Nerys, you need to drop this one. What is the logic behind your belief that masks increase infections?
I was just stating a fact, what has materially changed in Wales in the last month in Covid prevention. The only thing is mask wearing in shops. Since then infection rates have increased markedly and most of the Country is in some form of lockdown. yet i am considered not logical for thinking there may be a connection.
Yes, not the weather, or the season, or any other facet of human behaviour.
You will be considered logical when you start regularly using logic.
In the meantime you will be considered a contrarian troll. Go back to lobbying for battered black boxes to be removed from aircraft, as clearly they're causing all these plane crashes.
So today I have my first "face-to-face" lectures. I will be required to wear a mask the entire time and sit 2m away from my fellow students.
However if I chat to my fellow students outside the building afterwards I risk being thrown out of university, as we are required to follow not just the laws, but also the guidelines, that state no outdoor socialising with those outside my household.
Cool.
So don't chat afterwards then. What's the issue?
Because the new laws are fucking stupid. Its so dangerous for Gallowgate to stand and chat outdoors with the people he's spent hours in a room with that he faces a fine. My kids spend all day squashed together in a classroom but if they meet up in the park after school they're dangerous and illegal.
He said he had to sit 2 metres apart and with a mask so not exactly squashed together without restrictions?
My kids are squashed together. Their schools are designed to have students sat in clusters. That is contrary to the covid guidelines so tables and seats are now in rows which don't comfortably fit. Teachers have to squeeze round some desks. If those same kids gather in the park later? Dangerous and illegal.
And the NE? Can't meet anyone in your home. But can in the pub. Give over defending this Philip, even ministers have given it up as a bad job.
Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub either.
I don't defend everything but at least get the facts straight.
Incidentally for what its worth with schools they are operating a "bubble" principle. I've been offline more lately because with my kids back at school I've been able to get back to work more, but yesterday as I was heading out the door to take them to school I got a text saying that there has been a positive test in my youngest daughter's class so as a result the whole class have been told to stay at home. So my youngest daughter is back home with me today and I'm back at home, home schooling her again. Her sister is able to continue going to school unless any of us develop symptoms.
1. Yes you can. In the beer garden. What were you saying about facts? 2. With kids in 2 schools and a wife working in a 3rd I am well aware of the bubble principle. Answer the point I am making. It is illegal for students in said bubble to meet outside school despite spending all day squashed together - how does that make any sense at all?
1. The beer garden is not in the pub, it is outside. 2. Because the idea is to have necessary interactions and not unnecessary ones. It is about managing and reducing risk not eliminating it.
Philip, I did ask you to stop dancing on pinheads. A pub beer garden is a pub. Its licensed premises.
A pub beer garden is not in the pub.
Where the virus spreads indoors much more than outdoors then the distinction absolutely matters and is not a pinhead. Outside is not inside.
Jesus Christ. A pub is not a pub. OK. You say outside is not inside - so why can't people meet their family outside? It is about managing and reducing risk so I hear. If the risk is managed and reduced outside in a fenced off pub garden then why is it not also managed and reduced outside in the fenced off house garden on the other side of the fence?
Incidentally. The pub beer garden that isn't a pub despite being a pub ? My local pub has the beer garden at the back so that you have to enter and exit the non-pub via the pub. I can sit in a managed and reduced manner in the non-pub at the back but have to illegally pass through the not managed and reduced pub to get to it.
A whole haystack full of pins you've got there mate. You're almost as ridiculous as HYUFD these days.
You're being ridiculous. I never said a pub is not a pub, I said outside is not inside. It isn't!
Unless you live in the Northeast you are entitled to have upto six people mingling in your home garden. If you are in the North East you're not supposed to mingle with other households whether in the beer garden or your home garden.
Passing through the pub without mingling with others is not illegal. You're mistaken if you think it is and are getting upset because your facts are just wrong.
Can't stop laughing at this mate. You said "Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub". Which you can. In the beer garden. Which is a pub. Licensed by the publican. Hence the name pub.
As for the rest of your guff, that'#s wrong as well. In the NE you *cannot* meet people you don't live/bubble with in your own home or garden except for a list of exceptions. Thats the law as of the 18th September. You *can* meet them in a beer garden - its not illegal. You cannot meet them inside a pub building - thats illegal. So yes, it is illegal to pass with a group you do not live / bubble with inside a pub or restaurant.
I know the advice is bullshit. I know the PM got it wrong. I know the police and the councils weren't told either. I also know that most people are already ignoring it. But they are the rules, and you may want to read them before making prissy comments about facts.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
I think the EU generously agrees to let him keep the nicer half of Kent, he comes back with his victory and drops (or repeals as part of the ratification bill) those sections, and says their job is done because he forced the EU to negotiate. That works, doesn't it? A few of his MPs might bitch but most of them will be relieved to have got the thing out of the way, and he's already set the precedent that rebels get kicked out of the party.
History tells us time and again that this is not how the ERG works. They will cheer Johnson tot he rooftops, then a few months later they will realise that they have been sold down the river and it will all start up again.
That's going to happen no matter what. Once he's passed it, he's passed it, they're not going to get it repealed.
Theresa May is not Boris Johnson. I repeat, there is no deal the government can do that you will consider to be bad. You have already demonstrated this by lauding the brilliance of Boris Johnson in negotiating an agreement you now believe should be reneged upon.
What I hadn't appreciated until today is that, as well as switching to a much worse position on the Northern Irish aspect, Boris also threw away another important concession that Theresa May had won:
"The commission has made clear that it will not agree third-country cumulation in any circumstances, which we regret, but obviously cannot insist upon," says Lord Frost's letter, written on 7 September.
Senior figures in the car industry expressed the view that the government could have chosen to insist on a deal that did contain such measures. But discussions on such subjects have been stalled by the impasse over fishing rights and subsidy powers.
The original Brexit deal negotiated by former PM Theresa May contained a route to minimise checks on what are known as "rules of origin".
That option was removed as part of the revision to the withdrawal agreement a year ago.
As has been pointed out - this significantly narrows the gap between "A deal" and "No Deal". Which may be what some of the "smarter" people involved in its removal may have wanted.
They may well have wanted that. They are going to have one hell of a job selling it in the country. Cummings/Johnson have got themselves in a bind. Their general incompetence has eroded the goodwill they may have been counting on to get general acceptance for a threadbare or no deal. All the tricks they now try - such as the IMB - just makes the hole they are digging for themselves that little bit deeper. Either we cave or there is a border with Kent! That is not how it was meant to be.
Nerys, you need to drop this one. What is the logic behind your belief that masks increase infections?
I was just stating a fact, what has materially changed in Wales in the last month in Covid prevention. The only thing is mask wearing in shops. Since then infection rates have increased markedly and most of the Country is in some form of lockdown. yet i am considered not logical for thinking there may be a connection.
Yes, not the weather, or the season, or any other facet of human behaviour.
You will be considered logical when you start regularly using logic.
In the meantime you will be considered a contrarian troll. Go back to lobbying for battered black boxes to be removed from aircraft, as clearly they're causing all these plane crashes.
Yeah, it really is absurd. The rise in cases might just possibly.. POSSIBLY.. have something to do with people doing more stuff? As masks aren't 100% effective, it'll lead to an increase in cases.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
It was the same with choirs, which I think were found to be a significant source of transmission early on.
So today I have my first "face-to-face" lectures. I will be required to wear a mask the entire time and sit 2m away from my fellow students.
However if I chat to my fellow students outside the building afterwards I risk being thrown out of university, as we are required to follow not just the laws, but also the guidelines, that state no outdoor socialising with those outside my household.
Cool.
So don't chat afterwards then. What's the issue?
Because the new laws are fucking stupid. Its so dangerous for Gallowgate to stand and chat outdoors with the people he's spent hours in a room with that he faces a fine. My kids spend all day squashed together in a classroom but if they meet up in the park after school they're dangerous and illegal.
He said he had to sit 2 metres apart and with a mask so not exactly squashed together without restrictions?
My kids are squashed together. Their schools are designed to have students sat in clusters. That is contrary to the covid guidelines so tables and seats are now in rows which don't comfortably fit. Teachers have to squeeze round some desks. If those same kids gather in the park later? Dangerous and illegal.
And the NE? Can't meet anyone in your home. But can in the pub. Give over defending this Philip, even ministers have given it up as a bad job.
Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub either.
I don't defend everything but at least get the facts straight.
