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.
We are shielding as my wife was ill but chose not to take the free food given we can well afford to buy our own. However a bit off writing to people and blackmailing them into not taking it , for sure some that likely need it will also cancel.
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.
Most of these players are tied to contracts and have been unwilling to take paycuts or even defer payments. They have sponsorship deals and endorsments on the side. On the other hand many people will have lost their jobs or imminently lose them. The footballers come from a position of undeniable privilege.
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.
I would prefer them to be able to rely on their parents. If that isn't possible, I am happy with a combination of the state, Church and individuals/charities helping, yes.
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.
You are in for a hard landing when reality beckons.
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
Blimey that is an old school comment!
I would put it more simply. Lammy is a racist who believes that positions should be given to people on the basis of their colour.
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 get a trade deal it will be one that is largely dictated by the EU, with a few small UK wins thrown in for show. For the loons that will not be enough. The question is how many loons are left?
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.
What would PB be without the fatuousness?
True.
Him and a few of his pals could easily fund it and never even notice it, be like loose change for them. PS: fact that there are starving children in UK is a disgrace, it should be sorted one way or the other.
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.
While I agree PL players seem vastly over paid, let us recall that it's probably for about 10 years. After that they have to rely on their wits.
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
It's simpler than that. The deserving rich support the Conservative party. The undeserving rich do not.
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.
Most of these players are tied to contracts and have been unwilling to take paycuts or even defer payments. They have sponsorship deals and endorsments on the side. On the other hand many people will have lost their jobs or imminently lose them. The footballers come from a position of undeniable privilege.
Of course they do. That doesnt mean they are disqualified from recognition or praise for doing exceptional charity work.
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 get a trade deal it will be one that is largely dictated by the EU, with a few small UK wins thrown in for show. For the loons that will not be enough. The question is how many loons are left?
I think you are overestimating the intelligence of the loons. They won't understand that the agreement will have been dictated by the EU because Boris and Dom will tell them that we lead the world in negotiating agreements.
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 get a trade deal it will be one that is largely dictated by the EU, with a few small UK wins thrown in for show. For the loons that will not be enough. The question is how many loons are left?
I think you are overestimating the intelligence of the loons. They won't understand that the agreement will have been dictated by the EU because Boris and Dom will tell them that we lead the world in negotiating agreements.
The big difference ias that there is going to be time to digest the reality. That wasn't the case when Johnson backed down last autumn.
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.
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.
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.
Last time they went to war with the PLA India got hammered.
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!
The irony of this is we spent quite sometime, sometime ago, negotiating a humdinger of a trade deal with the EU and we have just chucked it away to negotiate a worse one with lots more red tape.
Re fishing waters and free movement - this is all smoke and mirrors. No doubt it will be sold as a triumph, but immigration is not going to change just lots more red tape and the normal variation of where people come from, but making life far more difficult re travel to Europe. And we flogged off much of our fishing rights and now think it is ok to just take them back (bizarrely to catch types of fish we don't eat, but which we hope to sell to the people we sold the rights to fish here).
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.
They won't be called EEA or CU in the UK. In practice they will be. We have to stay in the EEA to retain trade deals with every other nation in the world. We have to stay in the CU to avoid having to impossibly build a customs border in a few months.
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
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.
Yes, online lessons etc, I'm sure they've just not being kicking their heels. This is a bit different though, as I doubt many will be going on holiday. I reckon there would be enough teachers who have been driven crazy by lockdown enough to want to do a skeleton staff. Even if it's just PE teachers doing games and the canteen serving food
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.
They won't be called EEA or CU in the UK. In practice they will be. We have to stay in the EEA to retain trade deals with every other nation in the world. We have to stay in the CU to avoid having to impossibly build a customs border in a few months.
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
If GB is de facto in the EEA and Customs Union (bar no free movement and able to do our own trade deals) there would be no border in the Irish Sea in reality anyway
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.
