Mind-blowing - and they reckon they're under-staffed? Cut! Cut! Cut!
It is just like Nottingham Police asking people to report misogyny so that they could record it. Not because it was a crime (because it is isn't)
It is not up to the Police to do this sort of thing. It is a waste of resources.
Now this is not to say that misogyny is not wrong or that it should be ignored. But it is not up to an individual police force to record and investigate non-criminal behaviour.
They accepted him before this came up, so I doubt they could refuse him a place - and I'm not going to try!
I get the impression it's not meant to be an inspection, but it sure feels like one. I shall report later once it's over ...
You can bet your bottom dollar that they would report you if they saw something suspicious. So it's an inspection in all but name.
You could have some fun with them by hanging a large UKIP banner in the lounge and photos of Maggie in the hall etc.
I was thinking he could have the shotguns out for cleaning. A friend of my dad's likes to gloat about doing that when his daughter brought home her first boyfriend. It left a lasting impression.
So desperate to make clever debating points you don’t stop to read and think
They could be wrong. But it’s not internally contradictory
We should remember this is the same crew that said long-term economic forecasts were laughable and worthless when they pointed to a negative consequence of Brexit. Quite the Damascene conversion now they've got their tame economist to pen a report.
I think most long-term economic forecasts of whatever stripe are useless.
Demographic forecasts are less so - one reason being because you tend to get 18 year notice of those - but the correlation isn’t 1:1.
Very few economic forecasters seem to be able to understand or forecast the impact of AI on the need for mass immigration of low-skilled labour (or indeed on anything else) which may make this stuff all look very horse & cart in 20 years time.
I agree we will need a radically different social contract and taxation scheme in 20 years time. That will NOT be a fun transition.
If that’s a standard Q&A I suspect that q21 & 22 set out the detailed answer to the same question phrased slightly differently and they assume their readers are intelligent t enough to u derstand that.
Michael Deacon is just being mischievous
I suspect not. However neither of us is investing any time to confirm.
It's extremely mischievous because the text underneath has been blanked out:
However going to p21 as directed, I came across this gem: "Furthermore, in the short-term, under WTO rules, we have the authority to reduce/eliminate tariffs on our imports if we wish and wave through imports from the EU with minimal or no physical checks, as we do today. Thus, claims that there will be import shortages are completely baseless. Of course, under WTO MFN rules, we also would have to make such reductions available to non-EU countries."
I translate this from Brexiteer to Reality as "If we want to keep food on the table, and stop all the diabetics from dying, we need to open our borders and accept whatever China wants to send our way."
Very reassuring to the manufacturing sector, I'm sure.
You really do need to understand what you are talking about. Not checking items at Customs (which happens to 95%+ of non EU items already) does NOT, repeat does NOT mean that they are allowed to be sold in the UK. To be sold in the UK you need to comply with UK regulations (as they will be after Brexit).
Customs paperwork will still need to declare that the items are compliant as they do today. The ERG are advocating less physical checks, not the abolition of import declarations. Compliance with regulations is monitored at the point of sale. So allowing imports with minimal customs checks is really very little different from what happens already, and will not in any way mean that the Chinese can start selling large amounts of non-compliant items in the UK.
In the second screenshot they say that much of the current account deficit has been eliminated (and so no further devaluation is likely). What do people think? Is that a fair and accurate summary of the current account deficit figures?
I thought it was at its worst ever. Easy for an economist to get confused between current account deficit and budget deficit
Yes, that's the point. Brexiteers will immediately claim that anybody that was worried about no deal was scaremongering, despite the "deal" being everything they said they didn't want.
Not sure why you are having such trouble parsing English.
Mind-blowing - and they reckon they're under-staffed? Cut! Cut! Cut!
EDIT: and start at the top!
Police officers, like most of the rest of us, want an easy life. Most will want to follow the path of least resistance whilst earning a salary for them and their families.
Who wants to be out tackling hardened aggressive criminals or patrolling on foot in all weathers when you can fight hate from your desk with a doughnut and a coffee, or zap speeding motorists on the motorway, whilst chatting with your mate for most of the day in a nice warm car?
Osborne was shamed for wanting to tax pasties. There are doubtless thousands of other petty examples from previous years and decades. Instead of being able to disagree reasonably shame was used as a way to win an argument without having to work hard to do so.