Incidentally for what its worth with schools they are operating a "bubble" principle. I've been offline more lately because with my kids back at school I've been able to get back to work more, but yesterday as I was heading out the door to take them to school I got a text saying that there has been a positive test in my youngest daughter's class so as a result the whole class have been told to stay at home. So my youngest daughter is back home with me today and I'm back at home, home schooling her again. Her sister is able to continue going to school unless any of us develop symptoms.
1. Yes you can. In the beer garden. What were you saying about facts? 2. With kids in 2 schools and a wife working in a 3rd I am well aware of the bubble principle. Answer the point I am making. It is illegal for students in said bubble to meet outside school despite spending all day squashed together - how does that make any sense at all?
1. The beer garden is not in the pub, it is outside. 2. Because the idea is to have necessary interactions and not unnecessary ones. It is about managing and reducing risk not eliminating it.
Philip, I did ask you to stop dancing on pinheads. A pub beer garden is a pub. Its licensed premises.
A pub beer garden is not in the pub.
Where the virus spreads indoors much more than outdoors then the distinction absolutely matters and is not a pinhead. Outside is not inside.
Jesus Christ. A pub is not a pub. OK. You say outside is not inside - so why can't people meet their family outside? It is about managing and reducing risk so I hear. If the risk is managed and reduced outside in a fenced off pub garden then why is it not also managed and reduced outside in the fenced off house garden on the other side of the fence?
Incidentally. The pub beer garden that isn't a pub despite being a pub ? My local pub has the beer garden at the back so that you have to enter and exit the non-pub via the pub. I can sit in a managed and reduced manner in the non-pub at the back but have to illegally pass through the not managed and reduced pub to get to it.
A whole haystack full of pins you've got there mate. You're almost as ridiculous as HYUFD these days.
You're being ridiculous. I never said a pub is not a pub, I said outside is not inside. It isn't!
Unless you live in the Northeast you are entitled to have upto six people mingling in your home garden. If you are in the North East you're not supposed to mingle with other households whether in the beer garden or your home garden.
Passing through the pub without mingling with others is not illegal. You're mistaken if you think it is and are getting upset because your facts are just wrong.
Can't stop laughing at this mate. You said "Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub". Which you can. In the beer garden. Which is a pub. Licensed by the publican. Hence the name pub.
As for the rest of your guff, that'#s wrong as well. In the NE you *cannot* meet people you don't live/bubble with in your own home or garden except for a list of exceptions. Thats the law as of the 18th September. You *can* meet them in a beer garden - its not illegal. You cannot meet them inside a pub building - thats illegal. So yes, it is illegal to pass with a group you do not live / bubble with inside a pub or restaurant.
I know the advice is bullshit. I know the PM got it wrong. I know the police and the councils weren't told either. I also know that most people are already ignoring it. But they are the rules, and you may want to read them before making prissy comments about facts.
You can meet people at the pub in the beer garden. You can't meet people "in" the pub.
You can pass through a pub inside. Not with others, but there's no need to do so with others, just go through by yourself or your own party you live with.
So today I have my first "face-to-face" lectures. I will be required to wear a mask the entire time and sit 2m away from my fellow students.
However if I chat to my fellow students outside the building afterwards I risk being thrown out of university, as we are required to follow not just the laws, but also the guidelines, that state no outdoor socialising with those outside my household.
Cool.
So don't chat afterwards then. What's the issue?
Because the new laws are fucking stupid. Its so dangerous for Gallowgate to stand and chat outdoors with the people he's spent hours in a room with that he faces a fine. My kids spend all day squashed together in a classroom but if they meet up in the park after school they're dangerous and illegal.
He said he had to sit 2 metres apart and with a mask so not exactly squashed together without restrictions?
My kids are squashed together. Their schools are designed to have students sat in clusters. That is contrary to the covid guidelines so tables and seats are now in rows which don't comfortably fit. Teachers have to squeeze round some desks. If those same kids gather in the park later? Dangerous and illegal.
And the NE? Can't meet anyone in your home. But can in the pub. Give over defending this Philip, even ministers have given it up as a bad job.
Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub either.
I don't defend everything but at least get the facts straight.
Incidentally for what its worth with schools they are operating a "bubble" principle. I've been offline more lately because with my kids back at school I've been able to get back to work more, but yesterday as I was heading out the door to take them to school I got a text saying that there has been a positive test in my youngest daughter's class so as a result the whole class have been told to stay at home. So my youngest daughter is back home with me today and I'm back at home, home schooling her again. Her sister is able to continue going to school unless any of us develop symptoms.
1. Yes you can. In the beer garden. What were you saying about facts? 2. With kids in 2 schools and a wife working in a 3rd I am well aware of the bubble principle. Answer the point I am making. It is illegal for students in said bubble to meet outside school despite spending all day squashed together - how does that make any sense at all?
1. The beer garden is not in the pub, it is outside. 2. Because the idea is to have necessary interactions and not unnecessary ones. It is about managing and reducing risk not eliminating it.
Philip, I did ask you to stop dancing on pinheads. A pub beer garden is a pub. Its licensed premises.
A pub beer garden is not in the pub.
Where the virus spreads indoors much more than outdoors then the distinction absolutely matters and is not a pinhead. Outside is not inside.
If someone asks you on a sunny day "do you want to go to the pub?" Would you really answer "No, but I'll go to the beer garden" ???
I know people who will drink and eat outside but not inside, so the answer is yes.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
I think the EU generously agrees to let him keep the nicer half of Kent, he comes back with his victory and drops (or repeals as part of the ratification bill) those sections, and says their job is done because he forced the EU to negotiate. That works, doesn't it? A few of his MPs might bitch but most of them will be relieved to have got the thing out of the way, and he's already set the precedent that rebels get kicked out of the party.
History tells us time and again that this is not how the ERG works. They will cheer Johnson tot he rooftops, then a few months later they will realise that they have been sold down the river and it will all start up again.
That's going to happen no matter what. Once he's passed it, he's passed it, they're not going to get it repealed.
They are very happy to play the long game. And play it they will. Incessantly.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
It was the same with choirs, which I think were found to be a significant source of transmission early on.
So make a rule - perhaps no more than six people together inside. That stops choirs being an issue.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
It was the same with choirs, which I think were found to be a significant source of transmission early on.
Transmission by choir was through socialising - singers are, or rather were, a sociable bunch - and (pre virus) normal interaction, not by singing.
Just been to Waterstones and bought the Jones book, "This Land: The Story of a Movement". So that's me sorted for a few afternoons. Looking forward to reading it. He's a good writer and I've heard it is anything but rah rah propaganda. I was the first person in the shop and the book was prominent, so in and out in 2 minutes. Which was nice. And something else nice happened. I got a dazzling smile from the girl on the till and she nodded approvingly as she rang it up and said "great choice." Obviously a Corbynista. Edgy looking and with a ring in her nose. This is one of the minor pleasures of being on the hardish Left as I am. I'm quite old and close to "going over" yet I have a natural connection with vibrant young people such as this one.
So today I have my first "face-to-face" lectures. I will be required to wear a mask the entire time and sit 2m away from my fellow students.
However if I chat to my fellow students outside the building afterwards I risk being thrown out of university, as we are required to follow not just the laws, but also the guidelines, that state no outdoor socialising with those outside my household.
Cool.
So don't chat afterwards then. What's the issue?
Because the new laws are fucking stupid. Its so dangerous for Gallowgate to stand and chat outdoors with the people he's spent hours in a room with that he faces a fine. My kids spend all day squashed together in a classroom but if they meet up in the park after school they're dangerous and illegal.
He said he had to sit 2 metres apart and with a mask so not exactly squashed together without restrictions?
My kids are squashed together. Their schools are designed to have students sat in clusters. That is contrary to the covid guidelines so tables and seats are now in rows which don't comfortably fit. Teachers have to squeeze round some desks. If those same kids gather in the park later? Dangerous and illegal.
And the NE? Can't meet anyone in your home. But can in the pub. Give over defending this Philip, even ministers have given it up as a bad job.
Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub either.
I don't defend everything but at least get the facts straight.
Incidentally for what its worth with schools they are operating a "bubble" principle. I've been offline more lately because with my kids back at school I've been able to get back to work more, but yesterday as I was heading out the door to take them to school I got a text saying that there has been a positive test in my youngest daughter's class so as a result the whole class have been told to stay at home. So my youngest daughter is back home with me today and I'm back at home, home schooling her again. Her sister is able to continue going to school unless any of us develop symptoms.