They won't be called EEA or CU in the UK. In practice they will be. We have to stay in the EEA to retain trade deals with every other nation in the world. We have to stay in the CU to avoid having to impossibly build a customs border in a few months.
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
I very much doubt he will get CU past his own MPs. Nor should he.
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.
Last time they went to war with the PLA India got hammered.
China are a lot stronger now.
Trump though is an ally of Modi and furious with China over Covid, the US and Indian militaries combined are stronger than China's.
JFK did not back India in 1962, Trump might back India now
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.
They won't be called EEA or CU in the UK. In practice they will be. We have to stay in the EEA to retain trade deals with every other nation in the world. We have to stay in the CU to avoid having to impossibly build a customs border in a few months.
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
I very much doubt he will get CU past his own MPs. Nor should he.
He can get it past his own MPs by calling it something else, delaying its implementation, and lying about it, like he did with the Northern Ireland protocol.
I think the government is making a mistake here but even putting that aside Rashford is one seriously impressive young man. His mother should be very proud.
He should challenge Coffey to a penalty shoot-out and if she wins he'll drop the matter.
Ha. As soon as I read that I knew Diana Ross would be putting in an appearance somewhere.
She has actually improved the implementation of universal credit and ensured the welfare system could cope through lockdown
It isn't exactly a difficult task when all that was required was to remove the built in barriers contained within universal credit to discourage people from claiming.
Oh and before you ask those barriers do exist as I wrote a pile of code to manage them.
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.
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.
Last time they went to war with the PLA India got hammered.
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!
The irony of this is we spent quite sometime, sometime ago, negotiating a humdinger of a trade deal with the EU and we have just chucked it away to negotiate a worse one with lots more red tape.
Re fishing waters and free movement - this is all smoke and mirrors. No doubt it will be sold as a triumph, but immigration is not going to change just lots more red tape and the normal variation of where people come from, but making life far more difficult re travel to Europe. And we flogged off much of our fishing rights and now think it is ok to just take them back (bizarrely to catch types of fish we don't eat, but which we hope to sell to the people we sold the rights to fish here).
Yep all very sensible and a triumph.
Replacing free movement from the EU with a points system is a big change
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.
They won't be called EEA or CU in the UK. In practice they will be. We have to stay in the EEA to retain trade deals with every other nation in the world. We have to stay in the CU to avoid having to impossibly build a customs border in a few months.
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
If GB is de facto in the EEA and Customs Union (bar no free movement and able to do our own trade deals) there would be no border in the Irish Sea in reality anyway
Correct but you haven't noticed that it means we will be tied to the Customs Union forever as it would be impossible to leave it.
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.
Most of these players are tied to contracts and have been unwilling to take paycuts or even defer payments. They have sponsorship deals and endorsments on the side. On the other hand many people will have lost their jobs or imminently lose them. The footballers come from a position of undeniable privilege.
Of course they do. That doesnt mean they are disqualified from recognition or praise for doing exceptional charity work.
No one is disqualiying them, but just because they are celebrities doesn't mean we have to enforce all their policies.
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).
As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.
History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14. It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.
Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?
(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)
This is not recent. It was exactly the same 40 years ago. At my comprehensive it was timetabled in such a way that it was impossible to study both history and geography.
For us geography was compulsory and we had the option of history or chemistry. A couple of the lads who chose history realised they'd dropped a bollock and did O-level chemistry when they were in 6th form.
So I was taught no history after the age of 14. Until I started reading PB!
Who on earth would do geography instead of history? I like Pratchett's description of the former: physics with some trees stuck in it.
I had to choose history or chemistry and geography or physics.
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.
I don't dispute that. Cases have to be prioritised.
The spectre of malnourished children might follow the Conservative Party around for decades, should Rashford remain disappointed.
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?
I would be very interested.
There are issues with it that I find relatively simple to solve - such as paying for it - and others that I find more intractable - such as eligibility.
It would be great to see a take on it from a different point on the political spectrum.
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!
