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.
That wouldn't be the usual reason Bill's limo was a-rocking.
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.
Well, that's one excuse for a limo with Bill in it rocking around.
The CO2 suppliers agree a deal with the fertiliser manufactures to affirm their supplies, steel plant to reopen in Rotherham, and taxpayers pounds will not be used before shareholders and investors take a hit on businesses having energy problems, the fuel shortages crisis is all but over, Boris is having a weeks holiday but retains control of the country, and the EU and the UK in genuine talks to resolve the NI protocol, so not everything is doom and gloom
But has anyone seen Keir since his speech two weeks ago by the way ?
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.
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.
That wouldn't be the usual reason Bill's limo was a-rocking.
Perhaps - but it he was clearly very unhappy with how Hillary was campaigning.
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.
That wouldn't be the usual reason Bill's limo was a-rocking.
Never mind NI. On Silecroft beach - a beautiful sandy beach which goes on for miles and miles and is one of the largely undiscovered beauties of the area - they are today filming an ad for some luxury car or other, with the local heavy horse riders in the background. It is a glorious autumn day with blue sky and fluffy white clouds and Black Combe looking gorgeous in the background.
The CO2 suppliers agree a deal with the fertiliser manufactures to affirm their supplies, steel plant to reopen in Rotherham, and taxpayers pounds will not be used before shareholders and investors take a hit on businesses having energy problems, the fuel shortages crisis is all but over, Boris is having a weeks holiday but retains control of the country, and the EU and the UK in genuine talks to resolve the NI protocol, so not everything is doom and gloom
But has anyone seen Keir since his speech two weeks ago by the way ?
The CO2 suppliers agree a deal with the fertiliser manufactures to affirm their supplies, steel plant to reopen in Rotherham, and taxpayers pounds will not be used before shareholders and investors take a hit on businesses having energy problems, the fuel shortages crisis is all but over, Boris is having a weeks holiday but retains control of the country, and the EU and the UK in genuine talks to resolve the NI protocol, so not everything is doom and gloom
But has anyone seen Keir since his speech two weeks ago by the way ?
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.
Article 16 states that "Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation." It would therefore be very hard to argue that the removal of ECJ oversight, for example, would constitute a permissible safeguard measure, given that ECJ oversight is not, in itself, responsible for any of the problems that have arisen.
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.
Maybe yes. Maybe no. The EUCJ gets to decide this, ironically.
First of all it depends on trade diversion for whom. Clearly there has been trade diversion for the UK mainland, but Northern Irish trade hasn't suffered in the same way. Imports have held up better than the mainland; exports to the Single Market have increased and if there are any barriers NI to GB that's not necessarily an issue with the Protocol. It's quite likely provisions in a Northern Ireland Protocol relate specifically to Northern Ireland.
Secondly, safeguards have a specific meaning under WTO rules and EU law. They are protections against threats that are serious, that could not be predicted and are not temporary. It's quite possible for the EUCJ to determine that there are trade diversions but the safeguard threshold hasn't been met
Thirdly safeguards have to be specific to the threat and with a time specific remediation plan.
Chief constables are getting stuck with rogue officers they would rather sack because of leniency at misconduct hearings, one of the country’s most senior policing figures has warned.
Andy Marsh, the head of the College of Policing, the standards body in England and Wales, said he had been “frustrated” as a chief constable at having to redeploy officers who were guilty of serious misconduct, including using racist terms. He said that independent chairmen and women who oversaw the majority of the most serious misconduct cases were more lenient than chief constables would be.
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.
Maybe yes. Maybe no. The EUCJ gets to decide this, ironically.
First of all it depends on trade diversion for whom. Clearly there has been trade diversion for the UK mainland, but Northern Irish trade hasn't suffered in the same way. Imports have held up better than the mainland; exports to the Single Market have increased and if there are any barriers NI to GB that's not necessarily an issue with the Protocol. It's quite likely provisions in a Northern Ireland Protocol relate specifically to Northern Ireland.
Secondly, safeguards have a specific meaning under WTO rules and EU law. They are protections against threats that are serious, that could not be predicted and are not temporary. It's quite possible for the EUCJ to determine that there are trade diversions but the safeguard threshold hasn't been met
Thirdly safeguards have to be specific to the threat and with a time specific remediation plan.
