under the elm.' 'How was it stepped?' 'North by ten and by ten, east by five and by five, south by two and by two, west by one and by one, and so under.' 'What shall we give for it?' 'All that is ours.' 'Why should we give it?' 'For the sake of the trust.'
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
I agree entirely and I also agree that the UK hold the cards on this
The EU need to sort it, and then concentrate on the many problems they are seeing arise within the EU itself
Hot potatoes have a remarkable capacity to become cold potatoes with the effluxion of time. Like whatever happened to the nuclear existential crisis and CND and the atomic destruction of the planet once CO2 came along to destroy the planet instead? (There's even a chance we will live to see this replaced by another and different existential crisis).
It is not impossible that the island of Ireland could, if left long enough, become a cold potato, with everyone forgetting that you can take a sausage from Armagh to Kilkenny because something else (Poland? Russian attack on Ukraine or a Baltic state? Hungary? France? Italian economy? Greece? EU defence policy? French elections?) seems more important.
Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland.
One can hope, although my friend alleges that Eire don't want to pick up the benefits bill for NI...
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
Hope you are feeling ok and quickly throw it off.
Thank you turbotubbs, Topping and everyone else who has wished us well. I had a rough afternoon yesterday, with a high temperature, but I feel better today. Bit tired, that's all. Wife seemed a day earlier with symptoms, but she seems a day behind, so far in recovery. Completing the app we found a nightmare!
Oh dear, sorry to hear that. Hope you’re both feeling better soon.
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
Is it not the case that, as with most items related to employment law, MPs voted to exempt themselves from the laws that apply to everyone else? Ministers “work” for the Crown, and are responsible for maintaining their own schedules.
Unless I've missed something his holidaying certainly doesn't seem excessive. It might be better if it was codified to 25 days or whatever like the rest of us tbh - it'd probably result in more holiday for him mind !
You are joking
His holidays are well documented in the press, and he hasn't had one since May.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
I agree entirely and I also agree that the UK hold the cards on this
The EU need to sort it, and then concentrate on the many problems they are seeing arise within the EU itself
Hot potatoes have a remarkable capacity to become cold potatoes with the effluxion of time. Like whatever happened to the nuclear existential crisis and CND and the atomic destruction of the planet once CO2 came along to destroy the planet instead? (There's even a chance we will live to see this replaced by another and different existential crisis).
It is not impossible that the island of Ireland could, if left long enough, become a cold potato, with everyone forgetting that you can take a sausage from Armagh to Kilkenny because something else (Poland? Russian attack on Ukraine or a Baltic state? Hungary? France? Italian economy? Greece? EU defence policy? French elections?) seems more important.
Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland.
One can hope, although my friend alleges that Eire don't want to pick up the benefits bill for NI...
Pretty poor anecdotage by PB standards; couldn't your friend be Gerry Adams' postman or a knighted mouthy expat Irish pop star of the 70-80s?
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
I agree entirely and I also agree that the UK hold the cards on this
The EU need to sort it, and then concentrate on the many problems they are seeing arise within the EU itself
Hot potatoes have a remarkable capacity to become cold potatoes with the effluxion of time. Like whatever happened to the nuclear existential crisis and CND and the atomic destruction of the planet once CO2 came along to destroy the planet instead? (There's even a chance we will live to see this replaced by another and different existential crisis).
It is not impossible that the island of Ireland could, if left long enough, become a cold potato, with everyone forgetting that you can take a sausage from Armagh to Kilkenny because something else (Poland? Russian attack on Ukraine or a Baltic state? Hungary? France? Italian economy? Greece? EU defence policy? French elections?) seems more important.
Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland.
One can hope, although my friend alleges that Eire don't want to pick up the benefits bill for NI...
I think the NHS is the biggest blockage right now on the economic front. On the religious, the Republic can perhaps lay claim to being the most de facto secular state around. Just about owt the Catholic Church supports is the kiss of death amongst the electorate. Politically. A Unionist bloc could hold the balance of power in a United Ireland. We'll see over time. Don't expect movement in my lifetime.