The irony of this is we spent quite sometime, sometime ago, negotiating a humdinger of a trade deal with the EU and we have just chucked it away to negotiate a worse one with lots more red tape.
Re fishing waters and free movement - this is all smoke and mirrors. No doubt it will be sold as a triumph, but immigration is not going to change just lots more red tape and the normal variation of where people come from, but making life far more difficult re travel to Europe. And we flogged off much of our fishing rights and now think it is ok to just take them back (bizarrely to catch types of fish we don't eat, but which we hope to sell to the people we sold the rights to fish here).
Yep all very sensible and a triumph.
Replacing free movement from the EU with a points system is a big change
All we needed to do was to stop our benefits system from being needs based to being contribution based.
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.
They won't be called EEA or CU in the UK. In practice they will be. We have to stay in the EEA to retain trade deals with every other nation in the world. We have to stay in the CU to avoid having to impossibly build a customs border in a few months.
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
If GB is de facto in the EEA and Customs Union (bar no free movement and able to do our own trade deals) there would be no border in the Irish Sea in reality anyway
Correct but you haven't noticed that it means we will be tied to the Customs Union forever as it would be impossible to leave it.
She has actually improved the implementation of universal credit and ensured the welfare system could cope through lockdown
But she also dared mention facts to a footballer, so that's her career done...
Would you support the govt if it decided to continue free school meals throughout the summer holidays?
I thought you lefties were all in favour of govt handouts??
I wasn't quite clear from your posts yesterday - did you mean to imply that you supported the decision to invade Iraq at the time, or that you still support it now? The former is understandable - although some of us rightly predicted the disaster that would unfold before we went in - but the latter bespeaks a slight, er, deficit in analytical skill. Just curious.
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.
I don't dispute that. Cases have to be prioritised.
The spectre of malnourished children might follow the Conservative Party around for decades, should Rashford remain disappointed.
What about child benefit, universal credit and working families tax credit? Can meals not be bought with those.
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.
Most of these players are tied to contracts and have been unwilling to take paycuts or even defer payments. They have sponsorship deals and endorsments on the side. On the other hand many people will have lost their jobs or imminently lose them. The footballers come from a position of undeniable privilege.
Of course they do. That doesnt mean they are disqualified from recognition or praise for doing exceptional charity work.
No one is disqualiying them, but just because they are celebrities doesn't mean we have to enforce all their policies.
No-one has suggested that.
On the policy people who support it, either its because they always would do, or because this year is particularly tough and demand will outstrip what the charity and voluntary sectors can cope with so additional state aid would make a big difference, and the amount is a drop in the ocean out of the overall covid package. I doubt anyone supports it because he is famous.
When Major Tom received praise for charity work, rightly no one would dream of qualifying it by demanding to know how much he put in himself. Why is it different for Rashford? Why cant he get praise without it being questioned and qualified?
US President Donald Trump said on Monday that he is reducing the number of American troops deployed in Germany down to 25,000, accusing Berlin of being "delinquent" in its contribution to NATO.
"We're protecting Germany and they're delinquent. That doesn't make sense," Trump said at the White House. "We are going to bring down the soldier count to 25,000 soldiers," he said, adding that the deployment of troops comes at "a tremendous cost to the United States."
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.
They won't be called EEA or CU in the UK. In practice they will be. We have to stay in the EEA to retain trade deals with every other nation in the world. We have to stay in the CU to avoid having to impossibly build a customs border in a few months.
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
If GB is de facto in the EEA and Customs Union (bar no free movement and able to do our own trade deals) there would be no border in the Irish Sea in reality anyway
Correct but you haven't noticed that it means we will be tied to the Customs Union forever as it would be impossible to leave it.
She has actually improved the implementation of universal credit and ensured the welfare system could cope through lockdown
But she also dared mention facts to a footballer, so that's her career done...
Would you support the govt if it decided to continue free school meals throughout the summer holidays?
I thought you lefties were all in favour of govt handouts??
