WH2020 passes another milestone making Trump’s effort to discredit the results even more challenging

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.

Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/08/boris-johnson-goods-from-northern-ireland-to-gb-wont-be-checked-brexit

“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”

Very minimal forms have been agreed as a compromise along the lines we asked for.

Some forms (how minimal they are remains debatable) is not the no forms that we were insisting on a year ago, ergo we, as well as the EU, have compromised. Why is it so difficult for you to accept this?

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.

Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/08/boris-johnson-goods-from-northern-ireland-to-gb-wont-be-checked-brexit

“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”

Very minimal forms have been agreed as a compromise along the lines we asked for.

Some forms (how minimal they are remains debatable) is not the no forms that we were insisting on a year ago, ergo we, as well as the EU, have compromised. Why is it so difficult for you to accept this?

What part of "as a compromise" makes you think I was not accepting there was a compromise?

There was a compromise along the lines we were asking for with Trusted Trader Schemes that were first suggested four years ago now - thank goodness.

Sensible compromise, I'm happy with it and it seems others here that were thinking like me are happy too.

Only idiots like Farage don't want any compromise. Sane people want a good compromise, though everyone's definition of good may vary.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1336652400296333313?s=20

I bet Trump didn't appreciate that much.

MaxPB said:

Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...

More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.

It is promising; we'll see.

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.

Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations

Contrasted with May's tenure this current government is remarkably quietly competent at getting on with things.

Special credit with Brexit for both Gove and Truss who have in the past twelve months achieved far more than was achieved by their predecessors in years.

It's noteworthy how calmer and more considered Government communications have been in the last few weeks since Cummings/Cain left..

Hard to believe that's an accident.

Carrie Symonds the 'Hillary Clinton' of 10 Downing St ?

Since Cummings's departure things are a lot less chaotic, Dilyn and Larry the Cat are working their magic.

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.

Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations

Contrasted with May's tenure this current government is remarkably quietly competent at getting on with things.

Special credit with Brexit for both Gove and Truss who have in the past twelve months achieved far more than was achieved by their predecessors in years.

It's noteworthy how calmer and more considered Government communications have been in the last few weeks since Cummings/Cain left..

Hard to believe that's an accident.

I think Cummings in particular liked dividing lines. Which are no doubt very effective and useful when you are campaigning for something. In government, not so much.

Blackford whinging again Scotland not getting a special Deal like Northern Ireland

https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1336654147702169608?s=20

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.

Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations

It sounds like Gove believes he has done an excellent job in these negotiations, is more accurate.

A senior Tesco guy on WATO, positive but less than enthusiastic, "anything is better than nothing" is his assessment.

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

HYUFD said:

Blackford whinging again Scotland not getting a special Deal like Northern Ireland

https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1336654147702169608?s=20

It’s not like there was a recent hard fought political campaign where one side promised (among other things) the best of both worlds.

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.

Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/08/boris-johnson-goods-from-northern-ireland-to-gb-wont-be-checked-brexit

“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”

So it's a bad thing that we compromised? I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make.

No, of course it's not a bad thing that we compromised. I'm not even arguing with you! My posts are directed at Philip_Thompson, who appears to be under the delusion that the EU have simply accepted everything we proposed 4 years ago after being threatened with the IMB, without us having to compromise at all.

I have said more times than I want to count that we compromised. What part of that are you struggling to understand.

I shall say it again: we have reached a compromise.

Yes, we have reached a compromise, one which has involved us accepting that there would, after all, be paperwork involved in GB/NI trading - a position we were resisting just a year ago. It's been a slow walk back from your initial claims that this compromise is something we were suggesting 4 years ago and that it was only the threat of the IMB that forced the EU to accept this compromise. But you got there in the end. Well done.

Mexicanpete said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

If he gets a good deal he will deserve the credit too.

I remember when I wanted May out and wanted Boris to replace her the almost unanimous opinion of this site was that renegotiation of May's deal was impossible. That Boris could never get a better deal.

From a Brexiteers perspective he got a better deal last year and now looks on the brink of either a clean Brexit or a good deal now.