1. Yes you can. In the beer garden. What were you saying about facts? 2. With kids in 2 schools and a wife working in a 3rd I am well aware of the bubble principle. Answer the point I am making. It is illegal for students in said bubble to meet outside school despite spending all day squashed together - how does that make any sense at all?
1. The beer garden is not in the pub, it is outside. 2. Because the idea is to have necessary interactions and not unnecessary ones. It is about managing and reducing risk not eliminating it.
Philip, I did ask you to stop dancing on pinheads. A pub beer garden is a pub. Its licensed premises.
A pub beer garden is not in the pub.
Where the virus spreads indoors much more than outdoors then the distinction absolutely matters and is not a pinhead. Outside is not inside.
Jesus Christ. A pub is not a pub. OK. You say outside is not inside - so why can't people meet their family outside? It is about managing and reducing risk so I hear. If the risk is managed and reduced outside in a fenced off pub garden then why is it not also managed and reduced outside in the fenced off house garden on the other side of the fence?
Incidentally. The pub beer garden that isn't a pub despite being a pub ? My local pub has the beer garden at the back so that you have to enter and exit the non-pub via the pub. I can sit in a managed and reduced manner in the non-pub at the back but have to illegally pass through the not managed and reduced pub to get to it.
A whole haystack full of pins you've got there mate. You're almost as ridiculous as HYUFD these days.
You're being ridiculous. I never said a pub is not a pub, I said outside is not inside. It isn't!
Unless you live in the Northeast you are entitled to have upto six people mingling in your home garden. If you are in the North East you're not supposed to mingle with other households whether in the beer garden or your home garden.
Passing through the pub without mingling with others is not illegal. You're mistaken if you think it is and are getting upset because your facts are just wrong.
Can't stop laughing at this mate. You said "Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub". Which you can. In the beer garden. Which is a pub. Licensed by the publican. Hence the name pub.
As for the rest of your guff, that'#s wrong as well. In the NE you *cannot* meet people you don't live/bubble with in your own home or garden except for a list of exceptions. Thats the law as of the 18th September. You *can* meet them in a beer garden - its not illegal. You cannot meet them inside a pub building - thats illegal. So yes, it is illegal to pass with a group you do not live / bubble with inside a pub or restaurant.
I know the advice is bullshit. I know the PM got it wrong. I know the police and the councils weren't told either. I also know that most people are already ignoring it. But they are the rules, and you may want to read them before making prissy comments about facts.
You can meet people at the pub in the beer garden. You can't meet people "in" the pub.
You can pass through a pub inside. Not with others, but there's no need to do so with others, just go through by yourself or your own party you live with.
1.001 The two of you never agree on "in the pub" 999/1 One of you convinces the other
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
It was the same with choirs, which I think were found to be a significant source of transmission early on.
Transmission by choir was through socialising - singers are, or rather were, a sociable bunch - and (pre virus) normal interaction, not by singing.
For what it is worth here is my opinion of last night:
I went to bed after 1 hour. I could not take it anymore. It was awful, but I couldn't decide who had won. Relieved to see the reviews this morning.
Chris Wallace: Appalling, but what could he do? At one point I thought he was about to get out of his seat and shout at Trump. I saw one review that compared it to being hit in the face by a frying pan for 90 min.
Biden: Whenever he actually got a word in edgeways it was bumbling. The one thing I did like was him looking in to the camera to make pleas to the audience at home. That worked well.
Trump: Just lied constantly and acted like a bully. No debating. And constantly dominating both the time and Biden/Wallace. I was concerned this might make him look strong and Biden weak, but that doesn't seem to be the view this morning, thankfully.
You probably saw the worst of it. Biden got better towards the end especially when talking about mail-in voting and the possibility of vote-rigging. Trump also made the mistake of going for Biden's sons which was a bad look. By that time, it was becoming increasingly obvious the constant interruption was a deliberate ploy and any positives he got from doing that were being lost by the sheer annoyance of it all.
I was puzzled at first by the drift in Trump's price after the event but I think I can understand it now. It was one of his last chances to land a killer blow. He didn't, so I guess to that extent Biden won.
Biden should pull out of the other two.
Nothing to gain now.
I think that would be a bad mistake as he'll open himself up to the "running scared" charge.
Trump is not a great debater and never has been. His style worked well in the 2016 GOP primaries, as he is good at making it about him, which helped ina fairly crowded field. But that trick means nothing now - he is the President and the debate is to a large extent about him anyway. He was not good against Clinton in debate (it wasn't that aspect of the campaign that won it for him and indeed the first debate hurt him in the polls at that time).
Biden would be better off gritting his teeth and going through another two meaningless, bitter nights where nobody's mind is changed. He knows what he's getting and can deal with it okay.
Assuming that the next president market is a two donkey race (i.e. neither drops out) the book with BF is less than 100%.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
Oh I get it - I remember the Twitter clips of the mass singalong in the Temple Bar at the start of all this. The problem is who is going to enforce this? And who tells the band that they can sing but must not encourage the crowd to join in?
And if singing is Bad, what was the mad fuss about singing Rule Britannia at Last Night of the Proms about. "PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SING". At an event nobody is allowed to attend. When singing has just been made illegal in public because it spreads the pox...
Just been to Waterstones and bought the Jones book, "This Land: The Story of a Movement". So that's me sorted for a few afternoons. Looking forward to reading it. He's a good writer and I've heard it is anything but rah rah propaganda. I was the first person in the shop and the book was prominent, so in and out in 2 minutes. Which was nice. And something else nice happened. I got a dazzling smile from the girl on the till and she nodded approvingly as she rang it up and said "great choice." Obviously a Corbynista. Edgy looking and with a ring in her nose. This is one of the minor pleasures of being on the hardish Left as I am. I'm quite old and close to "going over" yet I have a natural connection with vibrant young people such as this one.
You`re as much of a letch as the rest of it when it comes down to it, eh?
Totally off topic, I'm just venting here cos it's preying on my mind.
Went to see my 91 year old grandmother last night. After falling and breaking her arm in June (the stubborn old dear refused to use her walking frame and suffered the consequences, bless her) she went into hospital. After a couple of weeks went into a home for respite care. Then had another fall trying to get herself out of bed - again being stubborn. Back into hospital. Then back into respite care. Because of constant quarantining she only saw one person, my mum, once in all that time.
She needs 24 hour care and should be in a home, and has been told that, but insisted on coming home. Which I can totally understand. So she's back at home now with my Grandad who's 92 and equally knackered - on oxygen 24/7 cos his lungs are buggered, he's had an ambulance out to him twice in the past week cos of feeling dizzy.
Both have fought tooth and nail against going into a home because they want to die in their own home. Which I can totally understand.
Both have visits from carers four times a day, but they're struggling to cope. The burden is falling on my 67 year old mum, who lives on the same street. She's starting to buckle. I'm doing what I can but in practical terms that isn't very much, other than the odd errand and being a sounding board for my mum.
Really difficult situation with no easy answers at all.
I just hope if I get to such an advanced state of decrepitude I have the option of taking a pill and gently slipping off into the great beyond. Yes I know euthanasia is a massively emotive subject, with legitimate arguments on both sides, but at the end of the day after seeing what I saw yesterday, you wouldn't put a dog through that. If I get to that age I might feel very different, but I would like to be able to have the choice to go with some dignity, on my own terms, rather than regressing to someone who needs the same intensity of care as a newborn baby, but still having all my mental faculties.
Sorry about that, just needed to get it off my chest.
So sorry you are in this situation, particularly your mum.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
It was the same with choirs, which I think were found to be a significant source of transmission early on.
Transmission by choir was through socialising - singers are, or rather were, a sociable bunch - and (pre virus) normal interaction, not by singing.
More social than the average person? Occam's razor suggests it's the spread of aerosols while singing in an enclosed space which does it, rather than people in choirs being significantly more sociable than the general populace.
Theresa May is not Boris Johnson. I repeat, there is no deal the government can do that you will consider to be bad. You have already demonstrated this by lauding the brilliance of Boris Johnson in negotiating an agreement you now believe should be reneged upon.
What I hadn't appreciated until today is that, as well as switching to a much worse position on the Northern Irish aspect, Boris also threw away another important concession that Theresa May had won:
"The commission has made clear that it will not agree third-country cumulation in any circumstances, which we regret, but obviously cannot insist upon," says Lord Frost's letter, written on 7 September.