No the ECJ doesn't get to decide it. The UK isn't a party to the ECJ. Governance of how the safeguarding works is in Annex 7 of the Protocol and there is absolutely no reference to the ECJ. The UK gets to unilaterally invoke Article 16 and the only right that the Union has is not to refer it to the Court but to retaliate with measures permissable under the Protocol. And to seek resolution in the Joint Committee, which requires both parties to agree on the resolution.
Interesting that you note that exports to the Single Market have increased as if that is a positive. If such exports have increased at the price of exports to GB going down, then that is clearly a diversion of trade.
The CO2 suppliers agree a deal with the fertiliser manufactures to affirm their supplies, steel plant to reopen in Rotherham, and taxpayers pounds will not be used before shareholders and investors take a hit on businesses having energy problems, the fuel shortages crisis is all but over, Boris is having a weeks holiday but retains control of the country, and the EU and the UK in genuine talks to resolve the NI protocol, so not everything is doom and gloom
But has anyone seen *Keir since his speech two weeks ago by the way ?
It's only going to work every so often, of course; a once in a generation sort of serve.
Yes, it's part of the game now in tennis so long as it looks a genuine attempt to win the point or unsettle as opposed to taking the piss.
Excellent post. Could you stick to this sort of thing rather than being drawn back in to the NI protocol stuff? You're fighting an unwinnable battle against two people who aren't going to be swayed by any of your (or anybody else's) arguments, as I'm sure you know. Meantime, you're just giving them the oxygen of publicity through repetition. God it's tedious; I wish I'd never heard of Article 16 and the NI protocol.
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.
His most amusing idea was that there exists anything even approximating a free market in energy in the UK.
The CO2 suppliers agree a deal with the fertiliser manufactures to affirm their supplies, steel plant to reopen in Rotherham, and taxpayers pounds will not be used before shareholders and investors take a hit on businesses having energy problems, the fuel shortages crisis is all but over, Boris is having a weeks holiday but retains control of the country, and the EU and the UK in genuine talks to resolve the NI protocol, so not everything is doom and gloom
But has anyone seen Keir since his speech two weeks ago by the way ?
You sometimes remind me of that North Korean TV lady, Big G. Only the pink kimono is missing. Or is it?
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 ?
This isn't about me. It's about how he's perceived in small-town America, and what they are concerned about. I think we're so disgusted with Trump over here in the UK we miss this.
His policies on "equity" (which is manifesting as positive discrimination with a new name) are problematic, as is the fact he's let immigration rip.
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.
I thought that too. ie the government approach of restricting labour to drive up wages is economically illiterate but there would be a lengthy drag while employers tried to stay in business at previous staffing levels.
In fact the adjustment seems to be quite quick, as far as the sketchy evidence goes.
I used to do this for years. I just got to the point where combined with 3 kids I couldn't take the tiredness anymore.
You do get some beautiful moments. Several times coming across deer in the middle of country paths. One time there was a frost, not quite a snow, in the air and the path ahead of me shimmered as it was lit up by my running torch. Sublime.
Never mind NI. On Silecroft beach - a beautiful sandy beach which goes on for miles and miles and is one of the largely undiscovered beauties of the area - they are today filming an ad for some luxury car or other, with the local heavy horse riders in the background. It is a glorious autumn day with blue sky and fluffy white clouds and Black Combe looking gorgeous in the background.
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.
His most amusing idea was that there exists anything even approximating a free market in energy in the UK.
I never said that.
I said that the current mess is better than a single state supplier, but a more free market would be an improvement.
I used to do this for years. I just got to the point where combined with 3 kids I couldn't take the tiredness anymore.
You do get some beautiful moments. Several times coming across deer in the middle of country paths. One time there was a frost, not quite a snow, in the air and the path ahead of me shimmered as it was lit up by my running torch. Sublime.
I'm sure it has lovely moments. So does a proper kip for me.
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!
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.'
Another Sherlockian!
I thought it was something to do with @Charles ' family business arrangements...
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.
I thought that too. ie the government approach of restricting labour to drive up wages is economically illiterate but there would be a lengthy drag while employers tried to stay in business at previous staffing levels.
