Market doesn't exist. It'll be an old price from before the GE with oddschecker picking up stale information. I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
1 pence is approximately how much I'm allowed on Betfair Sportsbook political markets these days.
Yepp, after my 2007 killing, Victor Chandler simply closed my account on the spot (after paying out of course), and all other bookies (except to their credit Hills) reduced my stakes to peanuts.
If they close or cripple winning accounts but allow losing accounts to keep trading, then the industry is bent. Who knew?
Yes they could be that stupid -- they gave themselves Covid-19 and drove 60 miles to check they can see well enough to drive -- but @Scott_xP's earlier suggestion that screwing Rishi Sunak is the main attraction is not without merit. It is the Chancellor's popularity that makes defenstrating Boris practicable. Nonetheless, a change in policy this week would not be too surprising.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
What the government should say is that they will allow footballers a 45% tax rebate for all money they donate to FSM.
Given that the average premier league footballers earns well over a million they should be able to raise the money with ease. If they want to.
I don't understand this argument. Premier League footballers are the undeserving wealthy.
Whenever say, Branson demands government action nobody expects him to finance the project. Indeed Branson is pleading for state help to bail out airlines. He isn't expected to fund it by selling Necker Island.
I haven't seen any support for Branson's demands on here!
Necker Island is worth a tiny fraction of what Branson is demanding in loans, as well.
Not really. 16% has been fairly typical of SLab support in recent years.
But they ought to be worried. Why no Starmer effect? He has great approval ratings, even in Scotland.
Westminster polls in Scotland are irrelevant to his chances of becoming PM anyway as the SNP will always vote to make Starmer PM over Boris or any other Tory.
However beyond that he just needs to wait for the SNP civil war when either the Nationalists win another majority at Holyrood and Sturgeon refused to hold indyref2 without Westminster consent when Boris vetoes it, or there is a Unionist majority and in which case SLab will be up anyway
Are you seriously trying to tell us that Starmer considers Scotland to be “irrelevant”? That is classic psychological projection. Just because you and your tawdry party have given up on Scotland does not mean that everyone else has.
It is also pretty gobsmacking that a Tory, of all people, should accuse other parties of having civil wars. Your own civil wars have been ongoing ever since the days of “Wets” and “Bastards”, and don’t look like they are going to end any time soon.
At Westminster level yes, an SNP or Labour MP will both vote to make Starmer PM, a Tory MP from England or Wales will not.
The Tories MPs are now united behind getting Brexit done which they delivered in January, SNP MPs and MSPs are split down the middle on transgender rights and in Sturgeon and Salmond camps now
You love lumping folk together:
SCon + Slab + SLD = same thing
Lab + SNP = same thing
Tory spin + reality = same thing
Of course, the real world is more complex than that.
Then we have your Tories Are United line, which is self-evident nonsense, and will become increasingly obvious as the Johnson regime collapses due to mass unemployment, a collapse in international trade, gross incompetence, in-fighting and a broken, obese, decayed circus performer at the helm.
“F*ck business” he said. And he meant it.
Johnson has his party fully united behind his message.
Sturgeon increasingly looks like Theresa May, the backbenchers are getting restless at her dithering over independence and her trans rights focus and looking to Salmond, the Prince across the Water
Yes, of course, Theresa May was forever at 50% in the VI polls and posting approval ratings north of +80. How could I have forgotten that?
To be “fully united behind his message”, we’d have to know what the prime minister’s message was. Neither his party nor the electorate can fathom what his message is. Except “F*ck Business” of course. That much is obvious.
In 2016 and early 2017 May had a huge poll lead yes and very high approval ratings.
The Tories message is get Brexit Done which they have done, Sturgeon's message is either and delay, make Indy messages to the restless base but not do anything without Westminster consent while being consumed by a cultural battle over trans rights
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.
This is an old article, from 2007, but I'm inclined to suspect that Rashford has heard stories of similar being threatened more recently. It's not exactly easy for families without enough money to pay the water bill to enforce the law.
"Water companies are permitted to disconnect the supply in certain circumstances - say, if the property is unoccupied. And Citizens Advice says that, increasingly, firms chasing bills are threatening disconnection on the grounds that the house has become empty when they know - or should know - it is occupied."
Theresa Coffey should be sacked for that comment alone
Although I had read last week she is one of the ministers on the way out in the July shuffle
Stating the facts is hardly a sackable offence and if a house is unoccupied is the only legal ground to disconnect there is nobody in it anyway
You are as stupid as she is
Perhaps you would prefer to engage in facts rather than abuse
I’m loving all this United Tories stuff. Keep up the good work lads.
It is always much easier to give people free stuff than take it away. The food parcel issue is the first of many things that government will face outrage when they try and remove to go back to normal.
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
If we have left the EU, ended free movement, regained control of our fishing waters and can do our own trade deals and got a trade deal with the EU that is no surrender, it is a triumph!
Paddy Power have launched their over/under seats prices for the next UK GE. They are very bullish on Lib Dem and Con seats, and very bearish on Labour seats. An opportunity?
All priced at 5/6 (GE 2019)
Con seats over/under 329.5 (365)
Lab seats over/under 206.5 (202)
SNP seats over/under 47.5 (48)
Lib Dem seats over/under 40.5 (11)
Is Starmer really only expected to get five more seats than Corbyn? Really?
Over Labour and under the other three makes sense. With quadruple stakes on LD seats as that is the most value.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
The catch is the "alignment with any future new rules". Remember that one of the critiques of the EU is the frog-boiling nature of new regulations. That is likely to continue, especially if there are no UK voices to slow things down.
In this situation, I'd be pretty confident that it will never ever be worth the shock of the UK saying "no, we're definitively off". Because the sheer hassle of a full-fat customs border at Dover will never be more than theoretically worth it.
In reality it has never been on the agenda. I am surprised you display the Daily Express, a paper than is so unbalanced and obsessed as to make objectivie reporting virtually impossible.
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
If we* have left the EU, ended free movement and can do our own trade deals and got a trade deal with the EU that is no surrender, it is a triumph!
Paddy Power have launched their over/under seats prices for the next UK GE. They are very bullish on Lib Dem and Con seats, and very bearish on Labour seats. An opportunity?
