One has to feel for Joe Biden here. He's already in the fight of his life to eject Donald Trump from the White House in the most divisive and potentially explosive US presidential election there has ever been and now he has Iain Duncan Smith on his back.
Mega lolz
Even I laughed at that one but there's a serious point: Biden is likely to be working with this Government in less than 4 months and his tweet wasn't very diplomatic.
He's not being particularly well advised on how thorny the B-word is over here.
Yes the likely leader of the world's most powerful country really needs to watch his mouth. He's already upset IDS, if he's not careful Mark Francois might hear about it and then shit will get real.
I wouldn't expect a tedious old Lefty fart, like you, to understand but his intervention has already agitated support on the Tory backbenches and IDS was until recently a minister - this will have an impact.
He might calculate this does little damage to him with his Democrat activist base, who might applaud it, but he will still need to have a constructive working relationship with the UK Government of the day.
If British sensitivities didn't bother the US at the height of the Cold War, why should they now?
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
Who'd be an MP?
Crap money, long hours and everyone constantly harassing you and thinking you're a money-grubbing self-interested arse - not to mention your private life all public and raked over requiring you to have lived the life of a saint. One slip up and your whole reputation in tatters.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
There's second jobs and there's second jobs. A good question to ask is would the person have the job/work if they weren't in parliament ? Cox's legal work passes that test, I'm not sure Grayling's contract does.
One has to feel for Joe Biden here. He's already in the fight of his life to eject Donald Trump from the White House in the most divisive and potentially explosive US presidential election there has ever been and now he has Iain Duncan Smith on his back.
Mega lolz
Even I laughed at that one but there's a serious point: Biden is likely to be working with this Government in less than 4 months and his tweet wasn't very diplomatic.
He's not being particularly well advised on how thorny the B-word is over here.
Will he rue the day he tweeted that tweet? He'll either allow or deny us the odd crumb from his table, and concentrate on frying bigger fish.
It's amazing how those that talk down Britain don't win over more Britons to their side.
I just don't think it is my patriotic duty to entertain sectionable delusions of grandeur on behalf of my country. But carry on if it floats your boat.
One has to feel for Joe Biden here. He's already in the fight of his life to eject Donald Trump from the White House in the most divisive and potentially explosive US presidential election there has ever been and now he has Iain Duncan Smith on his back.
Mega lolz
Even I laughed at that one but there's a serious point: Biden is likely to be working with this Government in less than 4 months and his tweet wasn't very diplomatic.
He's not being particularly well advised on how thorny the B-word is over here.
Yes the likely leader of the world's most powerful country really needs to watch his mouth. He's already upset IDS, if he's not careful Mark Francois might hear about it and then shit will get real.
I wouldn't expect a tedious old Lefty fart, like you, to understand but his intervention has already agitated support on the Tory backbenches and IDS was until recently a minister - this will have an impact.
He might calculate this does little damage to him with his Democrat activist base, who might applaud it, but he will still need to have a constructive working relationship with the UK Government of the day.
Realistically, it's the UK Government of the day that will most need to have a constructive working relationship with the US government/president, particularly if it wants a US-UK FTA. We an posture all we like, but Biden can say/do what he wants (so can Trump, more is the pity).
One has to feel for Joe Biden here. He's already in the fight of his life to eject Donald Trump from the White House in the most divisive and potentially explosive US presidential election there has ever been and now he has Iain Duncan Smith on his back.
Mega lolz
Even I laughed at that one but there's a serious point: Biden is likely to be working with this Government in less than 4 months and his tweet wasn't very diplomatic.
He's not being particularly well advised on how thorny the B-word is over here.
Yes the likely leader of the world's most powerful country really needs to watch his mouth. He's already upset IDS, if he's not careful Mark Francois might hear about it and then shit will get real.
I wouldn't expect a tedious old Lefty fart, like you, to understand but his intervention has already agitated support on the Tory backbenches and IDS was until recently a minister - this will have an impact.
He might calculate this does little damage to him with his Democrat activist base, who might applaud it, but he will still need to have a constructive working relationship with the UK Government of the day.
Realistically, it's the UK Government of the day that will most need to have a constructive working relationship with the US government/president, particularly if it wants a US-UK FTA. We an posture all we like, but Biden can say/do what he wants (so can Trump, more is the pity).
Better for UK politicians not to get involved, honestly. It's not any of our business.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
Who'd be an MP?
Crap money, long hours and everyone constantly harassing you and thinking you're a money-grubbing self-interested arse - not to mention your private life all public and raked over requiring you to have lived the life of a saint. One slip up and your whole reputation in tatters...
One has to feel for Joe Biden here. He's already in the fight of his life to eject Donald Trump from the White House in the most divisive and potentially explosive US presidential election there has ever been and now he has Iain Duncan Smith on his back.
Mega lolz
Even I laughed at that one but there's a serious point: Biden is likely to be working with this Government in less than 4 months and his tweet wasn't very diplomatic.
He's not being particularly well advised on how thorny the B-word is over here.
Yes the likely leader of the world's most powerful country really needs to watch his mouth. He's already upset IDS, if he's not careful Mark Francois might hear about it and then shit will get real.