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Yes, Joe Biden. The issue is that whoever the Democrat is, a rabid right wing media will find morsels to massively exaggerate and suddenly they are an extremist again.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
I agree entirely and I also agree that the UK hold the cards on this
The EU need to sort it, and then concentrate on the many problems they are seeing arise within the EU itself
Hot potatoes have a remarkable capacity to become cold potatoes with the effluxion of time. Like whatever happened to the nuclear existential crisis and CND and the atomic destruction of the planet once CO2 came along to destroy the planet instead? (There's even a chance we will live to see this replaced by another and different existential crisis).
It is not impossible that the island of Ireland could, if left long enough, become a cold potato, with everyone forgetting that you can take a sausage from Armagh to Kilkenny because something else (Poland? Russian attack on Ukraine or a Baltic state? Hungary? France? Italian economy? Greece? EU defence policy? French elections?) seems more important.
Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland.
One can hope, although my friend alleges that Eire don't want to pick up the benefits bill for NI...
Pretty poor anecdotage by PB standards; couldn't your friend be Gerry Adams' postman or a knighted mouthy expat Irish pop star of the 70-80s?
The benefits bill/NI subsidy thing is a long running issue. Generally ignored by Nationalists of all stripes, of course.
"Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland." ....and MalcomG will one day become a Unionist.....
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Yes, he won in 2020.
Bzzzt. Wrong. He just "wasn't Trump".
Biden is pursuing identity politics. That's not enough to attract soft Republicans.
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Yes, Joe Biden. The issue is that whoever the Democrat is, a rabid right wing media will find morsels to massively exaggerate and suddenly they are an extremist again.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
I agree entirely and I also agree that the UK hold the cards on this
The EU need to sort it, and then concentrate on the many problems they are seeing arise within the EU itself
Hot potatoes have a remarkable capacity to become cold potatoes with the effluxion of time. Like whatever happened to the nuclear existential crisis and CND and the atomic destruction of the planet once CO2 came along to destroy the planet instead? (There's even a chance we will live to see this replaced by another and different existential crisis).
It is not impossible that the island of Ireland could, if left long enough, become a cold potato, with everyone forgetting that you can take a sausage from Armagh to Kilkenny because something else (Poland? Russian attack on Ukraine or a Baltic state? Hungary? France? Italian economy? Greece? EU defence policy? French elections?) seems more important.
Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland.
One can hope, although my friend alleges that Eire don't want to pick up the benefits bill for NI...
Pretty poor anecdotage by PB standards; couldn't your friend be Gerry Adams' postman or a knighted mouthy expat Irish pop star of the 70-80s?
He's married to an Irish extracted South African/Zimbabwean, if that's any help?
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
Sorry to hear that, OKC, best wishes to you both for a speedy recovery.
@kinabalu you keep making aspersions that a potential invocation of Article 16 now is somehow illegitimate or comparable to the unprovoked, unexpected and not even discussed with Ireland first invocation of it earlier this year over vaccines.
Diversion of trade is a trigger for Article 16. Diversion of trade is happening. The government has said the trigger is met but they'll try negotiations first and only trigger it as a last resort.
So how can you possibly think that's at all comparable. If the trigger is diversion of trade, and diversion of trade is happening, then that's that surely?
Let's take 5 and make sure your bizarre view of matters is at least grounded in something real.
What do you have in mind when you type out "diversion of trade" in this context?
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Sounds great in theory, but I don't think it could work, even if you had a charismatic and principled moderate to act as a standardbearer.
Clinton was moderate. That's what the whole third-way stuff was all about. What the GOP showed in 1994 was that they could characterise moderation as extremism, fire up extremist indignation on their own side and win elections as a result. A moderate loses against this because what is moderate is constantly redefined towards the extremes.
The other reason it fails is that the US faces several crises. There's a living standards crisis since the economy doesn't deliver for most people. There's a healthcare crisis. There are geopolitical crises. There's the climate crisis. And there's a social crisis - guns, abortion, racism, etc. Moderation isn't good enough. Radical changes are required, otherwise discontent will grow.
What is needed is for a radical politics that solves the crises that are faced and which defeats the anti-democratic forces that are on the verge of overwhelming the Republic. It's a tall order. I've no idea what the answers are, or if anyone has them, but I am confident that moderation at this moment will not be enough.
