The Georgia runoffs are looking very tight – politicalbetting.com

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating

Why? What did you do?

LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it

We'll be missing you 😊

On a serious basis I share your opposition to the death penalty. Don't worry it's not going to happen. No place for it in a civilised society. 👍

On the Fisheries part of the Brexit deal and going back to the claim that swaps were not covered in the deal, it looks like this is not correct.

Article FISH 6
Paragraph 8

"The Parties agree to set up a mechanism for voluntary in-year transfers of fishing
opportunities between the Parties, to take place each year. The Specialised Committee on Fisheries
shall decide on the details of this mechanism. The Parties shall consider making transfers of fishing
opportunities for stocks which are, or are projected to be, underfished available at market value
through this mechanism."

This is exactly what happens at the moment with - currently - any swaps having to be registered with the authorities in advance for the year.

So all that appears to have happened is they have left the detail of the swaps to the Committee which has to be set up anyway to provide oversight to the whole fishing agreement.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Another thing they didn't put on the side of the bus...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390

Probably a stupid question, but why should I have to pay customs duties on personal imports when we have a tariff- and quota-free trade deal?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating

You'll be OK comrade. It will only apply to Socialists, not Social Democrats.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tommctague/status/1343648543521853441?s=21

I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.

Although all the vaccine science in Valneva is really Austrian

I read somewhere that we would have been required to abandon our backing for Jenner/AZ to join the Eu scheme so we didn’t

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

..

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting

The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.

What a combination

Brexit revealed as a face-saving exercise for the British establishment parties.

Snappy point by OJ about Labour voting Yes to the Deal to avoid pissing off their Leave voters -
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1343299555102777346

I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.

Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do.
Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.

They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.

So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.

I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence.
That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)

Let’s play the “What If”.

The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?

Not really.

Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.

I don’t see that as inevitable.
If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.

No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.

Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.

How do you figure?

The EU have moved much more than the UK have.

Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.

One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.

Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.

Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.

JohnLilburne said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Another thing they didn't put on the side of the bus...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390

Probably a stupid question, but why should I have to pay customs duties on personal imports when we have a tariff- and quota-free trade deal?

Tariffs are only removed if your goods meet certain conditions, including how much content comes from the UK and EU as opposed to other countries. You have to fill in copious forms. If the tariffs aren't too massive you may choose to pay them rather than take on the burden and costs of declarations.

londonpubman said:

On a serious basis I share your opposition to the death penalty. Don't worry it's not going to happen. No place for it in a civilised society.

But we live in Brexitland, where it is massively popular...

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1343669095561113602

Richard_Tyndall said:

By the way, not sure if it has been posted yet but if anyone wants to see the detail of the deal it can be found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948119/EU-UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement_24.12.2020.pdf

Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked

"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be
stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure
deletion."

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2020/EN/COM-2020-857-F1-EN-ANNEX-1-PART-1.PDF

For those with lives to live, this is a useful summary:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1343659102870900742

Lol. Brexit stings

Charles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Cyclefree said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Oh. I've got a good meta-E for OBE.

Entitlement.

What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.

Only that I thought we were looking for E words! I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with C words too

Why not have it like UBS

Union Bank of Switzerland merged with SBC Warburg to form UBS.

But technically UBS doesn’t stand for anything

Edit: I realise that may be misleadingly phrased. Of course I meant the initials “UBS” don’t stand for anything... ahem... as you were

I was always told that UBS stood for 'U Be Stupid' or 'Unbelievable Bunker System'.

IshmaelZ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating

Why? What did you do?

LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it

What talk of it being introduced?

You're the first person I've seen bring it up.

Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.

And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.

Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...

Charles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

rcs1000 said:

TrèsDifficile said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tommctague/status/1343648543521853441?s=21

I believe the French and Belgian governments are backing local champion Valneva (which wasn't able to persuade the EU its vaccine would work) with their own direct orders.

I'd love it if we found out there was only ever one good vaccine produced, and everybody else produced it under their own preferred brand to encourage take up.