I wouldn't expect a tedious old Lefty fart, like you, to understand but his intervention has already agitated support on the Tory backbenches and IDS was until recently a minister - this will have an impact.
He might calculate this does little damage to him with his Democrat activist base, who might applaud it, but he will still need to have a constructive working relationship with the UK Government of the day.
IDS is a former Tory leader and a supporter of Boris, his intervention will not have gone unnoticed in both the Biden and Trump campaigns.
As I said above a Biden Presidency would put Boris last in terms of G7 leaders on Biden's speed dial (unless Salvini becomes Italian PM in which case he might be promoted to second last)
One has to feel for Joe Biden here. He's already in the fight of his life to eject Donald Trump from the White House in the most divisive and potentially explosive US presidential election there has ever been and now he has Iain Duncan Smith on his back.
Mega lolz
Even I laughed at that one but there's a serious point: Biden is likely to be working with this Government in less than 4 months and his tweet wasn't very diplomatic.
He's not being particularly well advised on how thorny the B-word is over here.
Will he rue the day he tweeted that tweet? He'll either allow or deny us the odd crumb from his table, and concentrate on frying bigger fish.
It's amazing how those that talk down Britain don't win over more Britons to their side.
I just don't think it is my patriotic duty to entertain sectionable delusions of grandeur on behalf of my country. But carry on if it floats your boat.
This is about diplomacy, which costs nothing but carries great cost.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
Who'd be an MP?
Crap money, long hours and everyone constantly harassing you and thinking you're a money-grubbing self-interested arse - not to mention your private life all public and raked over requiring you to have lived the life of a saint. One slip up and your whole reputation in tatters...
Sounds just like posting on PB.
But here we can nuke our post history. Can't do that in Hansard (yet, anyway).
One has to feel for Joe Biden here. He's already in the fight of his life to eject Donald Trump from the White House in the most divisive and potentially explosive US presidential election there has ever been and now he has Iain Duncan Smith on his back.
Mega lolz
Even I laughed at that one but there's a serious point: Biden is likely to be working with this Government in less than 4 months and his tweet wasn't very diplomatic.
He's not being particularly well advised on how thorny the B-word is over here.
Yes the likely leader of the world's most powerful country really needs to watch his mouth. He's already upset IDS, if he's not careful Mark Francois might hear about it and then shit will get real.
I wouldn't expect a tedious old Lefty fart, like you, to understand but his intervention has already agitated support on the Tory backbenches and IDS was until recently a minister - this will have an impact.
He might calculate this does little damage to him with his Democrat activist base, who might applaud it, but he will still need to have a constructive working relationship with the UK Government of the day.
Realistically, it's the UK Government of the day that will most need to have a constructive working relationship with the US government/president, particularly if it wants a US-UK FTA. We an posture all we like, but Biden can say/do what he wants (so can Trump, more is the pity).
It works both ways. The UK is a key military and intelligence ally of the US and works with it in NATO, the G7, UN and elsewhere.
The biggest thing we could do to reduce our influence with them is to slash our military budget. And we might just do that.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
There's second jobs and there's second jobs. A good question to ask is would the person have the job/work if they weren't in parliament ? Cox's legal work passes that test, I'm not sure Grayling's contract does.
Where's the fried bread? Breakfast of champions, though not slimming champions.
One of those things, like black pudding, that is often pretty terrible, but if you get a good one it really is the food of kings.
(Fried bread is also in the survey, and backed by 47%, so a number agree with you - small print under the picture)
Black pudding is best eaten in the presence of out of touch urban snowflakes or children, with a detailed explanation, preferably if they personally knew the porker.
Edit: not 100% sure about the hash brown situation. Full English?! Hmm.
And can't say I've seen black pudding in a fried breakfast outside Ireland.
Pretty much de rigeur in Scotland.
Isn't that white pudding?
Very rare in a breakfast, more a chip supper thing. Don't think it slices very well, but encased in an oily, glistening sheath of batter... #glasgowfoodporn
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Grayling anchored and knowledgeable about the real world? Hahahahahaha. You think he got this job on merit? Hahahahahaha.
I'm as vociferous a critic of Grayling as the next man.
That doesn't invalidate my point.
I think it does, though. There should be a code of conduct distinguishing real jobs from gravy-train appointments like this which amount to privately profiting from having been a minister. Not difficult: you just have to ask which came first.
One has to feel for Joe Biden here. He's already in the fight of his life to eject Donald Trump from the White House in the most divisive and potentially explosive US presidential election there has ever been and now he has Iain Duncan Smith on his back.
Mega lolz
Even I laughed at that one but there's a serious point: Biden is likely to be working with this Government in less than 4 months and his tweet wasn't very diplomatic.
He's not being particularly well advised on how thorny the B-word is over here.
Remember the anecdote about Biden's meeting with Cameron, where Cameron's team eagerly prepared to talk about all the issues that were important to them, and Biden completely ignored them? That's what it will be like working with him.
Yep, of the G7 leaders Biden would put Macron, Merkel, Trudeau, Conte and Suga first and will then firmly place Boris 'at the back of the queue' and effectively wait for a PM Starmer in 2024, until then the UK would be on the 'naughty step' as far as the White House is concerned
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
That would be a good point if MPs were doing second jobs that were "in touch". If they want to do 5 hours a week teaching at a local college, working at a youth centre, a law centre or CAB, or even working in a bar/shop/cafe, then they'd learn an awful lot about their local communities.