All priced at 5/6 (GE 2019)
Con seats over/under 329.5 (365)
Lab seats over/under 206.5 (202)
SNP seats over/under 47.5 (48)
Lib Dem seats over/under 40.5 (11)
Is Starmer really only expected to get five more seats than Corbyn? Really?
Over Labour and under the other three makes sense. With quadruple stakes on LD seats as that is the most value.
Thing about fishing for the Brexit negotiations. Access to UK waters is one of the few good cards the UK holds. ie it's something we have that the other side wants. But cards don't have value unless you play them. In other words, the UK either uses fishing quotas as a bargaining chip or it gives the waters to UK fisherman. It can't do both.
On the contrary, what we need are markets into which to sell our fish.
Indeed. The EU has plenty of things that we want (and have taken for granted up to now). A concession is the other side of the coin from a card to play. In response to @DavidL's comment about fish processing being more important than fish catching, he's right. That's why tariffs on processed fish are a lot higher than fresh fish. Brexit will be very challenging to the Scottish smoked salmon industry and will probably kill it in the case of No Deal.
Brexit will be bad for Scottish industry and jobs? Who knew?
Nope rubbish again. If we tied ourselves to a trade deal on disadvantageous terms - particularly if it has ECJ oversight - then that is us screwed permanently. However long it takes for us to sort out our own arrangements, once we do choose to diverge we will be able to - something we could never do if we had agreed a poor deal with the EU.
The comedy is that the "disadvantageous terms" are nothing compared to what America et al will impose on us. And yes, we free ourselves of the ECJ. But we will still obey EU standards on all the stuff we export to them. Just as we obey US standards, Japanese standards etc.
The deal we are going to agree is the current deal with tweaks and a new name. The Morris Ital of deals.
PS the ability to change laws after elections as the red line that matters is why I couldn't give less of a shit over the so-called border in the Irish Sea. Since the future of the special arrangements are devolved to Stormont under Boris's deal (not the case under May's) there is a very simple solution, if the people of NI are unhappy the can elect to Stormont those who will end the special arrangements.
If they don't do so, that's their choice.
Is the logical follow-on that you would accept a deal that replicated the status quo, but included a mechanism whereby the UK could diverge, if it chose to, but would then lose a degree of access as a result?
Premier League starts tommorow. It will be heavily watched particularly by WC. I expect to see a lot of "taking the knee". Ditto in Gridiron when it starts.
The Tories need to be careful with the culture war stuff. It doesn't play well to their younger supporters.
Thing about fishing for the Brexit negotiations. Access to UK waters is one of the few good cards the UK holds. ie it's something we have that the other side wants. But cards don't have value unless you play them. In other words, the UK either uses fishing quotas as a bargaining chip or it gives the waters to UK fisherman. It can't do both.
On the contrary, what we need are markets into which to sell our fish.
Indeed. The EU has plenty of things that we want (and have taken for granted up to now). A concession is the other side of the coin from a card to play. In response to @DavidL's comment about fish processing being more important than fish catching, he's right. That's why tariffs on processed fish are a lot higher than fresh fish. Brexit will be very challenging to the Scottish smoked salmon industry and will probably kill it in the case of No Deal.
Brexit will be bad for Scottish industry and jobs? Who knew?
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
Coronavirus has made no deal quite possible economically. Estimates were generally a hit of 2-6%, if its that scale it could be lost in the wash because of covid. Even more so as the losses wouldnt hit everyone equally, most people wouldnt notice, others would lose their jobs and be hit heavily. The economy will need rebuilding and rebalancing anyway, incorporating no deal is easier in that scenario than when things are "normal".
By far the worst scenario is extension now followed by no deal in 2022/3 - given our political elites record of consistently choosing the worst option recently perhaps that is what we will get.
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
Premier League starts tommorow. It will be heavily watched particularly by WC. I expect to see a lot of "taking the knee". Ditto in Gridiron when it starts.
The Tories need to be careful with the culture war stuff. It doesn't play well to their younger supporters.
Paddy Power have launched their over/under seats prices for the next UK GE. They are very bullish on Lib Dem and Con seats, and very bearish on Labour seats. An opportunity?
All priced at 5/6 (GE 2019)
Con seats over/under 329.5 (365)
Lab seats over/under 206.5 (202)
SNP seats over/under 47.5 (48)
Lib Dem seats over/under 40.5 (11)
Is Starmer really only expected to get five more seats than Corbyn? Really?
Over Labour and under the other three makes sense. With quadruple stakes on LD seats as that is the most value.
Thing about fishing for the Brexit negotiations. Access to UK waters is one of the few good cards the UK holds. ie it's something we have that the other side wants. But cards don't have value unless you play them. In other words, the UK either uses fishing quotas as a bargaining chip or it gives the waters to UK fisherman. It can't do both.
On the contrary, what we need are markets into which to sell our fish.
Indeed. The EU has plenty of things that we want (and have taken for granted up to now). A concession is the other side of the coin from a card to play. In response to @DavidL's comment about fish processing being more important than fish catching, he's right. That's why tariffs on processed fish are a lot higher than fresh fish. Brexit will be very challenging to the Scottish smoked salmon industry and will probably kill it in the case of No Deal.
Brexit will be bad for Scottish industry and jobs? Who knew?
Answer: the Scottish electorate.
That's self-determination for you.
Determination is what those lovely, well-meaning folk in Westminster and Whitehall do for the Scots. As Johann Lamont so wisely observed, the Scots are not genetically programmed to make political decisions.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
This is the only end game in town. WTO has fallen apart faster than a "GATT24 will protect us" argument. We have no alternative deals in place. So we have to continue to enjoy the benefits of EEA membership and the trade deals that gives us. As an ex-EU member its a relatively easy compromise for the EU to accept - they already have the Swiss in a bespoke arrangement. We win back the rights to all the fishing. Not the ability to actually fish of course as we sold them, but the *right* to fish if we owned the rights which we don't. As nothing at all changes materially its another easy give for the Commission. A classic low cost high value trade.
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
Market doesn't exist. It'll be an old price from before the GE with oddschecker picking up stale information. I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
1 pence is approximately how much I'm allowed on Betfair Sportsbook political markets these days.