Senior figures in the car industry expressed the view that the government could have chosen to insist on a deal that did contain such measures. But discussions on such subjects have been stalled by the impasse over fishing rights and subsidy powers.
The original Brexit deal negotiated by former PM Theresa May contained a route to minimise checks on what are known as "rules of origin".
That option was removed as part of the revision to the withdrawal agreement a year ago.
As has been pointed out - this significantly narrows the gap between "A deal" and "No Deal". Which may be what some of the "smarter" people involved in its removal may have wanted.
Can somebody translate "Third country cumulation" out of EU-ese for me, please?
Re: gallowgate’s university. I’m not sure that conversing at 2m distance (with masks!) is even against the guidelines is it? What is the definition of socialising in all this? The guidelines just about make sense if socialising was implied to mean interaction at closer than social distancing protocols - ie. at a distance considered to offer higher risk of transmission (less than 2m without a mask).
But I don’t see what the issue is with interaction at greater distance than that.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
Advising against singing - fine Explaining the dangers of it - definitely Making it illegal - bonkers, if anything it will provoke pissed up youngsters to start singing more and enforcement for police and the courts is horrendous
So today I have my first "face-to-face" lectures. I will be required to wear a mask the entire time and sit 2m away from my fellow students.
However if I chat to my fellow students outside the building afterwards I risk being thrown out of university, as we are required to follow not just the laws, but also the guidelines, that state no outdoor socialising with those outside my household.
Cool.
So don't chat afterwards then. What's the issue?
Because the new laws are fucking stupid. Its so dangerous for Gallowgate to stand and chat outdoors with the people he's spent hours in a room with that he faces a fine. My kids spend all day squashed together in a classroom but if they meet up in the park after school they're dangerous and illegal.
He said he had to sit 2 metres apart and with a mask so not exactly squashed together without restrictions?
My kids are squashed together. Their schools are designed to have students sat in clusters. That is contrary to the covid guidelines so tables and seats are now in rows which don't comfortably fit. Teachers have to squeeze round some desks. If those same kids gather in the park later? Dangerous and illegal.
And the NE? Can't meet anyone in your home. But can in the pub. Give over defending this Philip, even ministers have given it up as a bad job.
Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub either.
I don't defend everything but at least get the facts straight.
Incidentally for what its worth with schools they are operating a "bubble" principle. I've been offline more lately because with my kids back at school I've been able to get back to work more, but yesterday as I was heading out the door to take them to school I got a text saying that there has been a positive test in my youngest daughter's class so as a result the whole class have been told to stay at home. So my youngest daughter is back home with me today and I'm back at home, home schooling her again. Her sister is able to continue going to school unless any of us develop symptoms.
1. Yes you can. In the beer garden. What were you saying about facts? 2. With kids in 2 schools and a wife working in a 3rd I am well aware of the bubble principle. Answer the point I am making. It is illegal for students in said bubble to meet outside school despite spending all day squashed together - how does that make any sense at all?
1. The beer garden is not in the pub, it is outside. 2. Because the idea is to have necessary interactions and not unnecessary ones. It is about managing and reducing risk not eliminating it.
Philip, I did ask you to stop dancing on pinheads. A pub beer garden is a pub. Its licensed premises.
A pub beer garden is not in the pub.
Where the virus spreads indoors much more than outdoors then the distinction absolutely matters and is not a pinhead. Outside is not inside.
Jesus Christ. A pub is not a pub. OK. You say outside is not inside - so why can't people meet their family outside? It is about managing and reducing risk so I hear. If the risk is managed and reduced outside in a fenced off pub garden then why is it not also managed and reduced outside in the fenced off house garden on the other side of the fence?
Incidentally. The pub beer garden that isn't a pub despite being a pub ? My local pub has the beer garden at the back so that you have to enter and exit the non-pub via the pub. I can sit in a managed and reduced manner in the non-pub at the back but have to illegally pass through the not managed and reduced pub to get to it.
A whole haystack full of pins you've got there mate. You're almost as ridiculous as HYUFD these days.
You're being ridiculous. I never said a pub is not a pub, I said outside is not inside. It isn't!
Unless you live in the Northeast you are entitled to have upto six people mingling in your home garden. If you are in the North East you're not supposed to mingle with other households whether in the beer garden or your home garden.
Passing through the pub without mingling with others is not illegal. You're mistaken if you think it is and are getting upset because your facts are just wrong.
Can't stop laughing at this mate. You said "Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub". Which you can. In the beer garden. Which is a pub. Licensed by the publican. Hence the name pub.
As for the rest of your guff, that'#s wrong as well. In the NE you *cannot* meet people you don't live/bubble with in your own home or garden except for a list of exceptions. Thats the law as of the 18th September. You *can* meet them in a beer garden - its not illegal. You cannot meet them inside a pub building - thats illegal. So yes, it is illegal to pass with a group you do not live / bubble with inside a pub or restaurant.
I know the advice is bullshit. I know the PM got it wrong. I know the police and the councils weren't told either. I also know that most people are already ignoring it. But they are the rules, and you may want to read them before making prissy comments about facts.
You can meet people at the pub in the beer garden. You can't meet people "in" the pub.
You can pass through a pub inside. Not with others, but there's no need to do so with others, just go through by yourself or your own party you live with.
1.001 The two of you never agree on "in the pub" 999/1 One of you convinces the other
Don't be daft. I go by the licensing laws as to what defines a pub. Philip ignores the licencing laws to try and explain the laws that he understands as much as the ministers don't. It really doesn't matter - the rules are so stupid that social media is full of people openly ignoring them and zero effort by the authorities to police them.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
Oh I get it - I remember the Twitter clips of the mass singalong in the Temple Bar at the start of all this. The problem is who is going to enforce this? And who tells the band that they can sing but must not encourage the crowd to join in?
And if singing is Bad, what was the mad fuss about singing Rule Britannia at Last Night of the Proms about. "PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SING". At an event nobody is allowed to attend. When singing has just been made illegal in public because it spreads the pox...
As with most of these things, the idea isn't for absolute enforcement of the rules 100% of the time. It's just to stop most of it, and most sensible folk will go along with the guidance.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
I think the EU generously agrees to let him keep the nicer half of Kent, he comes back with his victory and drops (or repeals as part of the ratification bill) those sections, and says their job is done because he forced the EU to negotiate. That works, doesn't it? A few of his MPs might bitch but most of them will be relieved to have got the thing out of the way, and he's already set the precedent that rebels get kicked out of the party.
History tells us time and again that this is not how the ERG works. They will cheer Johnson tot he rooftops, then a few months later they will realise that they have been sold down the river and it will all start up again.
They were only stirred up this time because Boris *said* parts of the WA were rotten after he signed it.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
All I want the government to do is deliver what they promised in their manifesto of last December - a better deal than the one we already have. Its not my measure I am applying, its theirs. Then we have the Tories on Twitter this morning saying that voting against their new bill which throws out their manifesto of last year is capitulating to the EU.
So the Tory manifesto of December 2019 was capitulation to the EU according to the same Tories who wrote said manifesto. I'm not sure its the people on here who have the problem...
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
Oh I get it - I remember the Twitter clips of the mass singalong in the Temple Bar at the start of all this. The problem is who is going to enforce this? And who tells the band that they can sing but must not encourage the crowd to join in?
And if singing is Bad, what was the mad fuss about singing Rule Britannia at Last Night of the Proms about. "PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SING". At an event nobody is allowed to attend. When singing has just been made illegal in public because it spreads the pox...
As with most of these things, the idea isn't for absolute enforcement of the rules 100% of the time. It's just to stop most of it, and most sensible folk will go along with the guidance.
So today I have my first "face-to-face" lectures. I will be required to wear a mask the entire time and sit 2m away from my fellow students.
However if I chat to my fellow students outside the building afterwards I risk being thrown out of university, as we are required to follow not just the laws, but also the guidelines, that state no outdoor socialising with those outside my household.
Cool.
So don't chat afterwards then. What's the issue?
Because the new laws are fucking stupid. Its so dangerous for Gallowgate to stand and chat outdoors with the people he's spent hours in a room with that he faces a fine. My kids spend all day squashed together in a classroom but if they meet up in the park after school they're dangerous and illegal.
He said he had to sit 2 metres apart and with a mask so not exactly squashed together without restrictions?
My kids are squashed together. Their schools are designed to have students sat in clusters. That is contrary to the covid guidelines so tables and seats are now in rows which don't comfortably fit. Teachers have to squeeze round some desks. If those same kids gather in the park later? Dangerous and illegal.