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
Edit: not 100% sure about the hash brown situation. Full English?! Hmm.
And can't say I've seen black pudding in a fried breakfast outside Ireland.
Pretty much de rigeur in Scotland.
Isn't that white pudding?
Very rare in a breakfast, more a chip supper thing. Don't think it slices very well, but encased in an oily, glistening sheath of batter... #glasgowfoodporn
On your hashtag there I can confidently say that's one internet search I've never had the courage to make.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
That would be a good point if MPs were doing second jobs that were "in touch". If they want to do 5 hours a week teaching at a local college, working at a youth centre, a law centre or CAB, or even working in a bar/shop/cafe, then they'd learn an awful lot about their local communities.
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
But many MPs do that. There are MPs who work as a doctor or other stuff that they did beforehand part time.
There are also MPs who are grifters.
Like anything in life there's good and bad. Its up to the public to decide, let them vote out the bad and keep the good . . . there's no point banning second jobs to target the grifters but also catching the good MPs with reasonable 'second jobs', throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides the grifters will always find another way to grift if that's what they want to do. At least with our system as it is they need to publicly declare their income and its not sly backhanders that are kept off the books.
That'd actually have achieved its objective because the full trade deal - if signed by both sides - would supersede the needs for the caveats in the WA as it would spell out precisely how it would work. And if neither the UK or the EU were happy with it they wouldn't sign it.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Grayling anchored and knowledgeable about the real world? Hahahahahaha. You think he got this job on merit? Hahahahahaha.
I'm as vociferous a critic of Grayling as the next man.
That doesn't invalidate my point.
I think it does, though. There should be a code of conduct distinguishing real jobs from gravy-train appointments like this which amount to privately profiting from having been a minister. Not difficult: you just have to ask which came first.
It doesn't because my point was about MPs having second jobs in principle, which I see no issue with.
@Pulpstar put the caveat to that far better than you. And I agree with him on that.
“I found it to be an amazing spectacle of [BLANK]’s reality distortion field on full power — his refusal to answer the substance of serious questions, his complete bonkers grasp of reality and facts and his comfort in offering non-sensical explanations for very serious topics”
That'd actually have achieved its objective because the full trade deal - if signed by both sides - would supersede the needs for the caveats in the WA as it would spell out precisely how it would work. And if neither the UK or the EU were happy with it they wouldn't sign it.
It allows both sides to save face.
Clever.
Not really. It could be an incredibly bare bones "trade deal" covering only certain areas, and even then would require the WA to be implemented in full including the customs checks in the Irish Sea.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
Who'd be an MP?
Crap money, long hours and everyone constantly harassing you and thinking you're a money-grubbing self-interested arse - not to mention your private life all public and raked over requiring you to have lived the life of a saint. One slip up and your whole reputation in tatters...
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
That would be a good point if MPs were doing second jobs that were "in touch". If they want to do 5 hours a week teaching at a local college, working at a youth centre, a law centre or CAB, or even working in a bar/shop/cafe, then they'd learn an awful lot about their local communities.
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
But many MPs do that. There are MPs who work as a doctor or other stuff that they did beforehand part time.
There are also MPs who are grifters.
Like anything in life there's good and bad. Its up to the public to decide, let them vote out the bad and keep the good . . . there's no point banning second jobs to target the grifters but also catching the good MPs with reasonable 'second jobs', throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides the grifters will always find another way to grift if that's what they want to do. At least with our system as it is they need to publicly declare their income and its not sly backhanders that are kept off the books.
Sure there are a few doctors - I said "apart from the off professional", but they're very much the minority.
You could easily ban consultancy work and even directorships, as both are often just bought influence. If MPs then wanted another job, they could get one that doesn't rely on their position as an MP.
I understand in the North East "lockdown", the requirement to "not socialise with people outside your own household" is simply advice and won't be the law.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
That would be a good point if MPs were doing second jobs that were "in touch". If they want to do 5 hours a week teaching at a local college, working at a youth centre, a law centre or CAB, or even working in a bar/shop/cafe, then they'd learn an awful lot about their local communities.
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
But many MPs do that. There are MPs who work as a doctor or other stuff that they did beforehand part time.
There are also MPs who are grifters.
Like anything in life there's good and bad. Its up to the public to decide, let them vote out the bad and keep the good . . . there's no point banning second jobs to target the grifters but also catching the good MPs with reasonable 'second jobs', throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides the grifters will always find another way to grift if that's what they want to do. At least with our system as it is they need to publicly declare their income and its not sly backhanders that are kept off the books.
Sure there are a few doctors - I said "apart from the off professional", but they're very much the minority.
You could easily ban consultancy work and even directorships, as both are often just bought influence. If MPs then wanted another job, they could get one that doesn't rely on their position as an MP.
What purpose does that serve?
An MP has to declare any payments they receive, put them on their register of interests. Then the voters can decide, if they dislike their MP grifting then they can elect another MP. Problem solved.
Other countries with bans like this you end up with off the books direct corruption which is far, far worse and has no public knowledge or recourse to what is going on.