Yepp, after my 2007 killing, Victor Chandler simply closed my account on the spot (after paying out of course), and all other bookies (except to their credit Hills) reduced my stakes to peanuts.
If they close or cripple winning accounts but allow losing accounts to keep trading, then the industry is bent. Who knew?
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
Why should he? Because it's his bloody idea and his demand!
The onus is on him to explain why the taxpayer - most of whom are infinitely poorer than him - should fund his virtue-signalling schemes.
Premier League starts tommorow. It will be heavily watched particularly by WC. I expect to see a lot of "taking the knee". Ditto in Gridiron when it starts.
The Tories need to be careful with the culture war stuff. It doesn't play well to their younger supporters.
Culture wars stuff is fine for the Tories. They broadly sing off the same hymnsheet. Subjects like trans rights, statues, BLM divide Labour down the middle. If the future is all identity politics it does not bode well for Starmer.
The big outrage will be when the furloughed scheme ends. There will be 100,000s of people who have spent the summer presuming they are going back to work in September and get a nasty shock.
The media will be filled with stories of stories of people in serious financial trouble, losing their home, going hungry etc
Thing about fishing for the Brexit negotiations. Access to UK waters is one of the few good cards the UK holds. ie it's something we have that the other side wants. But cards don't have value unless you play them. In other words, the UK either uses fishing quotas as a bargaining chip or it gives the waters to UK fisherman. It can't do both.
On the contrary, what we need are markets into which to sell our fish.
Indeed. The EU has plenty of things that we want (and have taken for granted up to now). A concession is the other side of the coin from a card to play. In response to @DavidL's comment about fish processing being more important than fish catching, he's right. That's why tariffs on processed fish are a lot higher than fresh fish. Brexit will be very challenging to the Scottish smoked salmon industry and will probably kill it in the case of No Deal.
Brexit will be bad for Scottish industry and jobs? Who knew?
Answer: the Scottish electorate.
That's self-determination for you.
Determination is what those lovely, well-meaning folk in Westminster and Whitehall do for the Scots. As Johann Lamont so wisely observed, the Scots are not genetically programmed to make political decisions.
You might want to add an "Irony Meter Positive Reading" to that 'wisely observed'. Not everyone is familiar with the Scots sarcastic tense, and in the current climate, anything that smacks of Dr Knox and his views ...
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
I would imagine that the Man Utd squad's PAYE contributions probably cover most of the cost already so seems a bit odd to ask for them to pay for it twice. Can't imagine what it is about working class black people earning a lot of money that excites so much politics of envy on the Right.
Leaving aside your fatuous 'point', one positive of these events could and should be a trend toward philanthropy in the footballing community, which is currently absent. Perhaps one day there will be a Marcus Rashford statue.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
This is the only end game in town. WTO has fallen apart faster than a "GATT24 will protect us" argument. We have no alternative deals in place. So we have to continue to enjoy the benefits of EEA membership and the trade deals that gives us. As an ex-EU member its a relatively easy compromise for the EU to accept - they already have the Swiss in a bespoke arrangement. We win back the rights to all the fishing. Not the ability to actually fish of course as we sold them, but the *right* to fish if we owned the rights which we don't. As nothing at all changes materially its another easy give for the Commission. A classic low cost high value trade.
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
I fear being Mexico to the EU's US isn't going to be as much fun as Philip imagines
PS the ability to change laws after elections as the red line that matters is why I couldn't give less of a shit over the so-called border in the Irish Sea. Since the future of the special arrangements are devolved to Stormont under Boris's deal (not the case under May's) there is a very simple solution, if the people of NI are unhappy the can elect to Stormont those who will end the special arrangements.
If they don't do so, that's their choice.
Is the logical follow-on that you would accept a deal that replicated the status quo, but included a mechanism whereby the UK could diverge, if it chose to, but would then lose a degree of access as a result?
Yes.
This is what I expect the deal to actually involve. I expect the deal will be something along the lines of zero tariffs, zero quotas, with a non-regression LPF, no commitment to future dynamic alignment but an option for parties to add tariffs and quotas in the future if divergence is too far.
But then parties to never bother to to add tariffs and quotas. Which would be the ultimate cake and eat it deal, we would have won everything that mattered - full access to the Single Market, control over our laws and ability to diverge, no financial contributions, control over migration - and the EU will have the ability to respond to divergence by adding tariffs in the future but they never will as they have a massive trade surplus with us.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
This is the only end game in town. WTO has fallen apart faster than a "GATT24 will protect us" argument. We have no alternative deals in place. So we have to continue to enjoy the benefits of EEA membership and the trade deals that gives us. As an ex-EU member its a relatively easy compromise for the EU to accept - they already have the Swiss in a bespoke arrangement. We win back the rights to all the fishing. Not the ability to actually fish of course as we sold them, but the *right* to fish if we owned the rights which we don't. As nothing at all changes materially its another easy give for the Commission. A classic low cost high value trade.
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
I fear being Mexico to the EU's US isn't going to be as much fun as Philip imagines
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
Our influence on the EU's decisions? Yes, it is over.
It was never worth anything anyway.
Even within the UK, London is incapable of operating in a collegiate way. If you think our influence was worthless, perhaps that's the reason.
So we had no influence because we didn't go along with everyone else's proposals. Or to put it differently, if we'd gone along with everyone else's proposals, we'd have got our way more often. Whilst undoubtedly true, I'm not sure that qualifies as influence.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
This is the only end game in town. WTO has fallen apart faster than a "GATT24 will protect us" argument. We have no alternative deals in place. So we have to continue to enjoy the benefits of EEA membership and the trade deals that gives us. As an ex-EU member its a relatively easy compromise for the EU to accept - they already have the Swiss in a bespoke arrangement. We win back the rights to all the fishing. Not the ability to actually fish of course as we sold them, but the *right* to fish if we owned the rights which we don't. As nothing at all changes materially its another easy give for the Commission. A classic low cost high value trade.
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
I fear being Mexico to the EU's US isn't going to be as much fun as Philip imagines
Canada. We are Canada to the EU's US.
And its more fun than being a state of the US.
Which part of Canada is equivalent to Northern Ireland? Which US states can unilaterally veto a trade deal with Canada?