In fact the adjustment seems to be quite quick, as far as the sketchy evidence goes.
We’ve heard a lot about how covid complicates the brexit blame-game, but perhaps its effect is to accelerate brexit-related changes.
I used to do this for years. I just got to the point where combined with 3 kids I couldn't take the tiredness anymore.
You do get some beautiful moments. Several times coming across deer in the middle of country paths. One time there was a frost, not quite a snow, in the air and the path ahead of me shimmered as it was lit up by my running torch. Sublime.
C-beams glittering in the dark by the Tanhauser gate?
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.'
Another Sherlockian!
I thought it was something to do with @Charles ' family business arrangements...
They probably do have Charles I personal safety deposit box, waiting for him....
It's only going to work every so often, of course; a once in a generation sort of serve.
Yes, it's part of the game now in tennis so long as it looks a genuine attempt to win the point or unsettle as opposed to taking the piss.
Excellent post. Could you stick to this sort of thing rather than being drawn back in to the NI protocol stuff? You're fighting an unwinnable battle against two people who aren't going to be swayed by any of your (or anybody else's) arguments, as I'm sure you know. Meantime, you're just giving them the oxygen of publicity through repetition. God it's tedious; I wish I'd never heard of Article 16 and the NI protocol.
Yes, ok. I was petering out on the topic anyway. If people wish to see Boris Johnson and Lord Frost as "tough but fair" battlers for Britain against the slippery Continentals there is, as you say, precious little I can do it. You do learn that on here. You'd go a bit nuts otherwise.
Never mind NI. On Silecroft beach - a beautiful sandy beach which goes on for miles and miles and is one of the largely undiscovered beauties of the area - they are today filming an ad for some luxury car or other, with the local heavy horse riders in the background. It is a glorious autumn day with blue sky and fluffy white clouds and Black Combe looking gorgeous in the background.
The CO2 suppliers agree a deal with the fertiliser manufactures to affirm their supplies, steel plant to reopen in Rotherham, and taxpayers pounds will not be used before shareholders and investors take a hit on businesses having energy problems, the fuel shortages crisis is all but over, Boris is having a weeks holiday but retains control of the country, and the EU and the UK in genuine talks to resolve the NI protocol, so not everything is doom and gloom
But has anyone seen Keir since his speech two weeks ago by the way ?
You sometimes remind me of that North Korean TV lady, Big G. Only the pink kimono is missing. Or is it?
As I have said ad nauseam an effective disciplinary system is an essential part of a good culture.
I'm a bit wary of this claim by police chiefs that it's all someone else's fault. Sounds mightily convenient.
A friend who was a shrink encountered a interesting phenomenon were criminal charges would attempt to be medicalised into rest cures at The Priory (or similar) - for senior member of permeant officialdom.
She got alot of push back for classing people as "nasty but competent" rather than the expected "depressed/stressed/etc"
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.
I thought that too. ie the government approach of restricting labour to drive up wages is economically illiterate but there would be a lengthy drag while employers tried to stay in business at previous staffing levels.
In fact the adjustment seems to be quite quick, as far as the sketchy evidence goes.
For all the economic expertise of our Brexiters on here they have failed to grasp the simplest of economic facts.
For them it is simple - restrictions on labour = wages up = prices up hurrah! Let's all pay ourselves more.
They ignore (to be charitable) or do not appreciate that restrictions on labour will shift the demand curve leftwards which will have an effect on prices and hence an equilibrium will be reached at a lower price point hence profitability will decrease hence wage rises will reverse hence we are back where we started.
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 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.
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.
There's mention of a prayer room on the website https://akluplaza.co.uk/ but not much space for it in the floor plans.
Otherwise, it sounds like a version of the Shopping Hall that happens to be run by some successful Asian shopkeepers. Best of luck to them.
Better that than another empty shell like the adjacent Littlewoods/Index site. That's been abandoned for nearly 20 years.
So new businesses that will attract people to Romford, unless they're allergic to Asians. Sounds like good news, eh?
And then others (who know more about Islam than me, and I imagine you) chipped in to explain the subtleties about prayer rooms and all that.