Isn't that part of the bill moot with an FTA anyway? If there's an FTA they won't need to use it.
It depends on the contents of the FTA surely?
Even with an FTA there is need for customs on rules of origin etc.
But if an FTA has been agreed we'd have resolved those issues with them. The Bill is only relevant if there's no FTA.
Yeah, the UK government would have had to sign off on whatever is in the FTA. Seems like quite a strange threat.
It's a face saver.
For who? The "threat" has only achieved its aim if we get a better deal than we would have otherwise got. Obviously we'll never really know.
Regardless I think the government just wants a deal. It doesn't matter what deal (just like with the WA), they just want to say "look, we got one", economic impact or sustainability be damned.
That'd actually have achieved its objective because the full trade deal - if signed by both sides - would supersede the needs for the caveats in the WA as it would spell out precisely how it would work. And if neither the UK or the EU were happy with it they wouldn't sign it.
It allows both sides to save face.
Clever.
Not really. It could be an incredibly bare bones "trade deal" covering only certain areas, and even then would require the WA to be implemented in full including the customs checks in the Irish Sea.
If it's that it won't be signed.
Every knows that intra UK and Irish trade is crucial and you only know how that's going to work once the full FTA is done, and which goods and services may be affected and how.
Which is why the sequencing was always bullshit: this should all have been negotiated in one package at once, which wouldn't have affected the Irish border being one of the key redlines.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
That would be a good point if MPs were doing second jobs that were "in touch". If they want to do 5 hours a week teaching at a local college, working at a youth centre, a law centre or CAB, or even working in a bar/shop/cafe, then they'd learn an awful lot about their local communities.
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
But many MPs do that. There are MPs who work as a doctor or other stuff that they did beforehand part time.
There are also MPs who are grifters.
Like anything in life there's good and bad. Its up to the public to decide, let them vote out the bad and keep the good . . . there's no point banning second jobs to target the grifters but also catching the good MPs with reasonable 'second jobs', throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides the grifters will always find another way to grift if that's what they want to do. At least with our system as it is they need to publicly declare their income and its not sly backhanders that are kept off the books.
Sure there are a few doctors - I said "apart from the off professional", but they're very much the minority.
You could easily ban consultancy work and even directorships, as both are often just bought influence. If MPs then wanted another job, they could get one that doesn't rely on their position as an MP.
What purpose does that serve?
An MP has to declare any payments they receive, put them on their register of interests. Then the voters can decide, if they dislike their MP grifting then they can elect another MP. Problem solved.
Other countries with bans like this you end up with off the books direct corruption which is far, far worse and has no public knowledge or recourse to what is going on.
Most voters don't even know who their MP is. They simply vote for a party.
Your fantasy about the public kicking out dodgy individual MPs is just that, a fantasy.
Isn't that part of the bill moot with an FTA anyway? If there's an FTA they won't need to use it.
It depends on the contents of the FTA surely?
Even with an FTA there is need for customs on rules of origin etc.
But if an FTA has been agreed we'd have resolved those issues with them. The Bill is only relevant if there's no FTA.
Yeah, the UK government would have had to sign off on whatever is in the FTA. Seems like quite a strange threat.
It's a face saver.
For who? The "threat" has only achieved its aim if we get a better deal than we would have otherwise got. Obviously we'll never really know.
Regardless I think the government just wants a deal. It doesn't matter what deal (just like with the WA), they just want to say "look, we got one", economic impact or sustainability be damned.
For the EU.
This is a face saving way of them saying they're retaliating against us without actually doing anything. Meanwhile they're looking for a way to compromise to get an FTA to make all this go away.
Isn't that part of the bill moot with an FTA anyway? If there's an FTA they won't need to use it.
It depends on the contents of the FTA surely?
Even with an FTA there is need for customs on rules of origin etc.
But if an FTA has been agreed we'd have resolved those issues with them. The Bill is only relevant if there's no FTA.
Yeah, the UK government would have had to sign off on whatever is in the FTA. Seems like quite a strange threat.
It's a face saver.
For who? The "threat" has only achieved its aim if we get a better deal than we would have otherwise got. Obviously we'll never really know.
Regardless I think the government just wants a deal. It doesn't matter what deal (just like with the WA), they just want to say "look, we got one", economic impact or sustainability be damned.
For the EU.
This is a face saving way of them saying they're retaliating against us without actually doing anything. Meanwhile they're looking for a way to compromise to get an FTA to make all this go away.
That'd actually have achieved its objective because the full trade deal - if signed by both sides - would supersede the needs for the caveats in the WA as it would spell out precisely how it would work. And if neither the UK or the EU were happy with it they wouldn't sign it.
It allows both sides to save face.
Clever.
Not really. It could be an incredibly bare bones "trade deal" covering only certain areas, and even then would require the WA to be implemented in full including the customs checks in the Irish Sea.
If it's that it won't be signed.
Every knows that intra UK and Irish trade is crucial and you only know how that's going to work once the full FTA is done, and which goods and services may be affected and how.
Which is why the sequencing was always bullshit: this should all have been negotiated in one package at once, which wouldn't have affected the Irish border being one of the key redlines.
Could have saved us all a lot of grief.