It's no wonder that shame has lost its potency as a result.
Yes, that's the point. Brexiteers will immediately claim that anybody that was worried about no deal was scaremongering, despite the "deal" being everything they said they didn't want.
Not sure why you are having such trouble parsing English.
Actually, no deal is less a problem for its instrinsic no dealness but because neither side has properly prepared for it, and a whole raft of international agreements would immediately expire.
If we had 7-10 years of preparation for infrastructure and IT, on both sides of the channel, together with all the deals grandfathered across with all business prepared it wouldn’t be a huge issue.
My little 'un started reception today, mornings only for the first two weeks. This afternoon we're having a visit from his teachers, where they come and have a chat and see him play in his home environment. It seems many (all?) schools in this area do this.
I don't think it happened when I was a kid, so when did this start, and how widespread is it?
That feels very invasive to me. Surely the very presence of his teacher will change how he plays in his home environment - thus rendering the observation rather pointless...
Agree. A bit creepy, that.
Possibly just looking out for red flags in their home life?
Teachers are expected to be social workers these days it feels to me.
Surely they should ask your permission first?
They did ask permission.
I just looked online, and apparently one reason is to check you really live where you say you live.
Weird. How much free time to teachers have that they can spend time visiting each and every one of their pupils? Were you wearing your balaclava when you first dropped your kid off or something?
That's the odd thing: he was in nursery at the same school for the last academic year, so he knows the school, they know us, and we're fairly happy.
For the first two weeks they're at school for mornings only, and I think they use the afternoons for the inspection visits. Of the four primary schools in the village, at least three of the do this (unsure about the fourth).
I did wear my balaclava to drop him off once, but it was snowing heavily so I was more sensible than those who didn't even wear hats ...
Would they have refused your child a place at school if you had said no? I'm curious under what power they are allowed to perform inspections of their pupil's homes.
They accepted him before this came up, so I doubt they could refuse him a place - and I'm not going to try!
I get the impression it's not meant to be an inspection, but it sure feels like one. I shall report later once it's over ...
You can bet your bottom dollar that they would report you if they saw something suspicious. So it's an inspection in all but name.
Well, I've hidden the pentagram, put the entrails in a cupboard, and the cat has been banished to the garden. Our gimp masks and my collection of Katana swords are still on display, though.
However going to p21 as directed, I came across this gem: "Furthermore, in the short-term, under WTO rules, we have the authority to reduce/eliminate tariffs on our imports if we wish and wave through imports from the EU with minimal or no physical checks, as we do today. Thus, claims that there will be import shortages are completely baseless. Of course, under WTO MFN rules, we also would have to make such reductions available to non-EU countries."
I translate this from Brexiteer to Reality as "If we want to keep food on the table, and stop all the diabetics from dying, we need to open our borders and accept whatever China wants to send our way."
Very reassuring to the manufacturing sector, I'm sure.
You really do need to understand what you are talking about. Not checking items at Customs (which happens to 95%+ of non EU items already) does NOT, repeat does NOT mean that they are allowed to be sold in the UK. To be sold in the UK you need to comply with UK regulations (as they will be after Brexit).
Customs paperwork will still need to declare that the items are compliant as they do today. The ERG are advocating less physical checks, not the abolition of import declarations. Compliance with regulations is monitored at the point of sale. So allowing imports with minimal customs checks is really very little different from what happens already, and will not in any way mean that the Chinese can start selling large amounts of non-compliant items in the UK.
Oh dear. The conversation is about tariffs, not compliance. But thank you so much for explaining an obvious and completely tangential point. Apologies for the use of long words there.
The Chinese can manufacture *compliant* goods very cheaply and send them here, where they would be checked and accepted and have no tariff applied. They would then be sold in our shops as manufacturers from Thurso to Penzance went bust.
Yes, that's the point. Brexiteers will immediately claim that anybody that was worried about no deal was scaremongering, despite the "deal" being everything they said they didn't want.
Not sure why you are having such trouble parsing English.
I blame the time
Thanks though, it hadn't clicked that he was referring to no deal in the last bit.
If that’s a standard Q&A I suspect that q21 & 22 set out the detailed answer to the same question phrased slightly differently and they assume their readers are intelligent t enough to u derstand that.
Michael Deacon is just being mischievous
I suspect not. However neither of us is investing any time to confirm.