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Sounds great in theory, but I don't think it could work, even if you had a charismatic and principled moderate to act as a standardbearer.
Clinton was moderate. That's what the whole third-way stuff was all about. What the GOP showed in 1994 was that they could characterise moderation as extremism, fire up extremist indignation on their own side and win elections as a result. A moderate loses against this because what is moderate is constantly redefined towards the extremes.
The other reason it fails is that the US faces several crises. There's a living standards crisis since the economy doesn't deliver for most people. There's a healthcare crisis. There are geopolitical crises. There's the climate crisis. And there's a social crisis - guns, abortion, racism, etc. Moderation isn't good enough. Radical changes are required, otherwise discontent will grow.
What is needed is for a radical politics that solves the crises that are faced and which defeats the anti-democratic forces that are on the verge of overwhelming the Republic. It's a tall order. I've no idea what the answers are, or if anyone has them, but I am confident that moderation at this moment will not be enough.
Before you do anything else, listening to people and judging the right language matters - immensely. And then translating this language into your policy and what your team say and don't say.
It costs nothing. At present, both sides of American politics are using appalling and hyperbolic language.
Listening and language. Empathy. This is what great leaders understand before they "do" anything, because otherwise they can't take most people with them.
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Yes, he won in 2020.
Bzzzt. Wrong. He just "wasn't Trump".
Biden is pursuing identity politics. That's not enough to attract soft Republicans.
Which of his policies specifically are too woke for you ?
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Yes, Joe Biden. The issue is that whoever the Democrat is, a rabid right wing media will find morsels to massively exaggerate and suddenly they are an extremist again.
Wrong again.
What is it specifically about Joe Biden you fine extreme? Geniune question.
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Sounds great in theory, but I don't think it could work, even if you had a charismatic and principled moderate to act as a standardbearer.
Clinton was moderate. That's what the whole third-way stuff was all about. What the GOP showed in 1994 was that they could characterise moderation as extremism, fire up extremist indignation on their own side and win elections as a result. A moderate loses against this because what is moderate is constantly redefined towards the extremes.
The other reason it fails is that the US faces several crises. There's a living standards crisis since the economy doesn't deliver for most people. There's a healthcare crisis. There are geopolitical crises. There's the climate crisis. And there's a social crisis - guns, abortion, racism, etc. Moderation isn't good enough. Radical changes are required, otherwise discontent will grow.
What is needed is for a radical politics that solves the crises that are faced and which defeats the anti-democratic forces that are on the verge of overwhelming the Republic. It's a tall order. I've no idea what the answers are, or if anyone has them, but I am confident that moderation at this moment will not be enough.
Extremism can win in midterm elections as they are lower turnout, less so Presidential elections.
Hence the GOP have held the House for 20 out of 27 years since 1994 but only won 3 out of 7 presidential elections since then.
From 1948 until 1992 however the GOP had won 7 out of 11 presidential elections but the Democrats had held the House for almost all that period apart from 1952-1954
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
Just popped in to say it is the most GORGEOUS day out there in the Devon garden. And I have signed my contract to start developing my children's animation, with the best company I could ever hope for.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
Best wishes with the new venture. My wife & have tested positive for Covid, ironically some two days before we were booked for our booster dose, and have spent much of the morning struggling to provide the information required on the contacts app. We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
Hope you are feeling ok and quickly throw it off.
Thank you turbotubbs, Topping and everyone else who has wished us well. I had a rough afternoon yesterday, with a high temperature, but I feel better today. Bit tired, that's all. Wife seemed a day earlier with symptoms, but she seems a day behind, so far in recovery. Completing the app we found a nightmare!
Best wishes for you and hope you stay well. 2 weeks ago myself, my wife and her 85yo father all caught Covid. He had the fewest symptoms. Hopefully the vaccine will work as well for you as it did for him.
Listening and language. Empathy. This is what great leaders understand before they "do" anything, because otherwise they can't take most people with them.
Biden is a walking gaffe machine but he's never come out with anything like Romney's 47% or Clinton's deplorables comments. His empathy is one of his biggest strengths.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Preposterous nonsense.