Credit where credit is due. He's done good.

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.

Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations

It sounds like Gove believes he has done an excellent job in these negotiations, is more accurate.

A senior Tesco guy on WATO, positive but less than enthusiastic, "anything is better than nothing" is his assessment.

To be fair to Gove, he probably has a background allowing him to pass the "distinguish wants from needs" test, recognises that the UK needs a deal, and has made the concessions to solve his bit of the jigsaw.

Trusted trader is needed to make the thing work, Europe are cool with that as long as they don't have to trust the trusted trader scheme and can do their own checks. And the hot desk / no Euro office thing (let's face it, that is a bit pathetic) allows Boris to wrap the thing in the Union Jack. Everyone's happy.

But the elephant in the room (namely, 10 days until the great Christmas wind-down starts and nobody really knows how to make cross-Channel trade work on a Canadian, let alone WTO basis) has settled in comfortably and seems to have moved on from eating sticky buns to panettone.

The UK needs time to get ready, therefore it needs a deal, and probably not the deal Boris wants.

Still, there's nowt any of us can do about it...

If you were going to do a deal that you know will piss off the ERG you would want to give them as little time as possible to scrutinise it before they are asked to approve it. Maybe that is what is going on here.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1336664300732227584?s=20

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.

Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations

It sounds like Gove believes he has done an excellent job in these negotiations, is more accurate.

A senior Tesco guy on WATO, positive but less than enthusiastic, "anything is better than nothing" is his assessment.

The pound is rocketing upwards so others have more faith

As far as the markets are concerned, any deal is better than no deal.

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

Benpointer said:

contrarian said:

kinabalu said:

Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -

Trump steams in to 20s.

It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.

I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.

Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.

Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.

Contrarian is working his way along the grieving curve. Weirdly though he has slid back to the denial phase.

A second wave, as it were.

I'm astonished* that Contrarian isn't denouncing this astonishing attack on States' rights by Texas and others.

*Well I'm not.

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

If he gets a good deal he will deserve the credit too.

I remember when I wanted May out and wanted Boris to replace her the almost unanimous opinion of this site was that renegotiation of May's deal was impossible. That Boris could never get a better deal.

From a Brexiteers perspective he got a better deal last year and now looks on the brink of either a clean Brexit or a good deal now.

Credit where credit is due. He's done good.

You are getting a little ahead of yourself there, Philip. He hasn't got a deal yet and we don't know what he will have to concede to get one. It always takes two to tango in a deal and this has undoubtedly been much, much harder than many leavers promised and possibly even genuinely believed.

As our second vaccine recipient yesterday almost said, "All's well that Ends Well." But as he also said, "If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly,"

Oh absolutely. Hence the first word I wrote was "If".

Getting the Trusted Trader principle agreed is a good start though. What a shame it took 4 years to get them to accept that idea.

Didn't it involve us accepting there would be an internal customs border in the Irish sea and continued CJEU jurisdiction in Northern Ireland? That happened a year ago, before we changed our minds and then changed them back again.

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

If he gets a good deal he will deserve the credit too.

I remember when I wanted May out and wanted Boris to replace her the almost unanimous opinion of this site was that renegotiation of May's deal was impossible. That Boris could never get a better deal.

From a Brexiteers perspective he got a better deal last year and now looks on the brink of either a clean Brexit or a good deal now.

Credit where credit is due. He's done good.

You are getting a little ahead of yourself there, Philip. He hasn't got a deal yet and we don't know what he will have to concede to get one. It always takes two to tango in a deal and this has undoubtedly been much, much harder than many leavers promised and possibly even genuinely believed.

As our second vaccine recipient yesterday almost said, "All's well that Ends Well." But as he also said, "If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly,"

Oh absolutely. Hence the first word I wrote was "If".

Getting the Trusted Trader principle agreed is a good start though. What a shame it took 4 years to get them to accept that idea.

Didn't it involve us accepting there would be an internal customs border in the Irish sea and continued CJEU jurisdiction in Northern Ireland? That happened a year ago, before we changed our minds and then changed them back again.