And the NE? Can't meet anyone in your home. But can in the pub. Give over defending this Philip, even ministers have given it up as a bad job.
Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub either.
I don't defend everything but at least get the facts straight.
Incidentally for what its worth with schools they are operating a "bubble" principle. I've been offline more lately because with my kids back at school I've been able to get back to work more, but yesterday as I was heading out the door to take them to school I got a text saying that there has been a positive test in my youngest daughter's class so as a result the whole class have been told to stay at home. So my youngest daughter is back home with me today and I'm back at home, home schooling her again. Her sister is able to continue going to school unless any of us develop symptoms.
1. Yes you can. In the beer garden. What were you saying about facts? 2. With kids in 2 schools and a wife working in a 3rd I am well aware of the bubble principle. Answer the point I am making. It is illegal for students in said bubble to meet outside school despite spending all day squashed together - how does that make any sense at all?
1. The beer garden is not in the pub, it is outside. 2. Because the idea is to have necessary interactions and not unnecessary ones. It is about managing and reducing risk not eliminating it.
Philip, I did ask you to stop dancing on pinheads. A pub beer garden is a pub. Its licensed premises.
A pub beer garden is not in the pub.
Where the virus spreads indoors much more than outdoors then the distinction absolutely matters and is not a pinhead. Outside is not inside.
Jesus Christ. A pub is not a pub. OK. You say outside is not inside - so why can't people meet their family outside? It is about managing and reducing risk so I hear. If the risk is managed and reduced outside in a fenced off pub garden then why is it not also managed and reduced outside in the fenced off house garden on the other side of the fence?
Incidentally. The pub beer garden that isn't a pub despite being a pub ? My local pub has the beer garden at the back so that you have to enter and exit the non-pub via the pub. I can sit in a managed and reduced manner in the non-pub at the back but have to illegally pass through the not managed and reduced pub to get to it.
A whole haystack full of pins you've got there mate. You're almost as ridiculous as HYUFD these days.
You're being ridiculous. I never said a pub is not a pub, I said outside is not inside. It isn't!
Unless you live in the Northeast you are entitled to have upto six people mingling in your home garden. If you are in the North East you're not supposed to mingle with other households whether in the beer garden or your home garden.
Passing through the pub without mingling with others is not illegal. You're mistaken if you think it is and are getting upset because your facts are just wrong.
Can't stop laughing at this mate. You said "Actually in the NE you can't meet anyone in the pub". Which you can. In the beer garden. Which is a pub. Licensed by the publican. Hence the name pub.
As for the rest of your guff, that'#s wrong as well. In the NE you *cannot* meet people you don't live/bubble with in your own home or garden except for a list of exceptions. Thats the law as of the 18th September. You *can* meet them in a beer garden - its not illegal. You cannot meet them inside a pub building - thats illegal. So yes, it is illegal to pass with a group you do not live / bubble with inside a pub or restaurant.
I know the advice is bullshit. I know the PM got it wrong. I know the police and the councils weren't told either. I also know that most people are already ignoring it. But they are the rules, and you may want to read them before making prissy comments about facts.
You can meet people at the pub in the beer garden. You can't meet people "in" the pub.
You can pass through a pub inside. Not with others, but there's no need to do so with others, just go through by yourself or your own party you live with.
1.001 The two of you never agree on "in the pub" 999/1 One of you convinces the other
Don't be daft. I go by the licensing laws as to what defines a pub. Philip ignores the licencing laws to try and explain the laws that he understands as much as the ministers don't. It really doesn't matter - the rules are so stupid that social media is full of people openly ignoring them and zero effort by the authorities to police them.
Remember - its all about British common sense.
A pub that considers all of its premises to be covered by its licencing laws exactly the same and doesn't draw a distinction will be operating illegally.
Concepts like "inside" and "outside" are actually covered by licences. 🙄
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
Oh I get it - I remember the Twitter clips of the mass singalong in the Temple Bar at the start of all this. The problem is who is going to enforce this? And who tells the band that they can sing but must not encourage the crowd to join in?
And if singing is Bad, what was the mad fuss about singing Rule Britannia at Last Night of the Proms about. "PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SING". At an event nobody is allowed to attend. When singing has just been made illegal in public because it spreads the pox...
As with most of these things, the idea isn't for absolute enforcement of the rules 100% of the time. It's just to stop most of it, and most sensible folk will go along with the guidance.
Well then make it guidance not law!
Do you want people to just ignore it or something?
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
Oh I get it - I remember the Twitter clips of the mass singalong in the Temple Bar at the start of all this. The problem is who is going to enforce this? And who tells the band that they can sing but must not encourage the crowd to join in?
And if singing is Bad, what was the mad fuss about singing Rule Britannia at Last Night of the Proms about. "PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SING". At an event nobody is allowed to attend. When singing has just been made illegal in public because it spreads the pox...
As with most of these things, the idea isn't for absolute enforcement of the rules 100% of the time. It's just to stop most of it, and most sensible folk will go along with the guidance.
Assuming anyone can tell them what the guidance is. The PM can't. His minsters can't. Councils and the police can't. You can't even argue that these "sensible" folk follow their common sense any more as nothing thats been put in place makes any sense to anyone even the people imposing them by decree.
Theresa May is not Boris Johnson. I repeat, there is no deal the government can do that you will consider to be bad. You have already demonstrated this by lauding the brilliance of Boris Johnson in negotiating an agreement you now believe should be reneged upon.
What I hadn't appreciated until today is that, as well as switching to a much worse position on the Northern Irish aspect, Boris also threw away another important concession that Theresa May had won:
"The commission has made clear that it will not agree third-country cumulation in any circumstances, which we regret, but obviously cannot insist upon," says Lord Frost's letter, written on 7 September.
Senior figures in the car industry expressed the view that the government could have chosen to insist on a deal that did contain such measures. But discussions on such subjects have been stalled by the impasse over fishing rights and subsidy powers.
The original Brexit deal negotiated by former PM Theresa May contained a route to minimise checks on what are known as "rules of origin".
That option was removed as part of the revision to the withdrawal agreement a year ago.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
The purpose of a trade deal is to improve the trading relationship between the parties concerned. Why should it be any different for one between the UK and EU? If British businesses have better access to the Single Market in the future than they do now then that will clearly be a triumph for both the government and the PM.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
I think you are mistaken. Most remainers want Brexit to be a success because for most they know their jobs and wealth depend on it. They don't expect it, but they want it.
Just been to Waterstones and bought the Jones book, "This Land: The Story of a Movement". So that's me sorted for a few afternoons. Looking forward to reading it. He's a good writer and I've heard it is anything but rah rah propaganda. I was the first person in the shop and the book was prominent, so in and out in 2 minutes. Which was nice. And something else nice happened. I got a dazzling smile from the girl on the till and she nodded approvingly as she rang it up and said "great choice." Obviously a Corbynista. Edgy looking and with a ring in her nose. This is one of the minor pleasures of being on the hardish Left as I am. I'm quite old and close to "going over" yet I have a natural connection with vibrant young people such as this one.
"hardish Left"
LOL - bluff northern lad, bright button, spent career on the trading floor, did v well, retired to NW3, on reflection realised hated the people worked with, born again man of the people.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
Oh I get it - I remember the Twitter clips of the mass singalong in the Temple Bar at the start of all this. The problem is who is going to enforce this? And who tells the band that they can sing but must not encourage the crowd to join in?
And if singing is Bad, what was the mad fuss about singing Rule Britannia at Last Night of the Proms about. "PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SING". At an event nobody is allowed to attend. When singing has just been made illegal in public because it spreads the pox...
As with most of these things, the idea isn't for absolute enforcement of the rules 100% of the time. It's just to stop most of it, and most sensible folk will go along with the guidance.
Assuming anyone can tell them what the guidance is. The PM can't. His minsters can't. Councils and the police can't. You can't even argue that these "sensible" folk follow their common sense any more as nothing thats been put in place makes any sense to anyone even the people imposing them by decree.
The advice to me seems pretty clear; unless you are in a band, don't sing!