We'll see. Regardless we are where we are with the sequencing. Can't do anything about it now.
On the basis of new information today I surmise Boris wants a deal and the EU really wants a deal and both need to save face and will help each other do it. There's also the compromise on fish being floated as per Katya Adler's tweet the other day.
So I'm back to 40% chance of a deal - the main obstacle now being state aid.
That'd actually have achieved its objective because the full trade deal - if signed by both sides - would supersede the needs for the caveats in the WA as it would spell out precisely how it would work. And if neither the UK or the EU were happy with it they wouldn't sign it.
It allows both sides to save face.
Clever.
Not really. It could be an incredibly bare bones "trade deal" covering only certain areas, and even then would require the WA to be implemented in full including the customs checks in the Irish Sea.
If it's that it won't be signed.
Every knows that intra UK and Irish trade is crucial and you only know how that's going to work once the full FTA is done, and which goods and services may be affected and how.
Which is why the sequencing was always bullshit: this should all have been negotiated in one package at once, which wouldn't have affected the Irish border being one of the key redlines.
Could have saved us all a lot of grief.
We'll see. Regardless we are where we are with the sequencing. Can't do anything about it now.
Isn't that part of the bill moot with an FTA anyway? If there's an FTA they won't need to use it.
It depends on the contents of the FTA surely?
Even with an FTA there is need for customs on rules of origin etc.
But if an FTA has been agreed we'd have resolved those issues with them. The Bill is only relevant if there's no FTA.
Yeah, the UK government would have had to sign off on whatever is in the FTA. Seems like quite a strange threat.
It's a face saver.
For who? The "threat" has only achieved its aim if we get a better deal than we would have otherwise got. Obviously we'll never really know.
Regardless I think the government just wants a deal. It doesn't matter what deal (just like with the WA), they just want to say "look, we got one", economic impact or sustainability be damned.
For the EU.
This is a face saving way of them saying they're retaliating against us without actually doing anything. Meanwhile they're looking for a way to compromise to get an FTA to make all this go away.
The Bill has done its job. The EU are blinking.
Lol. You're so deluded.
I'm calling it as I see it.
The EU "threatening" to punish us by suspending an agreement we haven't reached yet, once reached, until we withdraw our actions for if there is no agreement . . . is a completely gibberish and meaningless threat. Its a face saving way form them to pretend to be acting tough in response when in reality it is absolutely irrelevant.
If they really wanted to be tough they would have cancelled the talks and walked away until this law was dropped. They're not being, because they know we've called their bluff.
On the basis of new information today I surmise Boris wants a deal and the EU really wants a deal and both need to save face and will help each other do it. There's also the compromise on fish being floated as per Katya Adler's tweet the other day.
So I'm back to 40% chance of a deal - the main obstacle now being state aid.
Of course both sides want a deal. I wasn't aware that was even in dispute.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
That would be a good point if MPs were doing second jobs that were "in touch". If they want to do 5 hours a week teaching at a local college, working at a youth centre, a law centre or CAB, or even working in a bar/shop/cafe, then they'd learn an awful lot about their local communities.
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
This is a bit of both (edit: professional/in touch) -
Isn't that part of the bill moot with an FTA anyway? If there's an FTA they won't need to use it.
It depends on the contents of the FTA surely?
Even with an FTA there is need for customs on rules of origin etc.
But if an FTA has been agreed we'd have resolved those issues with them. The Bill is only relevant if there's no FTA.
Yeah, the UK government would have had to sign off on whatever is in the FTA. Seems like quite a strange threat.
It's a face saver.
For who? The "threat" has only achieved its aim if we get a better deal than we would have otherwise got. Obviously we'll never really know.
Regardless I think the government just wants a deal. It doesn't matter what deal (just like with the WA), they just want to say "look, we got one", economic impact or sustainability be damned.
Isn't that part of the bill moot with an FTA anyway? If there's an FTA they won't need to use it.
It depends on the contents of the FTA surely?
Even with an FTA there is need for customs on rules of origin etc.
But if an FTA has been agreed we'd have resolved those issues with them. The Bill is only relevant if there's no FTA.
Yeah, the UK government would have had to sign off on whatever is in the FTA. Seems like quite a strange threat.
It's a face saver.
For who? The "threat" has only achieved its aim if we get a better deal than we would have otherwise got. Obviously we'll never really know.
Regardless I think the government just wants a deal. It doesn't matter what deal (just like with the WA), they just want to say "look, we got one", economic impact or sustainability be damned.
For the EU.
This is a face saving way of them saying they're retaliating against us without actually doing anything. Meanwhile they're looking for a way to compromise to get an FTA to make all this go away.
The Bill has done its job. The EU are blinking.
Lol. You're so deluded.
I'm calling it as I see it.
The EU "threatening" to punish us by suspending an agreement we haven't reached yet, once reached, until we withdraw our actions for if there is no agreement . . . is a completely gibberish and meaningless threat. Its a face saving way form them to pretend to be acting tough in response when in reality it is absolutely irrelevant.
If they really wanted to be tough they would have cancelled the talks and walked away until this law was dropped. They're not being, because they know we've called their bluff.
Like I said, you're completely and utterly deluded.
If they haven't got the QR code they haven't got the appointment what are they doing going to the centre?