And I was fine with us accepting that so long as it was with NI Stormont consent on an ongoing basis which is a part of the deal. But when we agreed that the EU were still refusing to accept Trusted Trader Schemes - so what has changed since then to get them to accept that principle?

It seems to me the changing our minds (the IMB) and then changing back (removing IMB tied to getting Trusted Trader we wanted) is what made this deal possible. In other words the IMB was the incentive to get the EU to make a rational compromise. As I forecast at the time it was published and as I said would occur if we took it to the brink without a backstop years ago now.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

That sounds awfully similar to Bill Clinton's defence over Monica.

TrèsDifficile said:

Carnyx said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.

That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'

Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).

For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.

I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?

Surely Chris Croesus Huhne gets that role in the panto for as long as he wants it?

Is there an allusion I am missing, please?

He was known as Chris "Creases" Huhne after the trouser press on expenses fun. Then it was later revealed that he owned a million second homes, so the adaption from "rich as Croesus" to "rich as Creases" was born. I always think of him now when I read about Croesus

Ah, thank you - *that* side of Croesus. I had been wondering if he had a battle to fight with some modern Cyrus.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

This is very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of 'is' during the Lewinsky affair.

To be fair I have all sort of apps on my phone I don't use. I don't use Whatsapp either, I don't see a need for it and use Facebook Messenger most of the time for what others may use Whatapp for. If someone asked me if I use Whatsapp I'd say no even though its on my phone.

Last time I used it was about a year or so ago when a local Councillor asked me specifically to send a message to him via Whatsapp. The app has been left untouched since then.

Thread:

https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1336663757607546883?s=20

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

This is very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of 'is' during the Lewinsky affair.

Incoming examples of him having used WhatsApp in 5, 4, 3, ....

The next level on this will be receiving messages on WhatsApp isn't using WhatsApp. Only sending messages on WhatsApp is what is considered to be using WhatsApp

I had this level of discussion on an internal disciplinary case I had to supervise where one staffer denied ever using WhatsApp.

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

This is very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of 'is' during the Lewinsky affair.

To be fair I have all sort of apps on my phone I don't use. I don't use Whatsapp either, I don't see a need for it and use Facebook Messenger most of the time for what others may use Whatapp for. If someone asked me if I use Whatsapp I'd say no even though its on my phone.

Last time I used it was about a year or so ago when a local Councillor asked me specifically to send a message to him via Whatsapp. The app has been left untouched since then.

I would say that makes you quite unusual, in this country, at least. Almost everybody I know uses WhatsApp as their primary means of textual communication. That includes both work and social contacts.

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

If he gets a good deal he will deserve the credit too.

I remember when I wanted May out and wanted Boris to replace her the almost unanimous opinion of this site was that renegotiation of May's deal was impossible. That Boris could never get a better deal.

From a Brexiteers perspective he got a better deal last year and now looks on the brink of either a clean Brexit or a good deal now.

Credit where credit is due. He's done good.

You are getting a little ahead of yourself there, Philip. He hasn't got a deal yet and we don't know what he will have to concede to get one. It always takes two to tango in a deal and this has undoubtedly been much, much harder than many leavers promised and possibly even genuinely believed.

As our second vaccine recipient yesterday almost said, "All's well that Ends Well." But as he also said, "If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly,"

Oh absolutely. Hence the first word I wrote was "If".

Getting the Trusted Trader principle agreed is a good start though. What a shame it took 4 years to get them to accept that idea.

Didn't it involve us accepting there would be an internal customs border in the Irish sea and continued CJEU jurisdiction in Northern Ireland? That happened a year ago, before we changed our minds and then changed them back again.

My understanding (which may well be wrong, I'm posting this to learn if so, rather than try and make a point) is that trusted trader schemes were deemed unacceptable for (most of? some of?) EU/non-EU trade - that is at the NI/Republic border. What seems to have been agreed now is at the GB/NI border (and presumably only for goods with final destination NI from GB?). GB to Republic trade would still have arrangements depending on any FTA?