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
Of course. What is the alternative? Unless we can start carrying out customs and standards checks we cannot diverge from the current arrangement. We aren't going to extend the transition which keeps the current arrangements so we have to exit to the new arrangements which have to be almost exactly the same as they are now.
We will have the sovereign right to do our own deals. Until then we'll make a "voluntary contribution" to the EEA to maintain their deals. And we'll make a show of starting talks with the US and others. As any deal is years away, will be worse than the EEA deal and means we have to spend £lots trying business up in lovely red tape to apply said worse deals, it'll be booted into the long grass until forgotten about.
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
Our influence on the EU's decisions? Yes, it is over.
It was never worth anything anyway.
Even within the UK, London is incapable of operating in a collegiate way. If you think our influence was worthless, perhaps that's the reason.
So we had no influence because we didn't go along with everyone else's proposals. Or to put it differently, if we'd gone along with everyone else's proposals, we'd have got our way more often. Whilst undoubtedly true, I'm not sure that qualifies as influence.
"Our way" is an illusion. There are a range of different opinions on any given subject within the UK.
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
He has donated personally, I have no idea how much. That is easy for him, I am far more impressed that he has donated a lot of time and effort, he has personally delivered meals, been involved in getting Tesco, Asda and others on board and taking the lobbying beyond just the odd tweet into a professional lobbying campaign. Well done him.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
FWIW I'm not sure the scenario here ended free movement and kept us out of the CAP or CFP. The scenario which kept all the benefits, ended payments, ended FoM and got us out of CAP and CFP plus you can leave when you like would have cheerfully closed down the discussion some time ago. It's called having your cake and eating it.
I am 100% positive the final deal will be a form of "cake and eating it" or "cherrypicking" deal and always have been.
The reason is Europe has always been cherrypicked. The cake that defines the EU has always been Fudge Cake and we will end up with a fudge that works best and eating it. The idea there was one form of option available and everything else was cherrypicking was the biggest unicorn of this entire process.
This image needs updating but sums up my thinking on Europe beautifully. The reality is that countries will find an agreement they're happy with and the UK will end up somewhere else on this Venn Diagram having picked whichever cherries works best.
China kills 3 Indian troops by beating them to death on the LOC (one was a colonel)
There may also be Chinese deaths
North Korea blows up building used by them and South Korea to improve relations...... threatens further military action if North Korean defectors don't stop sending balloons with propaganda messages across border from SK.
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
Agreed, perhaps the government should offer to match every million Rashford puts forward, but these elite footballers have obscene amounts of money and their earnings will have barely taken a scratch from Covid, unlike a lot of the fans that pay their wages and the general taxpayer.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
This is the only end game in town. WTO has fallen apart faster than a "GATT24 will protect us" argument. We have no alternative deals in place. So we have to continue to enjoy the benefits of EEA membership and the trade deals that gives us. As an ex-EU member its a relatively easy compromise for the EU to accept - they already have the Swiss in a bespoke arrangement. We win back the rights to all the fishing. Not the ability to actually fish of course as we sold them, but the *right* to fish if we owned the rights which we don't. As nothing at all changes materially its another easy give for the Commission. A classic low cost high value trade.
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
I fear being Mexico to the EU's US isn't going to be as much fun as Philip imagines
Canada. We are Canada to the EU's US.
And its more fun than being a state of the US.
Which part of Canada is equivalent to Northern Ireland? Which US states can unilaterally veto a trade deal with Canada?
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
Agreed, perhaps the government should offer to match every million Rashford puts forward, but these elite footballers have obscene amounts of money and their earnings will have barely taken a scratch from Covid, unlike a lot of the fans that pay their wages and the general taxpayer.
The Premier League has lost approx £500m due to covid. About 80% of that will come from future player wages. And for those who drop down the leagues the pay drops will be even starker than they are now.
I think the Gov't should stick to it's guns, as @FrancisUrquhart mentions there'll be plenty of pressure them in the coming months anyway, but fair play to Rashford for trying to effect change he believes in in entirely the right way.
Just spoken to my elderly folks who were getting the free food box for the shielded. They said they have been sent a letter asking if they really need it anymore and you can withdraw from the scheme. As often with the elderly, they instantly did so, with mindset that it will help those worse off than themselves.
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
So you are asking for a redistribution of wealth. Excellent! That is fine by me.
Tax Marcus Radford and other high earners on a rate of taxation commensurate with what you think they deserve to pay for social inequality. I am not sure how far that idea will travel within the Conservative Party.
The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.
Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history
So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?
The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.
I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?
I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.
We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.
It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.
I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).
Lammy is an annoying windbag with a chip on his shoulder
Market doesn't exist. It'll be an old price from before the GE with oddschecker picking up stale information. I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
1 pence is approximately how much I'm allowed on Betfair Sportsbook political markets these days.
Yepp, after my 2007 killing, Victor Chandler simply closed my account on the spot (after paying out of course), and all other bookies (except to their credit Hills) reduced my stakes to peanuts.
If they close or cripple winning accounts but allow losing accounts to keep trading, then the industry is bent. Who knew?
It shouldn't be allowed to advertise odds and then not accept bets on them. Should be covered by false advertising law.
Obviously you need to find a popular footballer to argue for your case.
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
If we have left the EU, ended free movement, regained control of our fishing waters and can do our own trade deals and got a trade deal with the EU that is no surrender, it is a triumph!
Indeed. Lets take this apart point by point: 1. We have indeed left the EU 2. We will have stopped EU free movement. Instead we will have UK-invited EEA working arrangements. Where anyone in the EEA is free to work here. At our invitation. Not because anyone has made us 3. We will have regained the ability to negotiate quotas with the EU. We won't be able to actually fish as we sold our rights independently of the EU but we will have the right to negotiate like we do 4. We can negotiate deals. Will take years. Won't be as good. Would need vast amounts of re tape. So won't be implemented. But we will be able to negotiate them.
Or, back to basics. You keep suggesting that people up here just want to stop the foreigners. And thats fine. Tell them they are stopped. They won't be, can't be, remain needed. But tell them we've done it yay Boris.