Just been to Waterstones and bought the Jones book, "This Land: The Story of a Movement". So that's me sorted for a few afternoons. Looking forward to reading it. He's a good writer and I've heard it is anything but rah rah propaganda. I was the first person in the shop and the book was prominent, so in and out in 2 minutes. Which was nice. And something else nice happened. I got a dazzling smile from the girl on the till and she nodded approvingly as she rang it up and said "great choice." Obviously a Corbynista. Edgy looking and with a ring in her nose. This is one of the minor pleasures of being on the hardish Left as I am. I'm quite old and close to "going over" yet I have a natural connection with vibrant young people such as this one.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
Its actually sensible, the transmission of 'fluids' in the air must be much higher.
Oh I get it - I remember the Twitter clips of the mass singalong in the Temple Bar at the start of all this. The problem is who is going to enforce this? And who tells the band that they can sing but must not encourage the crowd to join in?
And if singing is Bad, what was the mad fuss about singing Rule Britannia at Last Night of the Proms about. "PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SING". At an event nobody is allowed to attend. When singing has just been made illegal in public because it spreads the pox...
As with most of these things, the idea isn't for absolute enforcement of the rules 100% of the time. It's just to stop most of it, and most sensible folk will go along with the guidance.
Well then make it guidance not law!
Do you want people to just ignore it or something?
No I don't like laws that are virtually unenforceable. They detract from more important laws by bringing the law into disrepute.
Theresa May is not Boris Johnson. I repeat, there is no deal the government can do that you will consider to be bad. You have already demonstrated this by lauding the brilliance of Boris Johnson in negotiating an agreement you now believe should be reneged upon.
What I hadn't appreciated until today is that, as well as switching to a much worse position on the Northern Irish aspect, Boris also threw away another important concession that Theresa May had won:
"The commission has made clear that it will not agree third-country cumulation in any circumstances, which we regret, but obviously cannot insist upon," says Lord Frost's letter, written on 7 September.
Senior figures in the car industry expressed the view that the government could have chosen to insist on a deal that did contain such measures. But discussions on such subjects have been stalled by the impasse over fishing rights and subsidy powers.
The original Brexit deal negotiated by former PM Theresa May contained a route to minimise checks on what are known as "rules of origin".
That option was removed as part of the revision to the withdrawal agreement a year ago.
As has been pointed out - this significantly narrows the gap between "A deal" and "No Deal". Which may be what some of the "smarter" people involved in its removal may have wanted.
They may well have wanted that. They are going to have one hell of a job selling it in the country. Cummings/Johnson have got themselves in a bind. Their general incompetence has eroded the goodwill they may have been counting on to get general acceptance for a threadbare or no deal. All the tricks they now try - such as the IMB - just makes the hole they are digging for themselves that little bit deeper. Either we cave or there is a border with Kent! That is not how it was meant to be.
They are renegotiating a surrender. The detail might change, but the essentials will be hard to shift.
Totally off topic, I'm just venting here cos it's preying on my mind.
Went to see my 91 year old grandmother last night. After falling and breaking her arm in June (the stubborn old dear refused to use her walking frame and suffered the consequences, bless her) she went into hospital. After a couple of weeks went into a home for respite care. Then had another fall trying to get herself out of bed - again being stubborn. Back into hospital. Then back into respite care. Because of constant quarantining she only saw one person, my mum, once in all that time.
She needs 24 hour care and should be in a home, and has been told that, but insisted on coming home. Which I can totally understand. So she's back at home now with my Grandad who's 92 and equally knackered - on oxygen 24/7 cos his lungs are buggered, he's had an ambulance out to him twice in the past week cos of feeling dizzy.
Both have fought tooth and nail against going into a home because they want to die in their own home. Which I can totally understand.
Both have visits from carers four times a day, but they're struggling to cope. The burden is falling on my 67 year old mum, who lives on the same street. She's starting to buckle. I'm doing what I can but in practical terms that isn't very much, other than the odd errand and being a sounding board for my mum.
Really difficult situation with no easy answers at all.
I just hope if I get to such an advanced state of decrepitude I have the option of taking a pill and gently slipping off into the great beyond. Yes I know euthanasia is a massively emotive subject, with legitimate arguments on both sides, but at the end of the day after seeing what I saw yesterday, you wouldn't put a dog through that. If I get to that age I might feel very different, but I would like to be able to have the choice to go with some dignity, on my own terms, rather than regressing to someone who needs the same intensity of care as a newborn baby, but still having all my mental faculties.
Sorry about that, just needed to get it off my chest.
So sorry you are in this situation, particularly your mum.
Pub licences absolutely can make a major distinction between indoors and outdoors. A very common standard once is with regards to the music, especially if there are houses nearby to the pub. A pub may be entitled to have loud recorded music or a live band playing inside until 1am in the morning say . . . but try doing that outside and it is probably for most premises illegal, a violation of licencing regulations and would result in a visit from the local Environmental Health Office (who are responsible for noise complaints) pretty swiftly.
Tickles me how few people realise the car industry as we know it is already dead, particularly the cross border supply chains for a technology that will be phased out completely in short order.
Yes, but where are the new car and battery plants being built ? Not here.
The new electric Jaguar XJ is going to be built in the UK. I mean, it'll be fucking garbage but it'll be built in the UK.
True, but not exactly mass market. A few years time, our car industry could easily be a fraction of its current size.
Really quite scary for the North East. I hope the government doesn’t underestimate how important the Sunderland factory is for the entire region.
Well, they were warned, but voted for Brexit anyway. I have limited sympathy.
Plenty of people in Sunderland and the wider North East voted to stay in the EU...
I know. Even in the most purple bits of Leaverstan about a third voted Remain.
But overall the region voted to Leave and then swing Blue to "Get Brexit Done". There is only so much you can do when people repeatedly vote for deliberate self harm.
I've tried to explain to @HYUFD before that leave voters in the NE believed the Leave campaign when they were told that suggestions that, amongst other things, Nissan would be negatively impacted by Brexit were lies and project fear. The fact is that leave voters voted for a better life, not simply "control of laws, money, fish" in the abstract.
His response was that basically it doesn't matter if the small factory in Labour voting Sunderland closed down because it's their own fault for voting Leave. Essentially exactly what you are saying.
He also, knowing nothing about the region whatsoever, seemed to think that workers in the Nissan factory and its supply chain only live in Labour voting constituencies. I hope the Government knows the facts in this regard.
Voters in the North East voted Leave and then enough marginal seats in the North East and elsewhere in the country voted Tory on a manifesto of leaving the EU, reclaiming control of our own laws and reclaiming control of our fishing waters.
The Tory government will deliver that manifesto, end of conversation.
Even as you said Nissan is in Sunderland where every seat is still Labour so clearly Sunderland voted for Corbyn and will still vote for Starmer, if Starmer wins on a manifesto of rejoining the EEA next time or an EEA style deal fair enough, that is democracy and he will have a mandate for it. Until 2024 we have a Tory government with a majority of 80 that will deliver the platform it won on
A question Mr Essex. Do Nissan workers and workers at companies supplying Nissan live (a) exclusively in Sunderland Central or (b) across the North East.
For someone who know literally nothing about this area you can't seem to stop yourself pronouncing about it. As I have suggested previously why not get in your car, stick your blue rosette on and go knocking on doors to make statements like the above. I'll pre-book the ambulance for you.
The majority of them live in Sunderland but regardless not enough of them who do live in Bishop Auckland or Blythe Valley etc voted Labour or LD as the Tories won those seats on an explicit manifesto commitment to live the EEA and Customs Union and with a Tory majority of 80 that will be delivered. End of conversation.
If Starmer wants to rejoin the EEA in 2024 that is up to him if he wins on a manifesto for that, until then the Tory manifesto will be delivered
So you are happy that the Tory party are 100% responsible for the closure of the UK car industry...
Would you be so happy if I used your actual name and party position....
The Tory Party won in 2019 on a manifesto commitment to leave the CU and single market, end of conversation. I did not write the manifesto nor was I alone enough to deliver a Tory majority of 80.
The winning Tory manifesto also promised to regain control of our fishing waters and our laws from the EU and only do a deal with the EU on that basis. If the EU will not do that then no deal it will have to be to respect the winning Tory manifesto.
As I have said if Starmer then wins in 2024 on a manifesto commitment to rejoin the single market or get an EEA style trade deal then fair enough and he will then have a mandate to deliver that but not until then
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
My choir is back with actual rehearsals. We are a symphonic choir (125 singers), but currently we are only rehearsing for an hour with 30 singers each 2m apart in a large church, with no social interaction before or afterwards. Very different but at least we are singing.