It's extremely mischievous because the text underneath has been blanked out:
However going to p21 as directed, I came across this gem: "Furthermore, in the short-term, under WTO rules, we have the authority to reduce/eliminate tariffs on our imports if we wish and wave through imports from the EU with minimal or no physical checks, as we do today. Thus, claims that there will be import shortages are completely baseless. Of course, under WTO MFN rules, we also would have to make such reductions available to non-EU countries."
I translate this from Brexiteer to Reality as "If we want to keep food on the table, and stop all the diabetics from dying, we need to open our borders and accept whatever China wants to send our way."
Very reassuring to the manufacturing sector, I'm sure.
You really do need to understand what you are talking about. Not checking items at Customs (which happens to 95%+ of non EU items already) does NOT, repeat does NOT mean that they are allowed to be sold in the UK. To be sold in the UK you need to comply with UK regulations (as they will be after Brexit).
Customs paperwork will still need to declare that the items are compliant as they do today. The ERG are advocating less physical checks, not the abolition of import declarations. Compliance with regulations is monitored at the point of sale. So allowing imports with minimal customs checks is really very little different from what happens already, and will not in any way mean that the Chinese can start selling large amounts of non-compliant items in the UK.
Typical ignorant Leaver.
"FEWER" physical checks. Unless you mean they are advocating the same number of checks but to make them less physical.
So desperate to make clever debating points you don’t stop to read and think
They could be wrong. But it’s not internally contradictory
We should remember this is the same crew that said long-term economic forecasts were laughable and worthless when they pointed to a negative consequence of Brexit. Quite the Damascene conversion now they've got their tame economist to pen a report.
I think most long-term economic forecasts of whatever stripe are useless.
Demographic forecasts are less so - one reason being because you tend to get 18 year notice of those - but the correlation isn’t 1:1.
Very few economic forecasters seem to be able to understand or forecast the impact of AI on the need for mass immigration of low-skilled labour (or indeed on anything else) which may make this stuff all look very horse & cart in 20 years time.
I agree we will need a radically different social contract and taxation scheme in 20 years time. That will NOT be a fun transition.
Or it might be fine.
Management consultancy and personal trainers didn’t exist as jobs 40 years ago.
I expect we’ll move into more “human” based economic sectors, like leisure, gaming, social and health care, culture and high-end people services we currently can’t anticipate.
Also, there is a limit. People hate automated bot-based call centres regardless of how good the bot is - you want to talk to a real person because it might empathise with you.
If that’s a standard Q&A I suspect that q21 & 22 set out the detailed answer to the same question phrased slightly differently and they assume their readers are intelligent t enough to u derstand that.
Michael Deacon is just being mischievous
I suspect not. However neither of us is investing any time to confirm.
It's extremely mischievous because the text underneath has been blanked out:
However going to p21 as directed, I came across this gem: "Furthermore, in the short-term, under WTO rules, we have the authority to reduce/eliminate tariffs on our imports if we wish and wave through imports from the EU with minimal or no physical checks, as we do today. Thus, claims that there will be import shortages are completely baseless. Of course, under WTO MFN rules, we also would have to make such reductions available to non-EU countries."
I translate this from Brexiteer to Reality as "If we want to keep food on the table, and stop all the diabetics from dying, we need to open our borders and accept whatever China wants to send our way."
Very reassuring to the manufacturing sector, I'm sure.
You really do need to understand what you are talking about. Not checking items at Customs (which happens to 95%+ of non EU items already) does NOT, repeat does NOT mean that they are allowed to be sold in the UK. To be sold in the UK you need to comply with UK regulations (as they will be after Brexit).
Customs paperwork will still need to declare that the items are compliant as they do today. The ERG are advocating less physical checks, not the abolition of import declarations. Compliance with regulations is monitored at the point of sale. So allowing imports with minimal customs checks is really very little different from what happens already, and will not in any way mean that the Chinese can start selling large amounts of non-compliant items in the UK.
Typical ignorant Leaver.
"FEWER" physical checks. Unless you mean they are advocating the same number of checks but to make them less physical.
He thinks I'm saying China will start exporting children's toys made from asbestos and razor blades, and we just have to accept that as a price for Brexit. Spoiler: I am not.
It's no wonder that shame has lost its potency as a result.