Lot of people turning up uninvited and without an appointment certainly may cause traffic but I fail to see the issue.
The traffic is due to part of the south circular closed due to a burst water main, nothing to do with covid testing despite the tweet. Just been through it.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
That would be a good point if MPs were doing second jobs that were "in touch". If they want to do 5 hours a week teaching at a local college, working at a youth centre, a law centre or CAB, or even working in a bar/shop/cafe, then they'd learn an awful lot about their local communities.
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
But many MPs do that. There are MPs who work as a doctor or other stuff that they did beforehand part time.
There are also MPs who are grifters.
Like anything in life there's good and bad. Its up to the public to decide, let them vote out the bad and keep the good . . . there's no point banning second jobs to target the grifters but also catching the good MPs with reasonable 'second jobs', throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides the grifters will always find another way to grift if that's what they want to do. At least with our system as it is they need to publicly declare their income and its not sly backhanders that are kept off the books.
Sure there are a few doctors - I said "apart from the off professional", but they're very much the minority.
You could easily ban consultancy work and even directorships, as both are often just bought influence. If MPs then wanted another job, they could get one that doesn't rely on their position as an MP.
What purpose does that serve?
An MP has to declare any payments they receive, put them on their register of interests. Then the voters can decide, if they dislike their MP grifting then they can elect another MP. Problem solved.
Other countries with bans like this you end up with off the books direct corruption which is far, far worse and has no public knowledge or recourse to what is going on.
Most voters don't even know who their MP is. They simply vote for a party.
Your fantasy about the public kicking out dodgy individual MPs is just that, a fantasy.
Not true.
I could justify voting Conservative last December because my MP is Damian Hinds - one of the sane ones.
He abstained on Monday and shared his reasoning with me.
Terrible idea. It's this that keeps them anchored and knowledgeable about the real world.
They otherwise just fill their time writing pointless EDMs and doing social work.
Agreed 100%
The amount of people who will both moan that MPs are all "out of touch" and then complain about them having second jobs.
There's no reason backbench MPs shouldn't have second jobs, in fact it should really be encouraged. Ministers are afterall all a second job on top of being MPs so why shouldn't backbenchers have one too that keeps them in touch in the real world?
That would be a good point if MPs were doing second jobs that were "in touch". If they want to do 5 hours a week teaching at a local college, working at a youth centre, a law centre or CAB, or even working in a bar/shop/cafe, then they'd learn an awful lot about their local communities.
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
But many MPs do that. There are MPs who work as a doctor or other stuff that they did beforehand part time.
There are also MPs who are grifters.
Like anything in life there's good and bad. Its up to the public to decide, let them vote out the bad and keep the good . . . there's no point banning second jobs to target the grifters but also catching the good MPs with reasonable 'second jobs', throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides the grifters will always find another way to grift if that's what they want to do. At least with our system as it is they need to publicly declare their income and its not sly backhanders that are kept off the books.
Sure there are a few doctors - I said "apart from the off professional", but they're very much the minority.
You could easily ban consultancy work and even directorships, as both are often just bought influence. If MPs then wanted another job, they could get one that doesn't rely on their position as an MP.
What purpose does that serve?
An MP has to declare any payments they receive, put them on their register of interests. Then the voters can decide, if they dislike their MP grifting then they can elect another MP. Problem solved.
Other countries with bans like this you end up with off the books direct corruption which is far, far worse and has no public knowledge or recourse to what is going on.
Most voters don't even know who their MP is. They simply vote for a party.
Your fantasy about the public kicking out dodgy individual MPs is just that, a fantasy.
Its absolutely not a fantasy. Look how many MPs stood down following the expenses scandal. It doesn't matter if the individual MP is well known by the public or not, if there's an issue to weigh against them in the local media or with the opposition then that can affect the results . . . and just as much it can compel people who have caused a stink to need to stand down before the election so they aren't a drag on their party. I could name a great many MPs who have been removed from Parliament at the following election this way.
That is one big advantage of our voting system meaning that there's only one single MP per constituency. It makes it impossible to hide within a crowd, you can only be an MP if you yourself win that constituency - and if you give a reason for your party to dump you because you've been corrupt and the local paper is running the story then you're out.
Re: lobbying by former members, IIRC in US former members of Congress (and staff) are barred (pun intended) from lobbying for one year. Which IMHO should be more like 5 years.
OF course this does NOT stop influence peddling. BUT it does curb it slightly.
BTW, do members of Parliament still have their very own reserved tube station?
Biden is up 4pts in NC with Suffolk Uni (A grade pollster on 538)
B 47 T 43
North Carolina so far:
Mail in votes by party Democratic 44,821 55.33% Republican 12,460 15.38% Unaffiliated 23,525 29.04% Libertarian 166 0.20% Constitution 11 0.01% Green 29 0.04%
Party Requests (Mail) DEMOCRATIC 435,981 REPUBLICAN 147,986 UNAFFILIATED 275,660 LIBERTARIAN 2,808 CONSTITUTION 203 GREEN 414
If they haven't got the QR code they haven't got the appointment what are they doing going to the centre?
Lot of people turning up uninvited and without an appointment certainly may cause traffic but I fail to see the issue.