Amusing to read the live comments during the debate and contrast them with polling. Usual suspects desperately trying to convince themselves their man isn't going to spend the rest of his days trying to keep out of jail. With tweets from Dale, Luntz and Farage to prove it.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
My choir is back with actual rehearsals. We are a symphonic choir (125 singers), but currently we are only rehearsing for an hour with 30 singers each 2m apart in a large church, with no social interaction before or afterwards. Very different but at least we are singing.
@RobD if we hold all the cards, we would have left the EU without a deal whilst still being in the SM and the CU but being able to set our own trade policy
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
I think you are mistaken. Most remainers want Brexit to be a success because for most they know their jobs and wealth depend on it. They don't expect it, but they want it.
I want the UK to be a success, for businesses in the UK to be a success, and for us to get on with our lives long after Covid and the West's experiment with nationalistic populism has passed . Brexit is not, and cannot be a success. It is divisive and economically moronic, so however much one wants the UK to be a success, one cannot "want" Brexit to be so politically. I hope that there will be a reckoning for the snake oil salesmen like Johnson and Gove, as there already has been for Corbyn and his acolytes who were the enablers. Wanting the UK to be a success and wanting Brexit to be so are too very different things. The latter is just a wish by the most naïve. The best that those of a more realistic persuasion can hope for is that the idiotic policy is less damaging than we fear.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
All I want the government to do is deliver what they promised in their manifesto of last December - a better deal than the one we already have. Its not my measure I am applying, its theirs. Then we have the Tories on Twitter this morning saying that voting against their new bill which throws out their manifesto of last year is capitulating to the EU.
So the Tory manifesto of December 2019 was capitulation to the EU according to the same Tories who wrote said manifesto. I'm not sure its the people on here who have the problem...
Here's what we'll get from Brexit: greater domestic flexibility in regulation of our market, greater immigration control, and a more agile foreign policy.
Here's what we won't get: less influence over and within the EU, increase in barriers to trade between the UK and EU (plus NI as a special case in certain areas) and free movement.
The Deal will reflect that. Those who don't Brexit will call out the latter. Those who do the former.
[NB: there's "collateral" on top, which includes political and economic transitional fallout, which gets worse the longer it goes on and more bitter it gets, is why I favour smooth & steady transitions and pragmatism.]
The UK doesn't negotiate: Obstinate morons! Ideological nationalists! Isolationists!!
The UK does negotiate: CAPITULATION! SURRENDER!!
No it's that Brexiteers insist we hold all the cards and we'd get everything we want.
At every turn, we have got a deal because we capitulated. That is not holding all the cards - to say otherwise is just lying.
I don't understand why people call every single part of the negotiation a capitulation. What part of this is a capitulation?
Just turning Leavers' past rhetoric back on them. Given Johnson signed a deal, campaigned on it, and is now adamant it must be abandoned as it puts the UK at a disadvantage, it doesn't seem entirely unfair to characterise it so.
Just been to Waterstones and bought the Jones book, "This Land: The Story of a Movement". So that's me sorted for a few afternoons. Looking forward to reading it. He's a good writer and I've heard it is anything but rah rah propaganda. I was the first person in the shop and the book was prominent, so in and out in 2 minutes. Which was nice. And something else nice happened. I got a dazzling smile from the girl on the till and she nodded approvingly as she rang it up and said "great choice." Obviously a Corbynista. Edgy looking and with a ring in her nose. This is one of the minor pleasures of being on the hardish Left as I am. I'm quite old and close to "going over" yet I have a natural connection with vibrant young people such as this one.
You`re as much of a letch as the rest of it when it comes down to it, eh?
A studious, low key manner at all times. Nothing condescending or even worse "laddy". That's the key to my rapport with the under 25s.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
I think you are mistaken. Most remainers want Brexit to be a success because for most they know their jobs and wealth depend on it. They don't expect it, but they want it.
I actually agree with that, and I think you're talking about the 28-33% of the electorate who are Remainers (not the 48%).
There's a hardcore of c.15-20% who actively want it to fail as a price worth paying for rapid full EU.
The UK doesn't negotiate: Obstinate morons! Ideological nationalists! Isolationists!!
The UK does negotiate: CAPITULATION! SURRENDER!!
No it's that Brexiteers insist we hold all the cards and we'd get everything we want.
At every turn, we have got a deal because we capitulated. That is not holding all the cards - to say otherwise is just lying.
I don't understand why people call every single part of the negotiation a capitulation. What part of this is a capitulation?
Just turning Leavers' past rhetoric back on them. Given Johnson signed a deal, campaigned on it, and is now adamant it must be abandoned as it puts the UK at a disadvantage, it doesn't seem entirely unfair to characterise it so.
It devalues the word, and it makes negotiating concessions form the other party even harder when the reaction back home is surrender/capitulation. Yes, both sides may be guilty of it, but that doesn't make it less stupid.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
He's been silenced!
He has had to move to his own forum with a maximum of five others.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
The purpose of a trade deal is to improve the trading relationship between the parties concerned. Why should it be any different for one between the UK and EU? If British businesses have better access to the Single Market in the future than they do now then that will clearly be a triumph for both the government and the PM.
You know perfectly well they won't, as do I, so why pretend otherwise and make that the test? If we wanted that we had to sign-up to the full jazz of the EU and we decided not to do so for other reasons.
Well, I know why: it's because you want a rapid return of Labour to Government and want to hang as many failures around the neck of the Tories as you can, and to frame every political milestone as such.
Both you and I know this. It's a waste of your time and mine to be sucked into debating Brexit on here again for the millionth time.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
I think you are mistaken. Most remainers want Brexit to be a success because for most they know their jobs and wealth depend on it. They don't expect it, but they want it.
I want the UK to be a success, for businesses in the UK to be a success, and for us to get on with our lives long after Covid and the West's experiment with nationalistic populism has passed . Brexit is not, and cannot be a success. It is divisive and economically moronic, so however much one wants the UK to be a success, one cannot "want" Brexit to be so politically. I hope that there will be a reckoning for the snake oil salesmen like Johnson and Gove, as there already has been for Corbyn and his acolytes who were the enablers. Wanting the UK to be a success and wanting Brexit to be so are too very different things. The latter is just a wish by the most naïve. The best that those of a more realistic persuasion can hope for is that the idiotic policy is less damaging than we fear.
I dont think that is true. I think Brexit is very unlikely to be a success but would I back it at 100/1? Sure. 10/1 probably not.
Britain has offered a three-year transition period for European fishing fleets to allow them to prepare for the post-Brexit changes as part of an 11th-hour deal sweetener.
Lol, an indefinite transition that will last forever.
But we hold all the cards, will Philip and HYUFD now resign from the Tory Party?
Eminently sensible and time dated
You do need to reduce your hyperbole
Not surprised to see you eating up the Government's words.
A three year transition is code for kick the can down the road.
I presume you opposed the backstop on the same grounds or is that Johnson is in charge so now transitions are a great idea?
You are all over the place
I am happy for concessions on either side to get a deal
And if a three year fishing transition is agreed and passes the European Parliament time to move on
I see you're back to BoJo superfan status then, sad to see.
I am not and this is more hyperbole from you
And from a Keir fanboy
At least I don't pretend to "lose confidence" in the Government every day before going back to them again the next.
The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
At least I know what I am.
One thing you need to learn is that everything HMG does is not wrong and credit applies where it is due
To be fair to CHB you did start out as a remainer who was appalled at the notion of No Deal and you did consider that Johnson was not fit to be PM.
I agree that you do regularly criticise the government but it all sounds a bit hollow because you inevitably end up falling back into line.
Personally if I felt that a party was headed by someone who is not fit to lead it and was willing to take us down a No Deal path that I believe would be a disaster then I would resign from that party - that is a path many of us took when Corbyn led Labour.
The UK doesn't negotiate: Obstinate morons! Ideological nationalists! Isolationists!!
The UK does negotiate: CAPITULATION! SURRENDER!!
No it's that Brexiteers insist we hold all the cards and we'd get everything we want.
At every turn, we have got a deal because we capitulated. That is not holding all the cards - to say otherwise is just lying.
If you could pull your head out of your arse you'd note that the EU has made concessions on: insisting on the ECJ for disputes, following all its state aid rules and full dynamic alignment, and insisting on fishing quotas *exactly* as is.