Trump is shameless Corbyn is shameless BoZo is shameless
Are we really in a better place?
The analogy I would draw is with antibiotics. If you overuse them, they stop working, and then you are in a world of pain and torment. Your mistake was to overuse them, but once you are suffering the consequences I've no idea how you repair the damage.
Edit: But that's not the same as saying you shouldn't have used it when appropriate, just that a pasty tax was not the time to bring out the siege guns of shame.
Actually, no deal is less a problem for its instrinsic no dealness
together with all the deals grandfathered across .
Once again, "no deal" would be fine, as long as we had a deal in place...
Epic fuckwittery, on a Global scale.
“No deal” would be fine if we had a mutually agreed UK-EU plan to migrate to an agreed “no deal” situation between us over a number of years. The issue for March 2019 is one of sudden “shock” over an instant sudden move.
WTO rules are intrinsically survivable once it becomes steady-state.
And, no, I don’t favour that outcome, as you know.
Isn't the EU just a greater form of protectionism? Others downthread were commenting that no deal would leave the market flooded with cheap Chinese goods, causing local businesses to go under?
If that’s a standard Q&A I suspect that q21 & 22 set out the detailed answer to the same question phrased slightly differently and they assume their readers are intelligent t enough to u derstand that.
Michael Deacon is just being mischievous
I suspect not. However neither of us is investing any time to confirm.
It's extremely mischievous because the text underneath has been blanked out:
However going to p21 as directed, I came across this gem: "Furthermore, in the short-term, under WTO rules, we have the authority to reduce/eliminate tariffs on our imports if we wish and wave through imports from the EU with minimal or no physical checks, as we do today. Thus, claims that there will be import shortages are completely baseless. Of course, under WTO MFN rules, we also would have to make such reductions available to non-EU countries."
I translate this from Brexiteer to Reality as "If we want to keep food on the table, and stop all the diabetics from dying, we need to open our borders and accept whatever China wants to send our way."
Very reassuring to the manufacturing sector, I'm sure.
You really do need to understand what you are talking about. Not checking items at Customs (which happens to 95%+ of non EU items already) does NOT, repeat does NOT mean that they are allowed to be sold in the UK. To be sold in the UK you need to comply with UK regulations (as they will be after Brexit).
Customs paperwork will still need to declare that the items are compliant as they do today. The ERG are advocating less physical checks, not the abolition of import declarations. Compliance with regulations is monitored at the point of sale. So allowing imports with minimal customs checks is really very little different from what happens already, and will not in any way mean that the Chinese can start selling large amounts of non-compliant items in the UK.
Ahem, as to the substance.
The WTO regime, if that is what they mean, does not force more or any border checks. It just stipulates that you can't discriminate between countries. So if, say, you decide to wave all EU goods through the border (whichever one) with no checks, then China, say, which is currently subject to checks (and not just at point of sale), could appeal to the WTO that we have discriminated under MFN.
So desperate to make clever debating points you don’t stop to read and think
They could be wrong. But it’s not internally contradictory
We should remember this is the same crew that said long-term economic forecasts were laughable and worthless when they pointed to a negative consequence of Brexit. Quite the Damascene conversion now they've got their tame economist to pen a report.
I think most long-term economic forecasts of whatever stripe are useless.
Demographic forecasts are less so - one reason being because you tend to get 18 year notice of those - but the correlation isn’t 1:1.
Very few economic forecasters seem to be able to understand or forecast the impact of AI on the need for mass immigration of low-skilled labour (or indeed on anything else) which may make this stuff all look very horse & cart in 20 years time.
I agree we will need a radically different social contract and taxation scheme in 20 years time. That will NOT be a fun transition.
Or it might be fine.
Management consultancy and personal trainers didn’t exist as jobs 40 years ago.
I expect we’ll move into more “human” based economic sectors, like leisure, gaming, social and health care, culture and high-end people services we currently can’t anticipate.
Also, there is a limit. People hate automated bot-based call centres regardless of how good the bot is - you want to talk to a real person because it might empathise with you.
Being a Remoaner, I'm am locked in a view that the future is a dystopian one
Well, the first tweet isn’t true for a start. The WTO has been constantly moving on during that period including with rounds on GATS and tarrifs. Other G7 countries trade between each other on WTO rules too.