The traffic is due to part of the south circular closed due to a burst water main, nothing to do with covid testing despite the tweet. Just been through it.
Edinburgh put on haggis instead. Terrible option. Haggis is delicious but should not be on a breakfast plate.
you can get haggis and blackpudding, if you know where to look...
The big question though is where can you get dumpling?
Absolutely agreed. My late mother's clootie dumpling is much missed (ideally boiled in a cloth hence the name). Hot with custard the first day, sliced and fried in butter for dessert the next and the next and the next. Some have it sliced for breakfast, hence the link here (as well as the sausage kind of link, of course).
If they haven't got the QR code they haven't got the appointment what are they doing going to the centre?
Lot of people turning up uninvited and without an appointment certainly may cause traffic but I fail to see the issue.
The traffic is due to part of the south circular closed due to a burst water main, nothing to do with covid testing despite the tweet. Just been through it.
On the basis of new information today I surmise Boris wants a deal and the EU really wants a deal and both need to save face and will help each other do it. There's also the compromise on fish being floated as per Katya Adler's tweet the other day.
So I'm back to 40% chance of a deal - the main obstacle now being state aid.
I expect state aid will end up very close to what was agreed with the Japanese. That is entirely agreeable.
I understand in the North East "lockdown", the requirement to "not socialise with people outside your own household" is simply advice and won't be the law.
Good luck with compliance with that.
Eh? A relative pointed this out -
"1. What are the new measures? From Friday 18th September, regulations will lawfully ban the following:
Residents must not socialise with other people outside of their own households in private homes and gardens ..."
Admittedly "Please note: We are yet to receive the regulations outlining the advice, guidance and legislation in full. We will further communicate implications for our residents and businesses as soon as we can."
But pubs will remain open. I think that's pretty shite for people living on their own.
That'd actually have achieved its objective because the full trade deal - if signed by both sides - would supersede the needs for the caveats in the WA as it would spell out precisely how it would work. And if neither the UK or the EU were happy with it they wouldn't sign it.
It allows both sides to save face.
Clever.
Not really. It could be an incredibly bare bones "trade deal" covering only certain areas, and even then would require the WA to be implemented in full including the customs checks in the Irish Sea.
If it's that it won't be signed.
Every knows that intra UK and Irish trade is crucial and you only know how that's going to work once the full FTA is done, and which goods and services may be affected and how.
Which is why the sequencing was always bullshit: this should all have been negotiated in one package at once, which wouldn't have affected the Irish border being one of the key redlines.
Could have saved us all a lot of grief.
The EU sequenced it this way as a powerplay to try to compel us to give in to their demands. The UK has published the IM Bill as a powerplay to undercut that and remove that as an issue on their favour.
Now the real talks are happening and people are compromising. The IM Bill has done its job - it was a dirty act, but the EU have played dirty through this too. Sometimes to get the right thing done you need to get down and dirty.
If they haven't got the QR code they haven't got the appointment what are they doing going to the centre?
Lot of people turning up uninvited and without an appointment certainly may cause traffic but I fail to see the issue.
The traffic is due to part of the south circular closed due to a burst water main, nothing to do with covid testing despite the tweet. Just been through it.
My theory is still that it's a "Brexit is in peril, defend it with all your might" vote.
That may be true, but...
Just as Trump is running on platform of Vote for Me so that all the really bad stuff that is happening right now with me in charge won't happen, so BoZo ran on a platform of "I will get it done", and then didn't...
There must come a point, surely?
Eventually, you would have thought so. But at the moment, the loyalists are loyal and happy to blame anyone but Boris. cf. the party split on the "Who would be to blame for a second lockdown" YouGov yesterday.
Comments
Edinburgh put on haggis instead. Terrible option. Haggis is delicious but should not be on a breakfast plate.
Crap money, long hours and everyone constantly harassing you and thinking you're a money-grubbing self-interested arse - not to mention your private life all public and raked over requiring you to have lived the life of a saint. One slip up and your whole reputation in tatters.
No thanks.
A good question to ask is would the person have the job/work if they weren't in parliament ?
Cox's legal work passes that test, I'm not sure Grayling's contract does.
https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1306554420335960064
That doesn't invalidate my point.
As I said above a Biden Presidency would put Boris last in terms of G7 leaders on Biden's speed dial (unless Salvini becomes Italian PM in which case he might be promoted to second last)
The biggest thing we could do to reduce our influence with them is to slash our military budget. And we might just do that.
Again.
On the small print underneath it says 'grilled mushroons'. I always fry my mushrooms. Isn't it meant to be a fry up?
Far more satisfying that way.
The big question though is where can you get dumpling?
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1306586711762370560
But apart from the odd professional, what they tend to do is consult with firms who want to influence MPs, or sit on boards, where they're almost as far from understanding every day life for the majority as they are in Parliament.
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1306588239914921984
The way that savvy B&B owners present it as an option to American tourists is a tip-off:
"Would you be wanting to full English? Or would you rather have something to eat?"
My understanding was that a Welsh breakfast featured cockles and fried laverbread.
Even with an FTA there is need for customs on rules of origin etc.
There are also MPs who are grifters.