You can argue that the effective EU/non-EU border has moved to the Irish sea, I guess, and thus that it's equivalent to trusted traders across the NI/Republic border, but that would be for goods going anywhere in the EU, no?

Trouble at Sky

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1336666951863721986?s=19

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

This is very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of 'is' during the Lewinsky affair.

Incoming examples of him having used WhatsApp in 5, 4, 3, ....

The next level on this will be receiving messages on WhatsApp isn't using WhatsApp. Only sending messages on WhatsApp is what is considered to be using WhatsApp

I had this level of discussion on an internal disciplinary case I had to supervise where one staffer denied ever using WhatsApp.

I've got solicitors who even did a consultation on WhatsApp. To be fair it was as good as Teams or Zoom.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

This is very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of 'is' during the Lewinsky affair.

To be fair I have all sort of apps on my phone I don't use. I don't use Whatsapp either, I don't see a need for it and use Facebook Messenger most of the time for what others may use Whatapp for. If someone asked me if I use Whatsapp I'd say no even though its on my phone.

Last time I used it was about a year or so ago when a local Councillor asked me specifically to send a message to him via Whatsapp. The app has been left untouched since then.

I would say that makes you quite unusual, in this country, at least. Almost everybody I know uses WhatsApp as their primary means of textual communication. That includes both work and social contacts.

Perhaps. In my social and work networks I've always been able to achieve everything I've ever wanted to do via Messenger, SMS and Email. I see people talk about Whatsapp groups, I have Messenger groups that serve the exact same purpose and you don't need to be Facebook friends to be in a Messenger group together. So same function different medium.

All seems a bit Android v iPhone much of a muchness to me.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's noteworthy how calmer and more considered Government communications have been in the last few weeks since Cummings/Cain left..

Hard to believe that's an accident.

Almost like the PM's partner was the former Director of Communications for the Tory Party and served as SPAD to several cabinet minister.

She can spot bad media and comms strategy a mile away.

Told you she was impressive.

Don't forget Allegra Stratton either.

She sold Rishi earlier this year and she is very good at her job.

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

If he gets a good deal he will deserve the credit too.

I remember when I wanted May out and wanted Boris to replace her the almost unanimous opinion of this site was that renegotiation of May's deal was impossible. That Boris could never get a better deal.

From a Brexiteers perspective he got a better deal last year and now looks on the brink of either a clean Brexit or a good deal now.

Credit where credit is due. He's done good.

And so have I. The inevitable deal is at long last shedding its cunning disguise as a tough-to-achieve aspiration - a disguise which has fooled so many - and is about to reveal itself to our critical/loving (delete as appropriate) gaze.

But this is not why I write. I write to inform that your sentence for yesterday's (Burley/Cummings) double standards misdemeanor has been duly served and your integrity is thus available to be returned to you. It's in a bag at reception.

I find myself, in reference to the deal not PT I hasten to make clear, wondering whether it is meaningful to praise a shite sandwich to the skies when it has been clear for months that the only alternative for dinner is plain unadulterated jobbie.

My Springer Spaniel would consume either with gusto. I never before had him down as a Boris Tory.

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.

Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations

It sounds like Gove believes he has done an excellent job in these negotiations, is more accurate.

A senior Tesco guy on WATO, positive but less than enthusiastic, "anything is better than nothing" is his assessment.

The pound is rocketing upwards so others have more faith

As far as the markets are concerned, any deal is better than no deal.

I think that this "rocketing up" thing is a little overstated. Sterling is currently up the cent it lost yesterday. But if Boris does get a deal I would expect a much, much bigger movement/ The FTSE 100 may suffer a bit given the level of foreign earnings but the FTSE 250 should really fly.

I bought into the FTSE 250 big time on Monday.

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

If he gets a good deal he will deserve the credit too.

I remember when I wanted May out and wanted Boris to replace her the almost unanimous opinion of this site was that renegotiation of May's deal was impossible. That Boris could never get a better deal.

From a Brexiteers perspective he got a better deal last year and now looks on the brink of either a clean Brexit or a good deal now.