From this, you have got that I accused you of lying and that I changed my tune once you had proved that there was going to be a mosque. Not quite sure how that happened, but I don't have a copy of the Faragist playbook.
For the record, here's what I think.
1. Calling it an "Islamic shopping centre and mosque" is, based on the evidence we have so far, an exaggeration. 2. This is the sort of situation where it's unwise to exaggerate. 3. Even if it were, nobody is going to be forced to shop there, there will be plenty of other shops, and any legal activity is better than an empty shell. 4. If you or anyone else felt that strongly about it, or would have preferred a nice traditional department store, there was nothing to stop you, or anyone else, getting the bank loan to try that. 5. If they appoint an Iman, splendid. I'm all for employers taking the spiritual needs of their staff seriously. They can join the Church of England chaplain to Romford town centre and the Romford street pastors.
Perhaps what I'm really saying is that I'm not that bothered in your repeated prods, and I should have ignored the first one.
Sorry everyone else, you're now returned to your regular programming.
[ETA: Probably for the best that there's a new thread started.]
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.
Article 16 states that "Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation." It would therefore be very hard to argue that the removal of ECJ oversight, for example, would constitute a permissible safeguard measure, given that ECJ oversight is not, in itself, responsible for any of the problems that have arisen.
I'm not clear on this.
Is Frost asking that the ECJ be taken out of the NIP, or out of any role in the Good Friday Agreement (does it have one in that)?
AFAICS the ECJ role in the NIP is quite firmly circumscribed, so its a minor point unless the demand is symbolic.
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.
I thought that too. ie the government approach of restricting labour to drive up wages is economically illiterate but there would be a lengthy drag while employers tried to stay in business at previous staffing levels.
In fact the adjustment seems to be quite quick, as far as the sketchy evidence goes.
For all the economic expertise of our Brexiters on here they have failed to grasp the simplest of economic facts.
For them it is simple - restrictions on labour = wages up = prices up hurrah! Let's all pay ourselves more.
They ignore (to be charitable) or do not appreciate that restrictions on labour will shift the demand curve leftwards which will have an effect on prices and hence an equilibrium will be reached at a lower price point hence profitability will decrease hence wage rises will reverse hence we are back where we started.
Except with an adjustment of the wealth, skewed towards the low-paid, who are now closer to being able to afford to live where they work. Something of a reversal of recent trends, which has seen wealth accrue to capital rather than labour.
Never mind NI. On Silecroft beach - a beautiful sandy beach which goes on for miles and miles and is one of the largely undiscovered beauties of the area - they are today filming an ad for some luxury car or other, with the local heavy horse riders in the background. It is a glorious autumn day with blue sky and fluffy white clouds and Black Combe looking gorgeous in the background.
Couple of weeks ago we were on the NE coast near Bamburgh. Very similar, without the ad. Plenty of people in hiking kit enjoying a breezy but sunny walk, with Lindisfarne in the background.
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.
@OldKingCole OKC , Hope you and wife are fighting fit soon., best wishes.
Comments
Conservatives 39%
Labour 35%
LDs 9%
Greens 5%
SNP 4%
RefUK 3%
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1447508341022986241?s=20
EC gives a hung parliament on those numbers with the Conservatives on 319 seats.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=9&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
So Boris would need to persuade the DUP to back him to stay PM
But has anyone seen Keir since his speech two weeks ago by the way ?
First of all it depends on trade diversion for whom. Clearly there has been trade diversion for the UK mainland, but Northern Irish trade hasn't suffered in the same way. Imports have held up better than the mainland; exports to the Single Market have increased and if there are any barriers NI to GB that's not necessarily an issue with the Protocol. It's quite likely provisions in a Northern Ireland Protocol relate specifically to Northern Ireland.
Secondly, safeguards have a specific meaning under WTO rules and EU law. They are protections against threats that are serious, that could not be predicted and are not temporary. It's quite possible for the EUCJ to determine that there are trade diversions but the safeguard threshold hasn't been met
Thirdly safeguards have to be specific to the threat and with a time specific remediation plan.
Chief constables are getting stuck with rogue officers they would rather sack because of leniency at misconduct hearings, one of the country’s most senior policing figures has warned.