I think the Gov't should stick to it's guns, as @FrancisUrquhart mentions there'll be plenty of pressure them in the coming months anyway, but fair play to Rashford for trying to effect change he believes in in entirely the right way.
I think you have to make tough decisions early on and stick to them. It is also better to do everything together, otherwise every decision becomes a new battle.
On this specific issue, I honestly don't know enough about it. I have always been somewhat concerned when I speak to teacher friends who regularly say they get kids not fed or clothed properly. Is it poverty, it is neglect, is it lack of education to manage things, bit of all. They normally just shrug and say well we have schemes for them.
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
2nd
And this year is different from usual as the parent(s) have less money because they've been furloughed/laid off etc?
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
The exit has happened. How is it not 'accepted'? The UK is now an external party negotiating with the EU; that doesn't mean that the UK gets everything it wants or even gets a deal.
Neither side will get all they want and that is the nature of negotiation
Of course opponents will shout 'cave in' to the rooftops but the country needs to agree a deal and concentrate on the pandemic and the economy
The rest is just 'noise'
The Tories will cave in for sure, put some lipstick on the pig and call it a beauty, the sychophants and morons will claim it as a victory.
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
So you are asking for a redistribution of weth. Excellent! That is fine by me.
Tax Marcus Radford and other high earners on a rate of taxation commensurate with what you think they deserve to pay for social inequality
Rather than ask the Government to spend even more money, he should campaign for his fellow players to help.
The big outrage will be when the furloughed scheme ends. There will be 100,000s of people who have spent the summer presuming they are going back to work in September and get a nasty shock.
The media will be filled with stories of stories of people in serious financial trouble, losing their home, going hungry etc
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
Agreed, perhaps the government should offer to match every million Rashford puts forward, but these elite footballers have obscene amounts of money and their earnings will have barely taken a scratch from Covid, unlike a lot of the fans that pay their wages and the general taxpayer.
The Premier League has lost approx £500m due to covid. About 80% of that will come from future player wages. And for those who drop down the leagues the pay drops will be even starker than they are now.
Which would still leave most PL players earning more in a week than many earn in a year. Let them put their money where their mouth is. I agree though with players from lower leagues.
China kills 3 Indian troops by beating them to death on the LOC (one was a colonel)
Modi will be under pressure from the armed forces over this. The Indian Army are fierce and proud in equal measure. They will not look the other way over the CO of an infantry battalion getting KIA'ed.
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
The latter. And I think the thrust behind it is that in these precarious economic times when much of the workforce has taken or is about to take a hit, FSM during the summer holidays would be a small addition to the govt's existing package of measures to help those suffering.
They didn't previously get FSM over the summer holidays, is my understanding. Which is why some people are saying they shouldn't get them now. Ignoring the bigger economic picture and the mooted "package" of measures, of which this could be one.
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
So you are asking for a redistribution of weth. Excellent! That is fine by me.
Tax Marcus Radford and other high earners on a rate of taxation commensurate with what you think they deserve to pay for social inequality
Rather than ask the Government to spend even more money, he should campaign for his fellow players to help.
OK tax them at 75% of income. That way it is not optional, job done!
The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.
Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history
So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?
The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.
I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?
I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.
We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.
It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.
I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).
Lammy is an annoying windbag with a chip on his shoulder
The big outrage will be when the furloughed scheme ends. There will be 100,000s of people who have spent the summer presuming they are going back to work in September and get a nasty shock.
The media will be filled with stories of stories of people in serious financial trouble, losing their home, going hungry etc
You missed some noughts off your number
Trying to be optimistic :-)
More seriously, i wonder if we will find instead, lots of people on reduced hours rather than nothing.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
This is the only end game in town. WTO has fallen apart faster than a "GATT24 will protect us" argument. We have no alternative deals in place. So we have to continue to enjoy the benefits of EEA membership and the trade deals that gives us. As an ex-EU member its a relatively easy compromise for the EU to accept - they already have the Swiss in a bespoke arrangement. We win back the rights to all the fishing. Not the ability to actually fish of course as we sold them, but the *right* to fish if we owned the rights which we don't. As nothing at all changes materially its another easy give for the Commission. A classic low cost high value trade.
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
I fear being Mexico to the EU's US isn't going to be as much fun as Philip imagines
The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.
Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history
So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?
The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.
I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?
I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.
We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.
It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.
I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).
Lammy is an annoying windbag with a chip on his shoulder
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
Our influence on the EU's decisions? Yes, it is over.
It was never worth anything anyway.
Only according to the Express and similar journals of repute.
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
So you are asking for a redistribution of weth. Excellent! That is fine by me.
Tax Marcus Radford and other high earners on a rate of taxation commensurate with what you think they deserve to pay for social inequality
Rather than ask the Government to spend even more money, he should campaign for his fellow players to help.
OK tax them at 75% of income. That way it is not optional, job done!
Good luck with that!
We are in an unprecedented situation. I listened to the local radio news this morning and the first 6 items were people wanting government help for something. The government cannot do it all.
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
2nd
And this year is different from usual as the parent(s) have less money because they've been furloughed/laid off etc?
From what I can tell, the criteria for free school meals is quite narrow:
For your child to qualify for free school meals you must get one of the following benefits:
Universal Credit and your household income after tax is less than £7,400 per year (not including any benefits you get) Child Tax Credit, as long as you are not getting Working Tax Credit and have an annual income of less than £16,190 income-related Employment and Support Allowance Income Support Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance The guarantee part of Pension Credit Asylum seeker support
It will be interesting to see how many kids become eligible for FSM over the next year. Right now, it's probably not that many more.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
This is the only end game in town. WTO has fallen apart faster than a "GATT24 will protect us" argument. We have no alternative deals in place. So we have to continue to enjoy the benefits of EEA membership and the trade deals that gives us. As an ex-EU member its a relatively easy compromise for the EU to accept - they already have the Swiss in a bespoke arrangement. We win back the rights to all the fishing. Not the ability to actually fish of course as we sold them, but the *right* to fish if we owned the rights which we don't. As nothing at all changes materially its another easy give for the Commission. A classic low cost high value trade.