Credit where credit is due. He's done good.

You are getting a little ahead of yourself there, Philip. He hasn't got a deal yet and we don't know what he will have to concede to get one. It always takes two to tango in a deal and this has undoubtedly been much, much harder than many leavers promised and possibly even genuinely believed.

As our second vaccine recipient yesterday almost said, "All's well that Ends Well." But as he also said, "If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly,"

Oh absolutely. Hence the first word I wrote was "If".

Getting the Trusted Trader principle agreed is a good start though. What a shame it took 4 years to get them to accept that idea.

Didn't it involve us accepting there would be an internal customs border in the Irish sea and continued CJEU jurisdiction in Northern Ireland? That happened a year ago, before we changed our minds and then changed them back again.

And I was fine with us accepting that so long as it was with NI Stormont consent on an ongoing basis which is a part of the deal. But when we agreed that the EU were still refusing to accept Trusted Trader Schemes - so what has changed since then to get them to accept that principle?

It seems to me the changing our minds (the IMB) and then changing back (removing IMB tied to getting Trusted Trader we wanted) is what made this deal possible. In other words the IMB was the incentive to get the EU to make a rational compromise. As I forecast at the time it was published and as I said would occur if we took it to the brink without a backstop years ago now.

The detail was always due to be discussed this year. It was the UK's agreement to a border in the Irish Sea and CJEU jurisdiction in Northern Ireland that enabled the detail to be looked at. The IMB imperilled that, but in the end the UK government realised it was doing more harm than good. That is a good thing, I am sure we agree.

You say imperilled, I say balanced the scales and did more good than harm.

Either way it has served its purpose now the EU have come to join us in the middle.

It's good news for Ireland north and south. That is the important bit.

Can RoI export processed chilled meat to the U.K.? If not it’s far from good news.

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

If he gets a good deal he will deserve the credit too.

I remember when I wanted May out and wanted Boris to replace her the almost unanimous opinion of this site was that renegotiation of May's deal was impossible. That Boris could never get a better deal.

From a Brexiteers perspective he got a better deal last year and now looks on the brink of either a clean Brexit or a good deal now.

Credit where credit is due. He's done good.

You are getting a little ahead of yourself there, Philip. He hasn't got a deal yet and we don't know what he will have to concede to get one. It always takes two to tango in a deal and this has undoubtedly been much, much harder than many leavers promised and possibly even genuinely believed.

As our second vaccine recipient yesterday almost said, "All's well that Ends Well." But as he also said, "If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly,"

Oh absolutely. Hence the first word I wrote was "If".

Getting the Trusted Trader principle agreed is a good start though. What a shame it took 4 years to get them to accept that idea.

Didn't it involve us accepting there would be an internal customs border in the Irish sea and continued CJEU jurisdiction in Northern Ireland? That happened a year ago, before we changed our minds and then changed them back again.

And I was fine with us accepting that so long as it was with NI Stormont consent on an ongoing basis which is a part of the deal. But when we agreed that the EU were still refusing to accept Trusted Trader Schemes - so what has changed since then to get them to accept that principle?

It seems to me the changing our minds (the IMB) and then changing back (removing IMB tied to getting Trusted Trader we wanted) is what made this deal possible. In other words the IMB was the incentive to get the EU to make a rational compromise. As I forecast at the time it was published and as I said would occur if we took it to the brink without a backstop years ago now.

The detail was always due to be discussed this year. It was the UK's agreement to a border in the Irish Sea and CJEU jurisdiction in Northern Ireland that enabled the detail to be looked at. The IMB imperilled that, but in the end the UK government realised it was doing more harm than good. That is a good thing, I am sure we agree.

You say imperilled, I say balanced the scales and did more good than harm.

Either way it has served its purpose now the EU have come to join us in the middle.

It's good news for Ireland north and south. That is the important bit.

It is good for GB to NI trade as well within our own country. That is the even more important bit.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

This is very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of 'is' during the Lewinsky affair.

Incoming examples of him having used WhatsApp in 5, 4, 3, ....