I wasn't quite clear from your posts yesterday - did you mean to imply that you supported the decision to invade Iraq at the time, or that you still support it now? The former is understandable - although some of us rightly predicted the disaster that would unfold before we went in - but the latter bespeaks a slight, er, deficit in analytical skill. Just curious.
I supported the decision to invade Iraq because the government told me that there was a compelling reason for doing so.
Support it now? Not really a relevant question.
Did we make a horlicks of it? Yes, and the reasons are manifold, essentially boiling down to the politicians asking questions they wanted answered in a particular way, the generals answering questions in a particular way, together with force levels.
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!
The irony of this is we spent quite sometime, sometime ago, negotiating a humdinger of a trade deal with the EU and we have just chucked it away to negotiate a worse one with lots more red tape.
Re fishing waters and free movement - this is all smoke and mirrors. No doubt it will be sold as a triumph, but immigration is not going to change just lots more red tape and the normal variation of where people come from, but making life far more difficult re travel to Europe. And we flogged off much of our fishing rights and now think it is ok to just take them back (bizarrely to catch types of fish we don't eat, but which we hope to sell to the people we sold the rights to fish here).
Yep all very sensible and a triumph.
Replacing free movement from the EU with a points system is a big change
All we needed to do was to stop our benefits system from being needs based to being contribution based.
Which would still not stop workers coming here to work in low skilled roles reducing wages while also increasing poverty and foodbank use amongst those who had not contributed enough to claim unemployment benefits,
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!
Brave of you going to press with a list of essentials at this point. If I were you I'd wait for the actual deal and the briefing notes from Central Office.
But OK, a prediction from me in return. The totemic issues for Leave Nation are (i) Free Movement and (ii) Fish.
So what I expect is that the couple of little wins we do manage to get will be there - at least on the face of it.
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.
I don't dispute that. Cases have to be prioritised.
The spectre of malnourished children might follow the Conservative Party around for decades, should Rashford remain disappointed.
What about child benefit, universal credit and working families tax credit? Can meals not be bought with those.
Being blunt families can't budget. Assuming a single parent family with 2 children they get £x which needs to pay for 63 meals during holidays and only 43-53 meals during term time (the range is because a lot of schools also do breakfast clubs as children don't get proper breakfasts).
A better approach would be for child tax credits to be increased and free school meals removed with parents having to pay the money to the school but the school wouldn't see the money and it would add more admin than the current approach.
She has actually improved the implementation of universal credit and ensured the welfare system could cope through lockdown
But she also dared mention facts to a footballer, so that's her career done...
Would you support the govt if it decided to continue free school meals throughout the summer holidays?
I thought you lefties were all in favour of govt handouts??
I wasn't quite clear from your posts yesterday - did you mean to imply that you supported the decision to invade Iraq at the time, or that you still support it now? The former is understandable - although some of us rightly predicted the disaster that would unfold before we went in - but the latter bespeaks a slight, er, deficit in analytical skill. Just curious.
I supported the decision to invade Iraq because the government told me that there was a compelling reason for doing so.
Support it now? Not really a relevant question.
Did we make a horlicks of it? Yes, and the reasons are manifold, essentially boiling down to the politicians asking questions they wanted answered in a particular way, the generals answering questions in a particular way, together with force levels.
What's interesting about the Iraq debate is that we don't talk about Afghanistan. A quick Google tells me that 179 British troops died in Iraq and 454 died in Afghanistan.
I can understand why the Americans wanted to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan, but I really don't understand why we decided to go to war with the Taliban afterwards.
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.
They won't be called EEA or CU in the UK. In practice they will be. We have to stay in the EEA to retain trade deals with every other nation in the world. We have to stay in the CU to avoid having to impossibly build a customs border in a few months.
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
If GB is de facto in the EEA and Customs Union (bar no free movement and able to do our own trade deals) there would be no border in the Irish Sea in reality anyway
Correct but you haven't noticed that it means we will be tied to the Customs Union forever as it would be impossible to leave it.