I've called everything right on Brexit, I can't think of a single thing on Brexit I got wrong. I was an almost lone opponent for a long time of May's deal, remaining principled against it even when Boris went weak at the knees and backed it. Many leavers said I was wrong not to accept the deal at the time, but now I think most leavers would acknowledge that I was right afterall. That thread by @mij_europe the other day [ignoring the final couple of Tweets] almost line for line repeated what I've been saying for years here now. Reality has shown that I called this right.
As for your "thorniness and magnitude" spin, that's not a criterion in the Article. The article quite literally simply says if the government believes there has been diversion of trade. You know there has been. That's that. You trying to invent new criteria like "thorniness" or "unforeseen" or anything else are simply adding in your own words to suit your own agenda that do not exist in the text. The text has its own conditions that are clearly met, you don't need to invent your own to suit your own agenda.
I see. So context and materiality is irrelevant and if the government believes trade of the value £2.50 (being a box of lightbulbs) has been "diverted" this for you is adequate grounds to trigger Article 16. I wonder about you sometimes, Philip, I really do.
The way the protocol is written it could do so.
Not sure the actual term is defined either. Perhaps "serious" was deemed to go without saying? Although that still allows for "so what's serious?". Etc etc. Point is, when it comes to interpretation & implementation the thing can't work without a shared sense of reason, perspective, proportionality.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
In my years on here I struggle to recall you calling anything significant to do with Brexit right. What you mainly do is churn out simple simon, hard leaver, Brit Nat propaganda, then strain every sinew to interpret events as being a vindication of it, in the process and where necessary (which is often) rewriting both what you previously said, and why you previously said it, and what has actually happened.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
Preposterous nonsense.
I've called everything right on Brexit, I can't think of a single thing on Brexit I got wrong. I was an almost lone opponent for a long time of May's deal, remaining principled against it even when Boris went weak at the knees and backed it. Many leavers said I was wrong not to accept the deal at the time, but now I think most leavers would acknowledge that I was right afterall. That thread by @mij_europe the other day [ignoring the final couple of Tweets] almost line for line repeated what I've been saying for years here now. Reality has shown that I called this right.
As for your "thorniness and magnitude" spin, that's not a criterion in the Article. The article quite literally simply says if the government believes there has been diversion of trade. You know there has been. That's that. You trying to invent new criteria like "thorniness" or "unforeseen" or anything else are simply adding in your own words to suit your own agenda that do not exist in the text. The text has its own conditions that are clearly met, you don't need to invent your own to suit your own agenda.
I see. So context and materiality is irrelevant and if the government believes trade of the value £2.50 (being a box of lightbulbs) has been "diverted" this for you is adequate grounds to trigger Article 16. I wonder about you sometimes, Philip, I really do.
The way the protocol is written it could do so.
Indeed. Its funny how the people who are screaming loudest that they want the "agreed" deal implemented "as written" are actually upset at the idea of it being implemented "as written" and want it implementing how they wanted to interpret it instead.
In this sort of legal text there are adjectives that could be used to qualify what kind of diversion is meant. Eg "substantial" or "unforeseen" etc - but none of those adjectives are in the text. If the EU had wanted it to mean 'a substantial and unforeseen diversion' then they would have had to get Barnier to propose that text and get Frost to agree to it in the negotiations. That didn't happen.
The text just says "if there is diversion of trade" without any adjectives at all, that means that any diversion of trade is sufficient to meet that threshold.
So in order to claim the Article can't be invoked, you need to be adamant that there has not been any diversion at all.
The Economist (based on government’s own projections) is predicting a fall in real household income in 22 and 23.
Which might make a 23 election less likely.
In view of the rocketing worldwide prices of energy and real supply issues that will be applicable to most households across Europe and beyond
True, but probably not relevant to Mr and Mrs Floating Voter.
Remember how well "The financial crash, which started in America..." worked?
It may be terribly unfair if the biggest problem for the Johnson government is something they don't have much control over. But politics has never been fair.
The leadership America needs is moderation. Someone who can calm down the culture wars and steer the ship through the practical middle, attracting floating voters from both sides. If this is maintained for a number of years then eventually both extremes will need to moderate back to win again.
Does such a person exist?
Yes, he won in 2020.
Bzzzt. Wrong. He just "wasn't Trump".