We've made concessions on a single governance regime for the whole arrangement, accepting some state aid rules in principle (details TBC), and now a transition to a new fishing deal with a higher catch quota,
It's called a negotiation. I'm getting very bored of saying this: this is a negotiation where the strength of bartering power lies between 35-65 to 45-55 in the EU's favour DEPENDING on the issue/sector.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
All I want the government to do is deliver what they promised in their manifesto of last December - a better deal than the one we already have. Its not my measure I am applying, its theirs. Then we have the Tories on Twitter this morning saying that voting against their new bill which throws out their manifesto of last year is capitulating to the EU.
So the Tory manifesto of December 2019 was capitulation to the EU according to the same Tories who wrote said manifesto. I'm not sure its the people on here who have the problem...
Here's what we'll get from Brexit: greater domestic flexibility in regulation of our market, greater immigration control, and a more agile foreign policy.
Here's what we won't get: less influence over and within the EU, increase in barriers to trade between the UK and EU (plus NI as a special case in certain areas) and free movement.
The Deal will reflect that. Those who don't Brexit will call out the latter. Those who do the former.
[NB: there's "collateral" on top, which includes political and economic transitional fallout, which gets worse the longer it goes on and more bitter it gets, is why I favour smooth & steady transitions and pragmatism.]
I think that's fair. Though the benefits are for now some time off, and of uncertain extent. The costs, while also uncertain, will be apparent rather sooner.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
He's been silenced!
He has had to move to his own forum with a maximum of five others.
I see Spreadex has reopened with a centre price of Trump EV 236. Still a sell IMO.
Yes, that's a sell. Will be plenty of Trump backers on the spreads running for cover soon I would think.
But probably best not to sell on SpreadEx, with their spread of 8 ECVs, compared with effectively just 3 on SPIN's supremacy market (if it ever reopens....)
Comments
You will be considered logical when you start regularly using logic.
In the meantime you will be considered a contrarian troll. Go back to lobbying for battered black boxes to be removed from aircraft, as clearly they're causing all these plane crashes.
As for the rest of your guff, that'#s wrong as well. In the NE you *cannot* meet people you don't live/bubble with in your own home or garden except for a list of exceptions. Thats the law as of the 18th September. You *can* meet them in a beer garden - its not illegal. You cannot meet them inside a pub building - thats illegal. So yes, it is illegal to pass with a group you do not live / bubble with inside a pub or restaurant.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54336735
I know the advice is bullshit. I know the PM got it wrong. I know the police and the councils weren't told either. I also know that most people are already ignoring it. But they are the rules, and you may want to read them before making prissy comments about facts.
You can pass through a pub inside. Not with others, but there's no need to do so with others, just go through by yourself or your own party you live with.
Just been to Waterstones and bought the Jones book, "This Land: The Story of a Movement". So that's me sorted for a few afternoons. Looking forward to reading it. He's a good writer and I've heard it is anything but rah rah propaganda. I was the first person in the shop and the book was prominent, so in and out in 2 minutes. Which was nice. And something else nice happened. I got a dazzling smile from the girl on the till and she nodded approvingly as she rang it up and said "great choice." Obviously a Corbynista. Edgy looking and with a ring in her nose. This is one of the minor pleasures of being on the hardish Left as I am. I'm quite old and close to "going over" yet I have a natural connection with vibrant young people such as this one.
999/1 One of you convinces the other
Trump is not a great debater and never has been. His style worked well in the 2016 GOP primaries, as he is good at making it about him, which helped ina fairly crowded field. But that trick means nothing now - he is the President and the debate is to a large extent about him anyway. He was not good against Clinton in debate (it wasn't that aspect of the campaign that won it for him and indeed the first debate hurt him in the polls at that time).
Biden would be better off gritting his teeth and going through another two meaningless, bitter nights where nobody's mind is changed. He knows what he's getting and can deal with it okay.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
Edit: BF commissions of course.
And if singing is Bad, what was the mad fuss about singing Rule Britannia at Last Night of the Proms about. "PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO SING". At an event nobody is allowed to attend. When singing has just been made illegal in public because it spreads the pox...
https://twitter.com/Councillorsuzie/status/1311198093258481665?s=20
I agree with your conclusion too.
I'm a member of this organisation:
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/
Thanks
But I don’t see what the issue is with interaction at greater distance than that.
Explaining the dangers of it - definitely
Making it illegal - bonkers, if anything it will provoke pissed up youngsters to start singing more and enforcement for police and the courts is horrendous
So when I went to the pub over the summer and sat in the beer garden, I was just sitting in a random garden ok
Remember - its all about British common sense.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
They didn't spot it themselves.
Paint them white if you like
"In" is the building and "outside" is the garden. It really isn't rocket science.
The UK does negotiate: CAPITULATION! SURRENDER!!
So the Tory manifesto of December 2019 was capitulation to the EU according to the same Tories who wrote said manifesto. I'm not sure its the people on here who have the problem...
Concepts like "inside" and "outside" are actually covered by licences. 🙄
At every turn, we have got a deal because we capitulated. That is not holding all the cards - to say otherwise is just lying.
LOL - bluff northern lad, bright button, spent career on the trading floor, did v well, retired to NW3, on reflection realised hated the people worked with, born again man of the people.
"hardish Left"
The detail might change, but the essentials will be hard to shift.
In and out are not original concepts.
The winning Tory manifesto also promised to regain control of our fishing waters and our laws from the EU and only do a deal with the EU on that basis. If the EU will not do that then no deal it will have to be to respect the winning Tory manifesto.
As I have said if Starmer then wins in 2024 on a manifesto commitment to rejoin the single market or get an EEA style trade deal then fair enough and he will then have a mandate to deliver that but not until then
See the press release from Making Music https://www.makingmusic.org.uk/news/and-still-we-play-and-sing
and from the Association of British Choral Directors (ABCD) https://www.abcd.org.uk/news/2020/09/Revised_guidelines_released_for_Performing_Arts
Usual suspects desperately trying to convince themselves their man isn't going to spend the rest of his days trying to keep out of jail.
With tweets from Dale, Luntz and Farage to prove it.
He holds onto a 1% gain in a CNN poll which if it were Labour gaining one point he'd say it's within the MoE and irrelevant.
Polling font? No, just as biased as the rest of us
My preference is BF`s "Trump Electoral College Votes" market where I have a position at 180-209 @ just over 7.
Jesus, the lengths to which the Tories will lie
Here's what we won't get: less influence over and within the EU, increase in barriers to trade between the UK and EU (plus NI as a special case in certain areas) and free movement.
The Deal will reflect that. Those who don't Brexit will call out the latter. Those who do the former.
[NB: there's "collateral" on top, which includes political and economic transitional fallout, which gets worse the longer it goes on and more bitter it gets, is why I favour smooth & steady transitions and pragmatism.]
Given Johnson signed a deal, campaigned on it, and is now adamant it must be abandoned as it puts the UK at a disadvantage, it doesn't seem entirely unfair to characterise it so.
There's a hardcore of c.15-20% who actively want it to fail as a price worth paying for rapid full EU.
They are heavily overrepresented at elite level.
Well, I know why: it's because you want a rapid return of Labour to Government and want to hang as many failures around the neck of the Tories as you can, and to frame every political milestone as such.
Both you and I know this. It's a waste of your time and mine to be sucked into debating Brexit on here again for the millionth time.
I agree that you do regularly criticise the government but it all sounds a bit hollow because you inevitably end up falling back into line.
Personally if I felt that a party was headed by someone who is not fit to lead it and was willing to take us down a No Deal path that I believe would be a disaster then I would resign from that party - that is a path many of us took when Corbyn led Labour.
We've made concessions on a single governance regime for the whole arrangement, accepting some state aid rules in principle (details TBC), and now a transition to a new fishing deal with a higher catch quota,
It's called a negotiation. I'm getting very bored of saying this: this is a negotiation where the strength of bartering power lies between 35-65 to 45-55 in the EU's favour DEPENDING on the issue/sector.
It is neither 100:0 to the EU or 0:100 to the UK.
You need to learn and accept this.
The only confirmed Trump supporters on here are MrEd and Ave It as far as I am aware.
However I am simply pointing out Hillary won the first 2016 debate by more than Biden won the first 2020 debate last night and yet Trump still won the election. Yougov for instance had Hillary winning the first 2016 debate by 57% to 30% last night it had Biden winning by 48% to 41%
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/09/27/57-viewers-say-clinton-won-first-debate
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/09/30/first-presidential-debate-poll
Though the benefits are for now some time off, and of uncertain extent. The costs, while also uncertain, will be apparent rather sooner.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1311252582271201281?s=20