It does mean unravelling a large degree of integration of our own market with the EU single market, via instant erection of non-tariff barriers and probable slow regulatory divergence, but that’s not quite the same thing.
So desperate to make clever debating points you don’t stop to read and think
They could be wrong. But it’s not internally contradictory
We should remember this is the same crew that said long-term economic forecasts were laughable and worthless when they pointed to a negative consequence of Brexit. Quite the Damascene conversion now they've got their tame economist to pen a report.
I think most long-term economic forecasts of whatever stripe are useless.
Demographic forecasts are less so - one reason being because you tend to get 18 year notice of those - but the correlation isn’t 1:1.
Very few economic forecasters seem to be able to understand or forecast the impact of AI on the need for mass immigration of low-skilled labour (or indeed on anything else) which may make this stuff all look very horse & cart in 20 years time.
I agree we will need a radically different social contract and taxation scheme in 20 years time. That will NOT be a fun transition.
Or it might be fine.
Management consultancy and personal trainers didn’t exist as jobs 40 years ago.
I expect we’ll move into more “human” based economic sectors, like leisure, gaming, social and health care, culture and high-end people services we currently can’t anticipate.
Also, there is a limit. People hate automated bot-based call centres regardless of how good the bot is - you want to talk to a real person because it might empathise with you.
Being a Remoaner, I'm am locked in a view that the future is a dystopian one
Isn't the EU just a greater form of protectionism? Others downthread were commenting that no deal would leave the market flooded with cheap Chinese goods, causing local businesses to go under?
That was me, and I think it's the same point. Voluntarily putting yourself at a huge competitive disadvantage when the rest of the world pulls up the drawbridge. All so you don't starve or die of a mild infection*.
* That was the rationale in the Brexitonomics paper, not mine!
The WTO regime, if that is what they mean, does not force more or any border checks. It just stipulates that you can't discriminate between countries. So if, say, you decide to wave all EU goods through the border (whichever one) with no checks, then China, say, which is currently subject to checks (and not just at point of sale), could appeal to the WTO that we have discriminated under MFN.
Haven’t you got anything better to do today other than copy and paste your twitter feed onto this website?
No
Why not get a job? There's plenty of them out there I'm told despite Brexit.
Who is saying we aren’t at work?
I'd say if you spend your day cutting and pasting your twitter feed for the 'benefit' of others then chances are you might be struggling to find meaningful employment.
However going to p21 as directed, I came across this gem: "Furthermore, in the short-term, under WTO rules, we have the authority to reduce/eliminate tariffs on our imports if we wish and wave through imports from the EU with minimal or no physical checks, as we do today. Thus, claims that there will be import shortages are completely baseless. Of course, under WTO MFN rules, we also would have to make such reductions available to non-EU countries."
I translate this from Brexiteer to Reality as "If we want to keep food on the table, and stop all the diabetics from dying, we need to open our borders and accept whatever China wants to send our way."
Very reassuring to the manufacturing sector, I'm sure.
You really do need to understand what you are talking about. Not checking items at Customs (which happens to 95%+ of non EU items already) does NOT, repeat does NOT mean that they are allowed to be sold in the UK. To be sold in the UK you need to comply with UK regulations (as they will be after Brexit).
Customs paperwork will still need to declare that the items are compliant as they do today. The ERG are advocating less physical checks, not the abolition of import declarations. Compliance with regulations is monitored at the point of sale. So allowing imports with minimal customs checks is really very little different from what happens already, and will not in any way mean that the Chinese can start selling large amounts of non-compliant items in the UK.
Oh dear. The conversation is about tariffs, not compliance. But thank you so much for explaining an obvious and completely tangential point. Apologies for the use of long words there.
The Chinese can manufacture *compliant* goods very cheaply and send them here, where they would be checked and accepted and have no tariff applied. They would then be sold in our shops as manufacturers from Thurso to Penzance went bust.
If we use the current EU rules of doing business with third parties. Then the Chinese can not send us goods at all. The Chinese goods need to be imported by a UK based importer, that guarantees they meet the regulations and has to provide proof within 5 days if requested.
The WTO regime, if that is what they mean, does not force more or any border checks. It just stipulates that you can't discriminate between countries. So if, say, you decide to wave all EU goods through the border (whichever one) with no checks, then China, say, which is currently subject to checks (and not just at point of sale), could appeal to the WTO that we have discriminated under MFN.