Biden is pursuing identity politics. That's not enough to attract soft Republicans.
Listening and language. Empathy. This is what great leaders understand before they "do" anything, because otherwise they can't take most people with them.
Biden is a walking gaffe machine but he's never come out with anything like Romney's 47% or Clinton's deplorables comments. His empathy is one of his biggest strengths.
There is a story that Bill Clinton, when he heard about the deplorable thing was at a small airport, waiting in his limo, for a plane. Apparently people could see the limo rocking around as he slammed/punched the upholstery.
Comments
The EU need to sort it, and then concentrate on the many problems they are seeing arise within the EU itself
There are checks, etc to be performed but an agreement was reached not to implement them during a grace period.
Cold storage is an extension of the grace period.
Will the EU agree? Not 100% sure.
Remember how well "The financial crash, which started in America..." worked?
It may be terribly unfair if the biggest problem for the Johnson government is something they don't have much control over. But politics has never been fair.
Remember in 2016 it was Cruz who won the most religious voters in the GOP primaries not Trump
If the "grace period" is extended indefinitely so it never lapses until both the UK and EU are satisfied together with what replaces it, then that's cold storage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uuPzByc_6U
One thing that @rcs1000 said at the beginning of the Brexit process that stuck with me and has consequently come true is that the UK turns into a customer and the 27 nations will compete to win our business. The French have tried to stop the Belgians from winning our business with an illegal offshore wind farm they don't intend to build but prevents the most direct UK -> Belgium route, but the fact that two EU countries are now fighting over our custom is changing the game for the UK.
How long until UK tourists decide they don't want to wait in the "all other" queue at European airports and realise that Greece, Italy and a few other countries don't have that setup? It will shift people's holiday plans because no one wants to wait for 3 hours in an airport queue. Will the Netherlands and other Brexit derangement countries keep that policy when the likes of Belgium and Germany quietly add the UK to their e-gates with no fanfare so they can get a slice of UK to Europe tourism?
Inflation 4.0%, Wage Rise 4.1%, result happiness. Inflation 4.0%, Wage Rise 3.9%, result misery.
If there are say 750,000 women pregnant at any time in the UK; that's ~1% of the population meaning they're around 20 times more likely than the average to be serious.
You could weight that they're younger than average, but pregnancy lowers immune response so I think they perhaps should be slightly more likely to be a serious covid case but not ~ 20 times as likely.
Vaccination rates I fear amongst pregnant women must be very very low.
I hope this is addressed but from the exclusion of pregnant women in the clinical trials and subsequent non offering in the UK to pregnant women generally won't have helped. In addition the misinformation specifically targeting them on social media around miscarriage doesn't help either.
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?” - never enough
“Where did you get it from?” - a mix of Treaty and stealth
“In whose interests do you use it?” those who will increase our power
“To whom are you accountable?” what is his "accountable" of which you speak?
“How do we get rid of you?” Brexit....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/10/bisexual-no-big-deal-says-red-wall-tory-mp/
The tourist areas won’t want to get a reputation for holding up visitors in hours-long queues at the airport, and if word gets around that flying through Frankfurt is easier than Amsterdam or Paris, then market forces will favour the German airport.
As to A16, what is relevant is the existence, nature, extent of the problems being caused by the agreed NI Protocol. This can't be boiled down to the noddy "yes/no" multiple choice couplet you present here. The actual "yes/no" question is - are the problems of such thorniness and magnitude as to justify suspending the Protocol or reneging on it? And to this the objectively best (non-quisling, non-hardleaver-nutjob) answer is No.
*wanders back to the garden with hat at a jaunty angle and whistling a happy tune.....*
I've called everything right on Brexit, I can't think of a single thing on Brexit I got wrong. I was an almost lone opponent for a long time of May's deal, remaining principled against it even when Boris went weak at the knees and backed it. Many leavers said I was wrong not to accept the deal at the time, but now I think most leavers would acknowledge that I was right afterall. That thread by @mij_europe the other day [ignoring the final couple of Tweets] almost line for line repeated what I've been saying for years here now. Reality has shown that I called this right.