That was May's Deal not Boris' Deal
Shall we try again with smaller words
You stated that - If GB is de facto in the EEA and Customs Union (bar no free movement and able to do our own trade deals) there would be no border in the Irish Sea in reality anyway
I'm pointing out that that is the case come January it will be politically impossible to introduce a barrier in the future which means that we could never leave our de facto membership as we would need to introduce the barrier to leave said membership.
She has actually improved the implementation of universal credit and ensured the welfare system could cope through lockdown
But she also dared mention facts to a footballer, so that's her career done...
Would you support the govt if it decided to continue free school meals throughout the summer holidays?
I thought you lefties were all in favour of govt handouts??
I wasn't quite clear from your posts yesterday - did you mean to imply that you supported the decision to invade Iraq at the time, or that you still support it now? The former is understandable - although some of us rightly predicted the disaster that would unfold before we went in - but the latter bespeaks a slight, er, deficit in analytical skill. Just curious.
Without the invasion Iraq would now, most probably, be in the hands of Saddam's two psychopathic sons. If one's against the invasion one has to explain why that would be a relatively good thing.
She has actually improved the implementation of universal credit and ensured the welfare system could cope through lockdown
But she also dared mention facts to a footballer, so that's her career done...
Would you support the govt if it decided to continue free school meals throughout the summer holidays?
I thought you lefties were all in favour of govt handouts??
I wasn't quite clear from your posts yesterday - did you mean to imply that you supported the decision to invade Iraq at the time, or that you still support it now? The former is understandable - although some of us rightly predicted the disaster that would unfold before we went in - but the latter bespeaks a slight, er, deficit in analytical skill. Just curious.
I supported the decision to invade Iraq because the government told me that there was a compelling reason for doing so.
Support it now? Not really a relevant question.
Did we make a horlicks of it? Yes, and the reasons are manifold, essentially boiling down to the politicians asking questions they wanted answered in a particular way, the generals answering questions in a particular way, together with force levels.
I accept all of that. And I think it's not unreasonable for others to accept that a - still rather young! - conservative in 2003 might not have been convinced that the case for war was worth the expense of British blood and treasure, let alone all the other consequences.
US President Donald Trump said on Monday that he is reducing the number of American troops deployed in Germany down to 25,000, accusing Berlin of being "delinquent" in its contribution to NATO.
"We're protecting Germany and they're delinquent. That doesn't make sense," Trump said at the White House. "We are going to bring down the soldier count to 25,000 soldiers," he said, adding that the deployment of troops comes at "a tremendous cost to the United States."
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.
I don't dispute that. Cases have to be prioritised.
The spectre of malnourished children might follow the Conservative Party around for decades, should Rashford remain disappointed.
What about child benefit, universal credit and working families tax credit? Can meals not be bought with those.
Being blunt families can't budget. Assuming a single parent family with 2 children they get £x which needs to pay for 63 meals during holidays and only 43-53 meals during term time (the range is because a lot of schools also do breakfast clubs as children don't get proper breakfasts).
A better approach would be for child tax credits to be increased and free school meals removed with parents having to pay the money to the school but the school wouldn't see the money and it would add more admin than the current approach.
Meanwhile, in Global Britain our world beating app is where?
I've seen no evidence that Bluetooth contact proximity apps are important for contact tracing. If the government wants to use tech to tackle this issue they are much better off giving the contact tracers access to mobile phone signalling data, payments data, and public transport data.
Comments
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/16/trump-florida-coronavirus-321600
PS: fact that there are starving children in UK is a disgrace, it should be sorted one way or the other.
I'd thought the stubborn idiots would hang on until they need to stop tomorrow's awful headlines at around 7pm tonight.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2014/08/luis-louis-ladbrokes-life.html?m=1
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2014/08/you-dont-have-to-be-hypocritical-coward.html?m=1
China are a lot stronger now.