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
On the money thing. The UK holds many fewer cards than the EU - ie things that we have that the other side want. But cold hard cash is something the UK does have that EU member states do want and it will buy stuff for the UK that it won't otherwise have. Expect to keep paying, but it will be more diffuse. The money won't all be going into EU coffers. There are 27 EU member states that want stuff, who unlike the UK all have a vote, and are all looking for their separate pounds of flesh.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
This is the only end game in town. WTO has fallen apart faster than a "GATT24 will protect us" argument. We have no alternative deals in place. So we have to continue to enjoy the benefits of EEA membership and the trade deals that gives us. As an ex-EU member its a relatively easy compromise for the EU to accept - they already have the Swiss in a bespoke arrangement. We win back the rights to all the fishing. Not the ability to actually fish of course as we sold them, but the *right* to fish if we owned the rights which we don't. As nothing at all changes materially its another easy give for the Commission. A classic low cost high value trade.
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
I fear being Mexico to the EU's US isn't going to be as much fun as Philip imagines
Canada. We are Canada to the EU's US.
And its more fun than being a state of the US.
Which part of Canada is equivalent to Northern Ireland? Which US states can unilaterally veto a trade deal with Canada?
Any US trade deal comes after a huge amount of discussion between the Federal Government and the individual states. Put simply, the US cannot conclude a deal which breaches states rights or laws in any areas. There are individual points of contact in each State Governor's administrations to deal with these things.
I am 100% positive the final deal will be a form of "cake and eating it" or "cherrypicking" deal and always have been.
The reason is Europe has always been cherrypicked. The cake that defines the EU has always been Fudge Cake and we will end up with a fudge that works best and eating it. The idea there was one form of option available and everything else was cherrypicking was the biggest unicorn of this entire process.
This image needs updating but sums up my thinking on Europe beautifully. The reality is that countries will find an agreement they're happy with and the UK will end up somewhere else on this Venn Diagram having picked whichever cherries works best.
They'll need a new loop on the diagram. We're going to be "Agreement with EEA" and in the EU Customs Union. Will pass through Borders marked EU/EEA/CH/UK etc. Which as you point out is fine - there is no one size fits all at the moment so why should it be any different for us. The EU were always going to be happy to fudge what they call the arrangement. They just pointed out that we would still be on the diagram...
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
The latter. And I think the thrust behind it is that in these precarious economic times when much of the workforce has taken or is about to take a hit, FSM during the summer holidays would be a small addition to the govt's existing package of measures to help those suffering.
They didn't previously get FSM over the summer holidays, is my understanding. Which is why some people are saying they shouldn't get them now. Ignoring the bigger economic picture and the mooted "package" of measures, of which this could be one.
I see.
I am quite surprised schools are fully shutting down for the summer holidays, seeing as they've been closed for three months. Couldn't they do half days to catch up? Maybe they should keep the kitchens open
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
If we have left the EU, ended free movement, regained control of our fishing waters and can do our own trade deals and got a trade deal with the EU that is no surrender, it is a triumph!
Indeed. Lets take this apart point by point: 1. We have indeed left the EU 2. We will have stopped EU free movement. Instead we will have UK-invited EEA working arrangements. Where anyone in the EEA is free to work here. At our invitation. Not because anyone has made us 3. We will have regained the ability to negotiate quotas with the EU. We won't be able to actually fish as we sold our rights independently of the EU but we will have the right to negotiate like we do 4. We can negotiate deals. Will take years. Won't be as good. Would need vast amounts of re tape. So won't be implemented. But we will be able to negotiate them.
Or, back to basics. You keep suggesting that people up here just want to stop the foreigners. And thats fine. Tell them they are stopped. They won't be, can't be, remain needed. But tell them we've done it yay Boris.
I think the Gov't should stick to it's guns, as @FrancisUrquhart mentions there'll be plenty of pressure them in the coming months anyway, but fair play to Rashford for trying to effect change he believes in in entirely the right way.
Sticking to guns has never been a feature of this government. If the government turns down free school meals during the holidays, it's entirely because it thinks it plays well for them politically.
Why doesn't Marcus Rashford ask all premiership players to donate 50% of their wages for a month. Im sure that would cover the cost of the school meals thing.
Why should he/they?
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
The Government has invested billions & billions to maintain peeple in this crisis. Why shouldn't extremely rich footballers put their hand in their pocket a bit, they don't need the incredible sums of money they earn. If Marcus Rashford has started the fund with £1 million of his own money then he would have a bit more kudos. Just asking someone else to give money is easy.
Agreed, perhaps the government should offer to match every million Rashford puts forward, but these elite footballers have obscene amounts of money and their earnings will have barely taken a scratch from Covid, unlike a lot of the fans that pay their wages and the general taxpayer.
The Premier League has lost approx £500m due to covid. About 80% of that will come from future player wages. And for those who drop down the leagues the pay drops will be even starker than they are now.
Which would still leave most PL players earning more in a week than many earn in a year. Let them put their money where their mouth is. I agree though with players from lower leagues.
Of course they are, but a drop of £400m in earnings is not accurately described as barely a scratch. Many have donated plenty of cash, others less so. As with any part of society there are some generous, helpful types and others selfish and greedy.
For a young man from a disadvantaged background to have raised £20m in 2 months for feeding the poorest kids in society, and become an effective political lobbyist should surely be celebrated with a well done, just like we did for Major Tom. Why is it so difficult?
Market doesn't exist. It'll be an old price from before the GE with oddschecker picking up stale information. I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
1 pence is approximately how much I'm allowed on Betfair Sportsbook political markets these days.
Yepp, after my 2007 killing, Victor Chandler simply closed my account on the spot (after paying out of course), and all other bookies (except to their credit Hills) reduced my stakes to peanuts.
If they close or cripple winning accounts but allow losing accounts to keep trading, then the industry is bent. Who knew?
It shouldn't be allowed to advertise odds and then not accept bets on them. Should be covered by false advertising law.
Obviously you need to find a popular footballer to argue for your case.
The betting industry needs taken down a peg or two. We have many tools at our disposal. Look at the tobacco shits: they were crippled by focusing on that old classic, the 4Ps:
Product, bland box with horrific pictures
Price, tax them out of existence
Place, hide them away and prosecute the hell out of retailers selling to children
Promotion, this is the biggie! Ban them from football shirts for a start.