As for your "thorniness and magnitude" spin, that's not a criterion in the Article. The article quite literally simply says if the government believes there has been diversion of trade. You know there has been. That's that. You trying to invent new criteria like "thorniness" or "unforeseen" or anything else are simply adding in your own words to suit your own agenda that do not exist in the text. The text has its own conditions that are clearly met, you don't need to invent your own to suit your own agenda.
"A government survives until it is seen to have failed, and then an opposition that isn't obviously bonkers will take over" isn't a very inspiring theory of politics. It doesn't leave much space for Great Men and Women to leave their imprint on history, because it implies that they too are largely victims of events (dear boy). But it does match the observations pretty well.
The age of hybrid working is creating tensions in some offices, with disgruntled stalwarts labelling colleagues who only show their faces on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays as “TWATs”.
https://www.barrons.com/amp/news/france-could-reduce-but-not-cut-jersey-electricity-supplies-minister-01633677607
'Whose was it?'
'His who is gone.'
'Who shall have it?'
'He who will come.'
'What was the month?'
'The sixth from the first.'
'Where was the sun?'
'Over the oak.'
'Where was the shadow?'
'Under the elm.'
'How was it stepped?'
'North by ten and by ten, east by five and by five, south by two and by two, west by one and by one, and so under.'
'What shall we give for it?'
'All that is ours.'
'Why should we give it?'
'For the sake of the trust.'
My response to most of his posts these days is from Frank N. Furter:
"How forceful you are, Philip. Such a perfect specimen of manhood. So... dominant. You must be awfully proud of him, Mrs Thompson."
I complained to the local CCG, was told they'd be making sure everyone was aware of the guidance. We'd looked into 'the science' (which is my day job) and the official advice anyway, so had my wife been pregant she would still have asked to get jabbed. I don't know whether the person in question would have refused in that case... At second jab, she wasn't asked.
NI being both in the SM and the UK is the new GFA. It's like how NI is both Irish and British under that settlement. It needs people to go along with the constructive ambiguity. Part of this is the ECJ has a role but doesn't have a role in jurisdiction. This needs to be finessed.
So hopefully it will be. I can't imagine many business people in NI give a shit about the ECJ. Indeed hardly anybody does, inc most Leave voters. It's strictly for ye olde worlde victorian imperialist sovereignty wallahs, the Moggs, the Cashs, the Bones, these oddball type revolving bow-tie guys.
And those figures are way too narrowly constrained. Double digit percentages somewhere in there seem quite likely.
Or, it exists, at the macro level. Granted, as the supply of labour increases, the supply of jobs there are to do also increases. But it takes a long, long time to filter through, and labour is poorer in the short term and certainly no more rich in the long term.
It is of no comfort to an individual low wage worker whose wages are being held down by a limitless supply of unskilled labour that in the long run that labour will also create a demand for more unskilled labour.
Destroying the TCA and UK/EU relationship will make the UK significantly less interested in maintaining that security relationship and much less interested in keeping the US onside for it as well and it makes the rest of Europe, especially Eastern Europe significantly more reliant on France and the EU, something none of them really want.
I'd be genuinely shocked if any single "trade war" measure was enacted by the EU. There's simply no appetite for it beyond Ireland and France. The other 25 nations just want to put Brexit behind them and have a productive relationship with the UK. Instead it will be more words and more concessions on the NI protocol until we get to the end state of neutral arbitration, an NI green channel and no border in the Irish sea. The EU will figure out how the latter will be achieved and keep Ireland in the single market and customs union, my best guess is still silent checks on incoming Irish goods to the continent.
30 minutes including questions. Some interesting stuff.
Patrick Harvie in Harry Potter glasses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct4g7RNTDcE&t=13s
The lump of labour fallacy is that there's a fixed number of jobs and hence immigrants come in and "steal our jobs" (when of course they create new jobs by increasing demand). I've never made that fallacy because I understand it.
However the flipside to the fallacy is those who think there's a fixed number of jobs and hence immigrants are needed because of a "labour shortage". That's just as fallacious as the "steal our jobs" bullshit that I've always opposed.
Two sides to the same fallacy.
We were not helped by the fact that in the days immediately before the positive test we were travelling back from N. Wales, with an overnight stop, and my wife had a hospital appointment.