Re fishing waters and free movement - this is all smoke and mirrors. No doubt it will be sold as a triumph, but immigration is not going to change just lots more red tape and the normal variation of where people come from, but making life far more difficult re travel to Europe. And we flogged off much of our fishing rights and now think it is ok to just take them back (bizarrely to catch types of fish we don't eat, but which we hope to sell to the people we sold the rights to fish here).
Yep all very sensible and a triumph.
https://www.coronawarn.app/en/
Call it what we want - that's the give from the EU. And it will be a bespoke deal because EEA usually aren't in the CU. But we have to be. So they'll call it some bollocks and Boris will pretend he hasn't put a border down the Irish Sea again
Perhaps he's going to announce that 'Global Britain' turned out to be a load of bollx in a world of competing super-blocs and a collapsing WTO?
Thought not...
Week 10: -603
Week 11: -186
Week 12: 72
Week 13: 1,011
Week 14: 6,082
Week 15: 7,996
Week 16: 11,854
Week 17: 11,539
Week 18: 8,012
Week 19: 3,081
Week 20: 4,385
Week 21: 2,348
Week 22: 1,653
Week 23: 732
We're getting close to breaking even.
JFK did not back India in 1962, Trump might back India now
https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1272837840393637890
Oh and before you ask those barriers do exist as I wrote a pile of code to manage them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Supranational_European_Bodies
Lets hope sanity prevails
Meanwhile, in Global Britain our world beating app is where?
Cultural war stuff no doubt.
The spectre of malnourished children might follow the Conservative Party around for decades, should Rashford remain disappointed.
Wow
There are issues with it that I find relatively simple to solve - such as paying for it - and others that I find more intractable - such as eligibility.
It would be great to see a take on it from a different point on the political spectrum.
As I have just told him
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
I thought you lefties were all in favour of govt handouts??
The money involved is very small compared to what’s been spent on economic support during Covid 19 .
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1272837903782162435
On the policy people who support it, either its because they always would do, or because this year is particularly tough and demand will outstrip what the charity and voluntary sectors can cope with so additional state aid would make a big difference, and the amount is a drop in the ocean out of the overall covid package. I doubt anyone supports it because he is famous.
When Major Tom received praise for charity work, rightly no one would dream of qualifying it by demanding to know how much he put in himself. Why is it different for Rashford? Why cant he get praise without it being questioned and qualified?
US President Donald Trump said on Monday that he is reducing the number of American troops deployed in Germany down to 25,000, accusing Berlin of being "delinquent" in its contribution to NATO.
"We're protecting Germany and they're delinquent. That doesn't make sense," Trump said at the White House. "We are going to bring down the soldier count to 25,000 soldiers," he said, adding that the deployment of troops comes at "a tremendous cost to the United States."
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-cut-us-troop-numbers-in-germany/a-53822850
Support it now? Not really a relevant question.
Did we make a horlicks of it? Yes, and the reasons are manifold, essentially boiling down to the politicians asking questions they wanted answered in a particular way, the generals answering questions in a particular way, together with force levels.
But OK, a prediction from me in return. The totemic issues for Leave Nation are (i) Free Movement and (ii) Fish.
So what I expect is that the couple of little wins we do manage to get will be there - at least on the face of it.
A better approach would be for child tax credits to be increased and free school meals removed with parents having to pay the money to the school but the school wouldn't see the money and it would add more admin than the current approach.
This pub in York I went in many times , had great beer.
I guess many more will follow by shutting their premises.
The furlough money in many instances will have been wasted in this sector.
I can understand why the Americans wanted to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan, but I really don't understand why we decided to go to war with the Taliban afterwards.
You stated that - If GB is de facto in the EEA and Customs Union (bar no free movement and able to do our own trade deals) there would be no border in the Irish Sea in reality anyway
I'm pointing out that that is the case come January it will be politically impossible to introduce a barrier in the future which means that we could never leave our de facto membership as we would need to introduce the barrier to leave said membership.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/11/health/uk-child-obesity-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
Education, education , education
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1272844581709787137