The next level on this will be receiving messages on WhatsApp isn't using WhatsApp. Only sending messages on WhatsApp is what is considered to be using WhatsApp

I had this level of discussion on an internal disciplinary case I had to supervise where one staffer denied ever using WhatsApp.

I've got solicitors who even did a consultation on WhatsApp. To be fair it was as good as Teams or Zoom.

Virtual meetings are basically modern seances.

‘Does anybody else hear a strange noise?’

‘Elizabeth are you here?’

‘Make a sound if you can hear us?’

‘Is anyone else with you?’

‘We can’t see you, can you hear us?’

For all Boris's faults his insistence on no extension from 1st January has concentrated minds

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it

Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?

No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view

Abstaining is fine. Whipping to support Johnson's deal will see Starmer as a Vichy style collaborator come the Remainer Nuremberg trials! When that time comes I see myself as Lord Birkett.

A deal is looking imminent. Once agreed, Boris will be riding on a golden chariot for months to come - master of all he surveys. There's absolutely no point Sir Keir trying to rain on Boris parade - if he gets noticed at all he'll just look like a grump and a nit-picker. Better just to hunker down and tell himself that Boris won't be around for ever.

I agree Johnson's stock with go stratospheric on news of his inevitable deal, particularly in the back of his 'inventing' vaccines.

It is a coat tail, Starmer does not need to hang on to.

If he gets a good deal he will deserve the credit too.

I remember when I wanted May out and wanted Boris to replace her the almost unanimous opinion of this site was that renegotiation of May's deal was impossible. That Boris could never get a better deal.

From a Brexiteers perspective he got a better deal last year and now looks on the brink of either a clean Brexit or a good deal now.

Credit where credit is due. He's done good.

And so have I. The inevitable deal is at long last shedding its cunning disguise as a tough-to-achieve aspiration - a disguise which has fooled so many - and is about to reveal itself to our critical/loving (delete as appropriate) gaze.

But this is not why I write. I write to inform that your sentence for yesterday's (Burley/Cummings) double standards misdemeanor has been duly served and your integrity is thus available to be returned to you. It's in a bag at reception.

I find myself, in reference to the deal not PT I hasten to make clear, wondering whether it is meaningful to praise a shite sandwich to the skies when it has been clear for months that the only alternative for dinner is plain unadulterated jobbie.

This is an important point you make. Neither Leavers nor Remainers must allow their respective admiration or relief - both cynically manufactured by Johnson and others - to get in the way of a thorough scrutiny of the deal. What are we tangibly gaining from it in a timeframe we can picture without talk of "our kids and our grandkids"? How does this stack up against what we'll be losing and against all the time and effort and grief involved in getting here? That's the exercise I'll be doing.

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1336662497093410817?s=20

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.

No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.

It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.

Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.

You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.

Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/08/boris-johnson-goods-from-northern-ireland-to-gb-wont-be-checked-brexit

“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”

So it's a bad thing that we compromised? I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make.

No, of course it's not a bad thing that we compromised. I'm not even arguing with you! My posts are directed at Philip_Thompson, who appears to be under the delusion that the EU have simply accepted everything we proposed 4 years ago after being threatened with the IMB, without us having to compromise at all.

I have said more times than I want to count that we compromised. What part of that are you struggling to understand.

I shall say it again: we have reached a compromise.

Yes, we have reached a compromise, one which has involved us accepting that there would, after all, be paperwork involved in GB/NI trading - a position we were resisting just a year ago. It's been a slow walk back from your initial claims that this compromise is something we were suggesting 4 years ago and that it was only the threat of the IMB that forced the EU to accept this compromise. But you got there in the end. Well done.

The Trusted Trader core of the deal is something we were suggesting 4 years ago and it was I strongly believe the threat of the IMB that forced the EU to accept this compromise yes.

It is not very credible to suggest that the small amount of paperwork that got the EU to 4 years on and with only days to go got them to accept a Trusted Trader scheme.