Arlene Foster #WeWillMeetAgain
@ArleneFosterUK
Hypocritical Europe is playing with fire on the NI Protocol http://digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/750/reade
Even I as a relatively junior Crown Servant have no contract, and am not covered by employment law. Instead there is a Civil Service Code which states that it will behave as if contract law and domestic employment law applies.
(The exception was rights which emanate from EU directives which were always directly binding on "emanations of the state". I presume that no longer applies)
effluxion of time. Like whatever happened to the nuclear existential crisis and CND and the atomic destruction of the planet once CO2 came along to destroy the planet instead? (There's even a chance we will live to see this replaced by another and different existential crisis).
It is not impossible that the island of Ireland could, if left long enough, become a cold potato, with everyone forgetting that you can take a sausage from Armagh to Kilkenny because something else (Poland? Russian attack on Ukraine or a Baltic state? Hungary? France? Italian economy? Greece? EU defence policy? French elections?) seems more important.
Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland.
Completing the app we found a nightmare!
They've given it to some clowns who exposed the real world limitations of free market dogma instead.
Virtue signalling imbeciles!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2021/oct/11/uk-supply-chain-crisis-business-growth-consumer-confidence-oil-pound-nobel-prize-economics-business-live?page=with:block-616406918f08b8762a622816#block-616406918f08b8762a622816
Does such a person exist?
On the religious, the Republic can perhaps lay claim to being the most de facto secular state around. Just about owt the Catholic Church supports is the kiss of death amongst the electorate.
Politically. A Unionist bloc could hold the balance of power in a United Ireland.
We'll see over time. Don't expect movement in my lifetime.
"Secondly one day both parts will realise that they are a single island and that most people don't care about the Battle of the Boyne or the religious splits of 1517 onwards and that moderate co-religionists can get on in one country called Ireland." ....and MalcomG will one day become a Unionist.....
Biden is pursuing identity politics. That's not enough to attract soft Republicans.
What do you have in mind when you type out "diversion of trade" in this context?
Clinton was moderate. That's what the whole third-way stuff was all about. What the GOP showed in 1994 was that they could characterise moderation as extremism, fire up extremist indignation on their own side and win elections as a result. A moderate loses against this because what is moderate is constantly redefined towards the extremes.
The other reason it fails is that the US faces several crises. There's a living standards crisis since the economy doesn't deliver for most people. There's a healthcare crisis. There are geopolitical crises. There's the climate crisis. And there's a social crisis - guns, abortion, racism, etc. Moderation isn't good enough. Radical changes are required, otherwise discontent will grow.
What is needed is for a radical politics that solves the crises that are faced and which defeats the anti-democratic forces that are on the verge of overwhelming the Republic. It's a tall order. I've no idea what the answers are, or if anyone has them, but I am confident that moderation at this moment will not be enough.
It costs nothing. At present, both sides of American politics are using appalling and hyperbolic language.
Listening and language. Empathy. This is what great leaders understand before they "do" anything, because otherwise they can't take most people with them.
Is it... AUKUS ?
https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1447314844588261376
Hence the GOP have held the House for 20 out of 27 years since 1994 but only won 3 out of 7 presidential elections since then.
From 1948 until 1992 however the GOP had won 7 out of 11 presidential elections but the Democrats had held the House for almost all that period apart from 1952-1954
Too crap to stand in for Boris, that's how crap.
Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
No 10 confirms Dominic Raab doesn't get to run the country when Boris Johnson is away after his promotion to deputy PM.
In this sort of legal text there are adjectives that could be used to qualify what kind of diversion is meant. Eg "substantial" or "unforeseen" etc - but none of those adjectives are in the text. If the EU had wanted it to mean 'a substantial and unforeseen diversion' then they would have had to get Barnier to propose that text and get Frost to agree to it in the negotiations. That didn't happen.
The text just says "if there is diversion of trade" without any adjectives at all, that means that any diversion of trade is sufficient to meet that threshold.
So in order to claim the Article can't be invoked, you need to be adamant that there has not been any diversion at all.
It's only going to work every so often, of course; a once in a generation sort of serve.
https://akluplaza.co.uk/jobs/imam/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58871587
Bet it wasn't hit an international ODI century.