Jesus, that's actually *worse* than I thought.
People (Remainers also) often mistake the dynamic, saying that the "WTO forces countries to maintain hard borders". This is not so; it would be another WTO member that would appeal to the WTO under MFN rules that if we didn't have, say, border checks for French widgets, then to have border checks for, say, Chinese widgets would be discriminatory and hence the WTO dispute settlement process might rule that we would have to have checks for both or neither.
Those pesky supranational sovereignty-eating bodies, eh!
Haven’t you got anything better to do today other than copy and paste your twitter feed onto this website?
No
Why not get a job? There's plenty of them out there I'm told despite Brexit.
Who is saying we aren’t at work?
I'd say if you spend your day cutting and pasting your twitter feed for the 'benefit' of others then chances are you might be struggling to find meaningful employment.
What the f*ck does it matter how PB-ers spend their day. What's too much time on PB? Let he who is without sin...
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
It's almost as if opinions change over 45 years.
So you’d be happy with a second referendum?
For the avoidance of doubt I ‘remain’ to be convinced it would go the way I’d prefer!
You imply that know how I voted? That's remarkable.
I would be happier never to see referendums rear their head again unless the implementation of it is a wholly domestic matter and it is made clear how it will be implemented - see by way of example the Irish referendum on abortion.
As I take it that you'd ne in favour, you might explain what "remain" means and how you will bind third parties to agree with what you will argue that it means. Without that, any result would be as illegitimate as the previous referendum.
Good afternoon Mr M. Lunch and various family matters have interrupted my participation in Pb.
I’ve no idea how you voted. However, I agree with you about referenda in general. They are not, IMHO, normally compatible with a Parliamentary democracy. For the avoidance of doubt, while I’m doubtful about of joining the Euro, in the sort-term anyway, but otherwise I would simply like to see us taking a full part in the affairs of Europe again, as full members of the European Union
The WTO regime, if that is what they mean, does not force more or any border checks. It just stipulates that you can't discriminate between countries. So if, say, you decide to wave all EU goods through the border (whichever one) with no checks, then China, say, which is currently subject to checks (and not just at point of sale), could appeal to the WTO that we have discriminated under MFN.
Jesus, that's actually *worse* than I thought.
People (Remainers also) often mistake the dynamic, saying that the "WTO forces countries to maintain hard borders". This is not so; it would be another WTO member that would appeal to the WTO under MFN rules that if we didn't have, say, border checks for French widgets, then to have border checks for, say, Chinese widgets would be discriminatory and hence the WTO dispute settlement process might rule that we would have to have checks for both or neither.
Those pesky supranational sovereignty-eating bodies, eh!
At least we all get to vote for them. *whisper, whisper* Wait, what?
Ditched lurking to ask the legal brains trust a question if I may. I have tried to find the answer for months but few have the answer! My question is: Is a will drawn up in Scotland, legal in England when one has moved back home to live in England?
This may have gotten lost in the froth. A cursory search suggests it will be, but I’m not a lawyer.
Well I suppose that they are at least moving toward reality. It mean less of the stupid ones are being deceived, and the liars will just have to tone down the whoppers a bit. By the time we leave there will probably be a majority who wish we hadn't
The WTO regime, if that is what they mean, does not force more or any border checks. It just stipulates that you can't discriminate between countries. So if, say, you decide to wave all EU goods through the border (whichever one) with no checks, then China, say, which is currently subject to checks (and not just at point of sale), could appeal to the WTO that we have discriminated under MFN.
Jesus, that's actually *worse* than I thought.
People (Remainers also) often mistake the dynamic, saying that the "WTO forces countries to maintain hard borders". This is not so; it would be another WTO member that would appeal to the WTO under MFN rules that if we didn't have, say, border checks for French widgets, then to have border checks for, say, Chinese widgets would be discriminatory and hence the WTO dispute settlement process might rule that we would have to have checks for both or neither.
Those pesky supranational sovereignty-eating bodies, eh!
At least we all get to vote for them. *whisper, whisper* Wait, what?
Brexit = Loss of prosperity and stability in exchange for less regulation on widget trading
Ditched lurking to ask the legal brains trust a question if I may. I have tried to find the answer for months but few have the answer! My question is: Is a will drawn up in Scotland, legal in England when one has moved back home to live in England?