Andy Marsh, the head of the College of Policing, the standards body in England and Wales, said he had been “frustrated” as a chief constable at having to redeploy officers who were guilty of serious misconduct, including using racist terms. He said that independent chairmen and women who oversaw the majority of the most serious misconduct cases were more lenient than chief constables would be.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lenient-misconduct-hearings-leave-chief-constables-with-rogue-officers-p5dl6z3lf
Two thousand police have been accused of sexual misconduct, including rape, over the past four years.
In nearly two thirds of cases officers accused of sexual violence and of abusing their power for personal gratification faced no further action.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sex-claims-against-2-000-police-officers-fnt9blkd7
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/11/you-feel-like-a-child-again-would-exercising-at-5am-make-you-a-happier-person
Interesting that you note that exports to the Single Market have increased as if that is a positive. If such exports have increased at the price of exports to GB going down, then that is clearly a diversion of trade.
The CO2 suppliers agree a deal with the fertiliser manufactures to affirm their supplies, steel plant to reopen in Rotherham, and taxpayers pounds will not be used before shareholders and investors take a hit on businesses having energy problems, the fuel shortages crisis is all but over, Boris is having a weeks holiday but retains control of the country, and the EU and the UK in genuine talks to resolve the NI protocol, so not everything is doom and gloom
But has anyone seen *Keir since his speech two weeks ago by the way ?
* I understand he was on tv last week
His policies on "equity" (which is manifesting as positive discrimination with a new name) are problematic, as is the fact he's let immigration rip.
It feeds into many people feeling threatened.
In fact the adjustment seems to be quite quick, as far as the sketchy evidence goes.
You do get some beautiful moments. Several times coming across deer in the middle of country paths. One time there was a frost, not quite a snow, in the air and the path ahead of me shimmered as it was lit up by my running torch. Sublime.
I said that the current mess is better than a single state supplier, but a more free market would be an improvement.
I'm a bit wary of this claim by police chiefs that it's all someone else's fault. Sounds mightily convenient.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1447217495329419269
And here we have response from ruling party-controlled state television: protesters are traitors, Germans, anti-Polish
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1447249676089057281
Magnificent beasts.
She got alot of push back for classing people as "nasty but competent" rather than the expected "depressed/stressed/etc"
For them it is simple - restrictions on labour = wages up = prices up hurrah! Let's all pay ourselves more.
They ignore (to be charitable) or do not appreciate that restrictions on labour will shift the demand curve leftwards which will have an effect on prices and hence an equilibrium will be reached at a lower price point hence profitability will decrease hence wage rises will reverse hence we are back where we started.
https://insideevs.com/news/539422/citroen-ami-orders-uk/
Is the PM actually an "Office Holder"?
a) what this has to do with the conversation
b) why you're so concerned with a random off the internet
but here goes.
This bee in your bonnet started with the this exchange; And then others (who know more about Islam than me, and I imagine you) chipped in to explain the subtleties about prayer rooms and all that.
From this, you have got that I accused you of lying and that I changed my tune once you had proved that there was going to be a mosque. Not quite sure how that happened, but I don't have a copy of the Faragist playbook.
For the record, here's what I think.
1. Calling it an "Islamic shopping centre and mosque" is, based on the evidence we have so far, an exaggeration.
2. This is the sort of situation where it's unwise to exaggerate.
3. Even if it were, nobody is going to be forced to shop there, there will be plenty of other shops, and any legal activity is better than an empty shell.
4. If you or anyone else felt that strongly about it, or would have preferred a nice traditional department store, there was nothing to stop you, or anyone else, getting the bank loan to try that.
5. If they appoint an Iman, splendid. I'm all for employers taking the spiritual needs of their staff seriously. They can join the Church of England chaplain to Romford town centre and the Romford street pastors.
Perhaps what I'm really saying is that I'm not that bothered in your repeated prods, and I should have ignored the first one.
Sorry everyone else, you're now returned to your regular programming.
[ETA: Probably for the best that there's a new thread started.]
Is Frost asking that the ECJ be taken out of the NIP, or out of any role in the Good Friday Agreement (does it have one in that)?
AFAICS the ECJ role in the NIP is quite firmly circumscribed, so its a minor point unless the demand is symbolic.
Can anyone clarify?