The Tories really want to withhold food from hungry kids in a summer where large swathes of the population lose their jobs? Blimey, hadn't realised they were that dumb. Their core vote in Epping might be happy to see northern kids go feral, but the newly Tory votes that gave them a majority won't agree.
Compared to the huge sums to be thrown at the red wall to keep it from returning to red this was a pittance. A genuinely stupid political call. Bravo!
Market doesn't exist. It'll be an old price from before the GE with oddschecker picking up stale information. I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
1 pence is approximately how much I'm allowed on Betfair Sportsbook political markets these days.
Yepp, after my 2007 killing, Victor Chandler simply closed my account on the spot (after paying out of course), and all other bookies (except to their credit Hills) reduced my stakes to peanuts.
If they close or cripple winning accounts but allow losing accounts to keep trading, then the industry is bent. Who knew?
It shouldn't be allowed to advertise odds and then not accept bets on them. Should be covered by false advertising law.
Obviously you need to find a popular footballer to argue for your case.
They need to state the max stake they will allow along with the odds. It is infuriating having to iteratively work out how much you are allowed.
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
The latter.
My personal view is that Government aid should be a safety net to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and their children. As such free school meals seems to be one of the most appropriate areas for Government spending on welfare. It is literally making sure kids get fed. So yes it should continue through the holidays even if (and I am not suggesting they should) the Government were to look at cutting back in other areas of welfare.
I am 100% positive the final deal will be a form of "cake and eating it" or "cherrypicking" deal and always have been.
The reason is Europe has always been cherrypicked. The cake that defines the EU has always been Fudge Cake and we will end up with a fudge that works best and eating it. The idea there was one form of option available and everything else was cherrypicking was the biggest unicorn of this entire process.
This image needs updating but sums up my thinking on Europe beautifully. The reality is that countries will find an agreement they're happy with and the UK will end up somewhere else on this Venn Diagram having picked whichever cherries works best.
They'll need a new loop on the diagram. We're going to be "Agreement with EEA" and in the EU Customs Union. Will pass through Borders marked EU/EEA/CH/UK etc. Which as you point out is fine - there is no one size fits all at the moment so why should it be any different for us. The EU were always going to be happy to fudge what they call the arrangement. They just pointed out that we would still be on the diagram...
My prediction is we neither be in the EEA circle, nor the Customs Union circle. We will be in a new circle for our Agreement. If I was redesigning that graphic I would put the UK to the South of the existing circles and we would be in the Council of Europe and new Agreement circle and that's it - out of all other circles.
Interesting to note how some people view ‘rich’ people, there are the undeserving rich, footballers and popular culture figures who should give their ill gotten gains away and then there are those who have inherited it or made it on the financial markets who should be left with as much of their wealth as possible because that’s good for the economy
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
The latter. And I think the thrust behind it is that in these precarious economic times when much of the workforce has taken or is about to take a hit, FSM during the summer holidays would be a small addition to the govt's existing package of measures to help those suffering.
They didn't previously get FSM over the summer holidays, is my understanding. Which is why some people are saying they shouldn't get them now. Ignoring the bigger economic picture and the mooted "package" of measures, of which this could be one.
I see.
I am quite surprised schools are fully shutting down for the summer holidays, seeing as they've been closed for three months. Couldn't they do half days to catch up? Maybe they should keep the kitchens open
I think there have been some teachers on here who have pointed out that they (the teachers) have worked their arses off these past few months and hence can't/don't want to go in for summer and in any case deserve a break but as an outsider, it seems sensible for schools to remain open somehow and yes for the kitchens to be open also. I'm sure there are a thousand reasons why this couldn't happen, however.
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
The latter. And I think the thrust behind it is that in these precarious economic times when much of the workforce has taken or is about to take a hit, FSM during the summer holidays would be a small addition to the govt's existing package of measures to help those suffering.
They didn't previously get FSM over the summer holidays, is my understanding. Which is why some people are saying they shouldn't get them now. Ignoring the bigger economic picture and the mooted "package" of measures, of which this could be one.
I see.
I am quite surprised schools are fully shutting down for the summer holidays, seeing as they've been closed for three months. Couldn't they do half days to catch up? Maybe they should keep the kitchens open
Interestingly, KIPPs, the US education scheme that has been very successful in getting kids from disadvantaged backgrounds to college, setup by a couple of Harvard grads and run based upon fact based research. One of the big things they found is poor kids who tested as well as richer peers pre vacation, returned behind their peers.
Thus, at KIPPs, they kids have a lot shorter vacation time.
Is the gist of the problem that prompted Marcus Rashfords letter that families whose children are on FSM are having to pay for their meals whilst the kids are at home because schools are closed due to Covid?
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
The latter.
My personal view is that Government aid should be a safety net to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and their children. As such free school meals seems to be one of the most appropriate areas for Government spending on welfare. It is literally making sure kids get fed. So yes it should continue through the holidays even if (and I am not suggesting they should) the Government were to look at cutting back in other areas of welfare.
Continuing free school meals while cutting welfare seems reasonable.
Though personally I'd go the other way and introduce a Universal Basic Income and abolish all other welfare. I've been thinking of writing a thread header on this but I'm not sure if its something other people would be interested in discussing?
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
Our influence on the EU's decisions? Yes, it is over.
It was never worth anything anyway.
Only according to the Express and similar journals of repute.
Comments
If they close or cripple winning accounts but allow losing accounts to keep trading, then the industry is bent. Who knew?
The Tories message is get Brexit Done which they have done, Sturgeon's message is either and delay, make Indy messages to the restless base but not do anything without Westminster consent while being consumed by a cultural battle over trans rights
In this situation, I'd be pretty confident that it will never ever be worth the shock of the UK saying "no, we're definitively off". Because the sheer hassle of a full-fat customs border at Dover will never be more than theoretically worth it.
But thanks for your honest answer.
Answer: the Scottish electorate.
Up from 25% when Kaepernick first did it.
The deal we are going to agree is the current deal with tweaks and a new name. The Morris Ital of deals.