We were suggesting it for the Irish land border, not the sea border. The UK has just accepted Barnier's strategy of 'dedramatising' an internal customs border.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

This is very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of 'is' during the Lewinsky affair.

Incoming examples of him having used WhatsApp in 5, 4, 3, ....

Can we have a retrofitted countdown for fake tweets referring to Murrell using Whatsapp?

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/1336646987526119425

Why are the French and Germans so paranoid that a post-Brexit UK is going to have such a massive trading advantage over the EU when we are no longer bound by EU regulation?

Because they know that figures like Redwood, Raab and Patel are of the ideological stripe to stuff labour and environmental standards into the ground, with relatively few political qualms, to gain such a trading advantage.

williamglenn said:

We were suggesting it for the Irish land border, not the sea border. The UK has just accepted Barnier's strategy of 'dedramatising' an internal customs border.

.. which is very positive, to be fair. It must mean that the damage to trust done by the IMB shenanigans must have been partly repaired.

Of course it would have been better if the trust hadn't been damaged in the first place. Weeks of planning and implementation time have been wasted.

edmundintokyo said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/1336646987526119425

Why are the French and Germans so paranoid that a post-Brexit UK is going to have such a massive trading advantage over the EU when we are no longer bound by EU regulation?

We know that some regulations have a cost in competitiveness, but are still worth doing. The reason the EU has common standards is because otherwise there's a perverse incentive to try to undercut each other, particularly on health and environmental issues. The same goes for tax - if the ideal rate to maximize welfare is X but you split governance up into competing zones, they'll set it to below X.

A lot of Brexit enthusiasts have been pretty clear that if they can get market access they plan to undercut the EU with lower taxes and regulations. The EU won't grant the market access they want under these conditions, because they're not total and utter idiots.

But the amusing thing is that the main people who are aghast at the idea the UK may gain from lower taxes are the same people who deny the existence of the Laffer Curve.

Anyway they are total and utter idiots if they think they can hold back the tide by making everyone equally uncompetitive. There's a reason much of manufacturing has been exported to the Far East - we operate on a global not local market. The "Single Market" and access to it is more a polite fiction than reality.

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1336666813128708097

This is very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of 'is' during the Lewinsky affair.

Incoming examples of him having used WhatsApp in 5, 4, 3, ....

Can we have a retrofitted countdown for fake tweets referring to Murrell using Whatsapp?

Yes, probably.

edmundintokyo said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/1336646987526119425

Why are the French and Germans so paranoid that a post-Brexit UK is going to have such a massive trading advantage over the EU when we are no longer bound by EU regulation?

We know that some regulations have a cost in competitiveness, but are still worth doing. The reason the EU has common standards is because otherwise there's a perverse incentive to try to undercut each other, particularly on health and environmental issues. The same goes for tax - if the ideal rate to maximize welfare is X but you split governance up into competing zones, they'll set it to below X.

A lot of Brexit enthusiasts have been pretty clear that if they can get market access they plan to undercut the EU with lower taxes and regulations. The EU won't grant the market access they want under these conditions, because they're not total and utter idiots.

I don't get the Lower Taxes bit of that.

The EU is full of different tax levels and systems - eg Irish Republic and Netherlands are tax havens.

If they allow tax differences inside, why is outside a problem?

gealbhan said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.

It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.

Boris was confident today and Starmer is just not cutting it

I haven't seen it, but perhaps Starmer having a bad day. Bozo is shit on his feet, but every dog has his day. I wouldn't get too excited, much as you might hope he is good, let me let you into a not very secret secret: Johnson is not up to the job, and though Starmer may have a bad day he is massively more Primeministerial than Johnson, but then so is just about anyone.

Do you misunderstand what the role of a Prime Minister is? The great ones, Churchill, Thatcher, Boris, talked up the nations resolve, built morale, from the people up. Even Blair in his conference speeches talked up the great opportunity’s for UK of globalisation, ignoring the issues with globalisation. At what time do you imagine Starmer able to do any of that?

Everybody I know finds Johnson utterly depressing. There is no way that he and his gang of corrupt opportunists build up the nation´s morale.