Like anything in life there's good and bad. Its up to the public to decide, let them vote out the bad and keep the good . . . there's no point banning second jobs to target the grifters but also catching the good MPs with reasonable 'second jobs', throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides the grifters will always find another way to grift if that's what they want to do. At least with our system as it is they need to publicly declare their income and its not sly backhanders that are kept off the books.
B 47
T 43
"In the event we agree a deal we won't implement it until you ratify the deal and remove your no deal powers" - file under no s**t Sherlock.
It allows both sides to save face.
Clever.
@Pulpstar put the caveat to that far better than you. And I agree with him on that.
“I found it to be an amazing spectacle of [BLANK]’s reality distortion field on full power — his refusal to answer the substance of serious questions, his complete bonkers grasp of reality and facts and his comfort in offering non-sensical explanations for very serious topics”
WHO is BLANK?
a) Boris Johnson
b) Donald Trump
c) Mike Smithson
Lot of people turning up uninvited and without an appointment certainly may cause traffic but I fail to see the issue.
You could easily ban consultancy work and even directorships, as both are often just bought influence. If MPs then wanted another job, they could get one that doesn't rely on their position as an MP.
Good luck with compliance with that.
An MP has to declare any payments they receive, put them on their register of interests. Then the voters can decide, if they dislike their MP grifting then they can elect another MP. Problem solved.
Other countries with bans like this you end up with off the books direct corruption which is far, far worse and has no public knowledge or recourse to what is going on.
Regardless I think the government just wants a deal. It doesn't matter what deal (just like with the WA), they just want to say "look, we got one", economic impact or sustainability be damned.
Every knows that intra UK and Irish trade is crucial and you only know how that's going to work once the full FTA is done, and which goods and services may be affected and how.
Which is why the sequencing was always bullshit: this should all have been negotiated in one package at once, which wouldn't have affected the Irish border being one of the key redlines.
Could have saved us all a lot of grief.
Your fantasy about the public kicking out dodgy individual MPs is just that, a fantasy.
This is a face saving way of them saying they're retaliating against us without actually doing anything. Meanwhile they're looking for a way to compromise to get an FTA to make all this go away.
The Bill has done its job. The EU are blinking.
We'll see. Regardless we are where we are with the sequencing. Can't do anything about it now.
So I'm back to 40% chance of a deal - the main obstacle now being state aid.
The EU "threatening" to punish us by suspending an agreement we haven't reached yet, once reached, until we withdraw our actions for if there is no agreement . . . is a completely gibberish and meaningless threat. Its a face saving way form them to pretend to be acting tough in response when in reality it is absolutely irrelevant.
If they really wanted to be tough they would have cancelled the talks and walked away until this law was dropped. They're not being, because they know we've called their bluff.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/14901537.mp-philippa-whitford-forced-to-defend-doing-life-saving-nhs-work-over-christmas/
https://www.thameswater.co.uk/network-latest/se12---burst-main-and-road-closure
I could justify voting Conservative last December because my MP is Damian Hinds - one of the sane ones.
He abstained on Monday and shared his reasoning with me.
I'm glad I voted for him.
That is one big advantage of our voting system meaning that there's only one single MP per constituency. It makes it impossible to hide within a crowd, you can only be an MP if you yourself win that constituency - and if you give a reason for your party to dump you because you've been corrupt and the local paper is running the story then you're out.
OF course this does NOT stop influence peddling. BUT it does curb it slightly.
BTW, do members of Parliament still have their very own reserved tube station?
Mail in votes by party
Democratic 44,821 55.33%
Republican 12,460 15.38%
Unaffiliated 23,525 29.04%
Libertarian 166 0.20%
Constitution 11 0.01%
Green 29 0.04%
Party Requests (Mail)
DEMOCRATIC 435,981
REPUBLICAN 147,986
UNAFFILIATED 275,660
LIBERTARIAN 2,808
CONSTITUTION 203
GREEN 414
Grand Total 863,052
Here's 2016
Mail in In person On the day
Dem 60043 / 1247968 / 0
Rep 76154 / 928187 / 0
Una 55404 / 779454 / 0
Unknown 0 / 0 / 1592082
That lot resulted in 2,362,631 Trump / 2,189,316 Clinton / 187,345 Someone else
Surely you'd be a BIG improvement over what they've now got? BUT that's NOT much of a compliment!
"1. What are the new measures?
From Friday 18th September, regulations will lawfully ban the following:
Residents must not socialise with other people outside of their own households in private homes and gardens ..."
Admittedly "Please note: We are yet to receive the regulations outlining the advice, guidance and legislation in full. We will further communicate implications for our residents and businesses as soon as we can."
But pubs will remain open. I think that's pretty shite for people living on their own.
https://www.northumberland.gov.uk/coronavirus/Latest-information-and-advice-on-Coronavirus.aspx#:~:text=What are the new measures,restricted to table service only
The UK has published the IM Bill as a powerplay to undercut that and remove that as an issue on their favour.
Now the real talks are happening and people are compromising. The IM Bill has done its job - it was a dirty act, but the EU have played dirty through this too. Sometimes to get the right thing done you need to get down and dirty.
Apparently one of the reasons, lack of reagents.
I wonder, rest of Europe is also suffering spikes, do we think its possible UK labs again are suffering shortages of the reagents?