The Tories need to be careful with the culture war stuff. It doesn't play well to their younger supporters.
https://twitter.com/sophgaston/status/1272525523583934466?s=19
Find that today’s argument is why in 21st century Britain poor children should have to rely on charity from a few rich individuals.
Look at sunshine outside.
Decide to wander off.
By far the worst scenario is extension now followed by no deal in 2022/3 - given our political elites record of consistently choosing the worst option recently perhaps that is what we will get.
If that was truly the case there would be no welfare state at all as in the 19th century
If he/they choose altruism to help, over and above government responsibility that is fine by me.
Are you suggesting the undeserving wealthy should finance the undeserving poor?
Then we carry on. An independent UK. No longer shackled to the EU. But pushed along by the EU at the same speed in the same direction until we agree fabulous better independent deals which will be in 20never. They lose our cash membership payment but save more in the aggro they avoid. And as an associate of the EEA we'll still have £something to pay. Which we will choose to do not cos they force us...
The onus is on him to explain why the taxpayer - most of whom are infinitely poorer than him - should fund his virtue-signalling schemes.
The media will be filled with stories of stories of people in serious financial trouble, losing their home, going hungry etc
This is what I expect the deal to actually involve. I expect the deal will be something along the lines of zero tariffs, zero quotas, with a non-regression LPF, no commitment to future dynamic alignment but an option for parties to add tariffs and quotas in the future if divergence is too far.
But then parties to never bother to to add tariffs and quotas. Which would be the ultimate cake and eat it deal, we would have won everything that mattered - full access to the Single Market, control over our laws and ability to diverge, no financial contributions, control over migration - and the EU will have the ability to respond to divergence by adding tariffs in the future but they never will as they have a massive trade surplus with us.
And its more fun than being a state of the US.
We will have the sovereign right to do our own deals. Until then we'll make a "voluntary contribution" to the EEA to maintain their deals. And we'll make a show of starting talks with the US and others. As any deal is years away, will be worse than the EEA deal and means we have to spend £lots trying business up in lovely red tape to apply said worse deals, it'll be booted into the long grass until forgotten about.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1272822264363274242
Edited extra bit: more here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53061476
The reason is Europe has always been cherrypicked. The cake that defines the EU has always been Fudge Cake and we will end up with a fudge that works best and eating it. The idea there was one form of option available and everything else was cherrypicking was the biggest unicorn of this entire process.
This image needs updating but sums up my thinking on Europe beautifully. The reality is that countries will find an agreement they're happy with and the UK will end up somewhere else on this Venn Diagram having picked whichever cherries works best.
China kills 3 Indian troops by beating them to death on the LOC (one was a colonel)
There may also be Chinese deaths
North Korea blows up building used by them and South Korea to improve relations...... threatens further military action if North Korean defectors don't stop sending balloons with propaganda messages across border from SK.
2020 gets better and better......
Or is it that they have still been getting the FSM whilst schools are closed for Covid but that's going to stop when the holidays start?
Tax Marcus Radford and other high earners on a rate of taxation commensurate with what you think they deserve to pay for social inequality. I am not sure how far that idea will travel within the Conservative Party.
Obviously you need to find a popular footballer to argue for your case.
1. We have indeed left the EU
2. We will have stopped EU free movement. Instead we will have UK-invited EEA working arrangements. Where anyone in the EEA is free to work here. At our invitation. Not because anyone has made us
3. We will have regained the ability to negotiate quotas with the EU. We won't be able to actually fish as we sold our rights independently of the EU but we will have the right to negotiate like we do
4. We can negotiate deals. Will take years. Won't be as good. Would need vast amounts of re tape. So won't be implemented. But we will be able to negotiate them.
Or, back to basics. You keep suggesting that people up here just want to stop the foreigners. And thats fine. Tell them they are stopped. They won't be, can't be, remain needed. But tell them we've done it yay Boris.
On this specific issue, I honestly don't know enough about it. I have always been somewhat concerned when I speak to teacher friends who regularly say they get kids not fed or clothed properly. Is it poverty, it is neglect, is it lack of education to manage things, bit of all. They normally just shrug and say well we have schemes for them.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/underage-girls-lead-jakarta-police-to-americas-most-wanted-bitcoin-bandit/news-story/8d36f354437c7416fc5a9c5d3dec3196
They didn't previously get FSM over the summer holidays, is my understanding. Which is why some people are saying they shouldn't get them now. Ignoring the bigger economic picture and the mooted "package" of measures, of which this could be one.
Good luck with that!
More seriously, i wonder if we will find instead, lots of people on reduced hours rather than nothing.
https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Your-Situation/Bringing-up-a-child/Free-school-meals
For your child to qualify for free school meals you must get one of the following benefits:
Universal Credit and your household income after tax is less than £7,400 per year (not including any benefits you get)
Child Tax Credit, as long as you are not getting Working Tax Credit and have an annual income of less than £16,190
income-related Employment and Support Allowance
Income Support
Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The guarantee part of Pension Credit
Asylum seeker support
It will be interesting to see how many kids become eligible for FSM over the next year. Right now, it's probably not that many more.
I am quite surprised schools are fully shutting down for the summer holidays, seeing as they've been closed for three months. Couldn't they do half days to catch up? Maybe they should keep the kitchens open
For a young man from a disadvantaged background to have raised £20m in 2 months for feeding the poorest kids in society, and become an effective political lobbyist should surely be celebrated with a well done, just like we did for Major Tom. Why is it so difficult?
Product, bland box with horrific pictures
Price, tax them out of existence
Place, hide them away and prosecute the hell out of retailers selling to children
Promotion, this is the biggie! Ban them from football shirts for a start.
Compared to the huge sums to be thrown at the red wall to keep it from returning to red this was a pittance. A genuinely stupid political call. Bravo!
My personal view is that Government aid should be a safety net to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and their children. As such free school meals seems to be one of the most appropriate areas for Government spending on welfare. It is literally making sure kids get fed. So yes it should continue through the holidays even if (and I am not suggesting they should) the Government were to look at cutting back in other areas of welfare.
Thus, at KIPPs, they kids have a lot shorter vacation time.
Though personally I'd go the other way and introduce a Universal Basic Income and abolish all other welfare. I've been thinking of writing a thread header on this but I'm not sure if its something other people would be interested in discussing?