This may have gotten lost in the froth. A cursory search suggests it will be, but I’m not a lawyer.
I am not a lawyer (though married to one), but my understanding is that a will drawn up in a jurisdiction recognised as sound will be very much legal, provided it was properly drafted. That said you should definitely get it checked by a solicitor if you are concerned
Its perfectly possible for countries to agree trade deals in less than a year - but it isn't possible to do so with the EU where it normally takes 6 years plus. Which is sort of the problem.
Oh it is. With the EU and anyone else. Deals you allow the other guys imports but you don't get to export anything to them are pretty quick. Australia did a deal like that with the US. It didn't do Australia much good but it was quick.
Of course the quickest and best deals are when we don't leave the EU.
Comments
EDIT: and start at the top!
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1039490282893520896
What he is saying is that people are saying right now "no deal" will be a catastrophe.
After May signs up to a shitty deal to keep the lights on, Brexiteers will immediately start saying "See, nothing to worry about"
It is not up to the Police to do this sort of thing. It is a waste of resources.
Now this is not to say that misogyny is not wrong or that it should be ignored. But it is not up to an individual police force to record and investigate non-criminal behaviour.
https://twitter.com/MustardSeedUK/status/1039262062743044097?s=19
Customs paperwork will still need to declare that the items are compliant as they do today. The ERG are advocating less physical checks, not the abolition of import declarations. Compliance with regulations is monitored at the point of sale. So allowing imports with minimal customs checks is really very little different from what happens already, and will not in any way mean that the Chinese can start selling large amounts of non-compliant items in the UK.
Not sure why you are having such trouble parsing English.
Who wants to be out tackling hardened aggressive criminals or patrolling on foot in all weathers when you can fight hate from your desk with a doughnut and a coffee, or zap speeding motorists on the motorway, whilst chatting with your mate for most of the day in a nice warm car?
It's no wonder that shame has lost its potency as a result.
Corbyn is shameless
BoZo is shameless
Are we really in a better place?
If we had 7-10 years of preparation for infrastructure and IT, on both sides of the channel, together with all the deals grandfathered across with all business prepared it wouldn’t be a huge issue.
The Chinese can manufacture *compliant* goods very cheaply and send them here, where they would be checked and accepted and have no tariff applied. They would then be sold in our shops as manufacturers from Thurso to Penzance went bust.
Thanks though, it hadn't clicked that he was referring to no deal in the last bit.
Epic fuckwittery, on a Global scale.
"FEWER" physical checks. Unless you mean they are advocating the same number of checks but to make them less physical.
Management consultancy and personal trainers didn’t exist as jobs 40 years ago.
I expect we’ll move into more “human” based economic sectors, like leisure, gaming, social and health care, culture and high-end people services we currently can’t anticipate.
Also, there is a limit. People hate automated bot-based call centres regardless of how good the bot is - you want to talk to a real person because it might empathise with you.
https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1039498032172163072
Edit: But that's not the same as saying you shouldn't have used it when appropriate, just that a pasty tax was not the time to bring out the siege guns of shame.
WTO rules are intrinsically survivable once it becomes steady-state.
And, no, I don’t favour that outcome, as you know.
The WTO regime, if that is what they mean, does not force more or any border checks. It just stipulates that you can't discriminate between countries. So if, say, you decide to wave all EU goods through the border (whichever one) with no checks, then China, say, which is currently subject to checks (and not just at point of sale), could appeal to the WTO that we have discriminated under MFN.
It does mean unravelling a large degree of integration of our own market with the EU single market, via instant erection of non-tariff barriers and probable slow regulatory divergence, but that’s not quite the same thing.
I’m sure I can sort something out for a man of your talent.
* That was the rationale in the Brexitonomics paper, not mine!
Those pesky supranational sovereignty-eating bodies, eh!
NEW THREAD
I’ve no idea how you voted. However, I agree with you about referenda in general. They are not, IMHO, normally compatible with a Parliamentary democracy.
For the avoidance of doubt, while I’m doubtful about of joining the Euro, in the sort-term anyway, but otherwise I would simply like to see us taking a full part in the affairs of Europe again, as full members of the European Union
*whisper, whisper*
Wait, what?
Of course the quickest and best deals are when we don't leave the EU.