Well, the Moderna and Pfizer (one US, one German) vaccines show suspiciously similar results...

If it were true, that only one decent vaccine had been developed, would it be morally wrong for governments to collectively decide on the deception I suggested if it did result in higher vaccine take up?

It’s called co-marketing (as opposed to co-promotion) and happens all the time in the Pharma industry

Does the 'happens all the time' bit mean it is morally acceptable for governments to lie to their citizens about where their nationally approved vaccine comes from?

If it does, would it hold true for Palestinians vaccinated by an Israeli vaccine dose if it were called something else?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Cyclefree said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Oh. I've got a good meta-E for OBE.

Entitlement.

What's wrong with Order of the British Commonwealth? After all, that's what the Empire has morphed into, it's what HMQ cares about and no-one could possibly take offence. Seems the obvious choice to me.

Only that I thought we were looking for E words! I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with C words too

Why not have it like UBS

Union Bank of Switzerland merged with SBC Warburg to form UBS.

But technically UBS doesn’t stand for anything

Edit: I realise that may be misleadingly phrased. Of course I meant the initials “UBS” don’t stand for anything... ahem... as you were

I was always told that UBS stood for 'U Be Stupid' or 'Unbelievable Bunker System'.

"Utter Bull Shit"

Or during the financial crisis - "Unemployed By Spring".

FF43 said:

..

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting

The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.

What a combination

Brexit revealed as a face-saving exercise for the British establishment parties.

Snappy point by OJ about Labour voting Yes to the Deal to avoid pissing off their Leave voters -
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1343299555102777346

I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.

Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do.
Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.

They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.

So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.

I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence.
That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)

Let’s play the “What If”.

The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?

Not really.

Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.

I don’t see that as inevitable.
If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.

No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.

Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.

Actually I think Johnson and Frost believed they would get a better deal than they did by "not bluffing". At the end of the day they took the deal. They were out-bluffed. Or maybe out-not-bluffed.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

..

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting

The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.

What a combination

Brexit revealed as a face-saving exercise for the British establishment parties.

Snappy point by OJ about Labour voting Yes to the Deal to avoid pissing off their Leave voters -
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1343299555102777346

I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.

Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do.
Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.

They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.

So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.

I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence.
That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)

Let’s play the “What If”.

The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?

Not really.

Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.

I don’t see that as inevitable.
If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.

No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.

Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.

How do you figure?

The EU have moved much more than the UK have.

Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.

One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.

Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.

Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.

Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union

This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from an economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?

The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.

The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.

Agreed.

But @Philip_Thompson seems to think some great victory was won because the EU moved more than the U.K. without appreciating that that is a silly metric by which to measure success.

BluestBlue said:

IshmaelZ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating

Why? What did you do?

LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it

What talk of it being introduced?

You're the first person I've seen bring it up.

Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.

And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.

Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...

I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.

I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.

rcs1000 said:

BluestBlue said:

IshmaelZ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating

Why? What did you do?

LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it

What talk of it being introduced?

You're the first person I've seen bring it up.

Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.

And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.

Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...

I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.

I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.

Are there any of them you wouldn't execute?

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

BluestBlue said:

IshmaelZ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating

Why? What did you do?

LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it

What talk of it being introduced?

You're the first person I've seen bring it up.

Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.

And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.

Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...

I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.

I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.

Are there any of them you wouldn't execute?

Yes.

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

By the way, not sure if it has been posted yet but if anyone wants to see the detail of the deal it can be found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948119/EU-UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement_24.12.2020.pdf

Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked

"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be
stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure
deletion."

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2020/EN/COM-2020-857-F1-EN-ANNEX-1-PART-1.PDF

For those with lives to live, this is a useful summary:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal

To be fair these treaties are not as onerous as one might think if you are looking only at specific areas of interest and at detail which might not be covered in the executive summary. It is only MPs like Ken Clarke who seem to have difficulty with basic comprehension and so don't bother.

It is pretty dense though.

I found it useful to read the Institue for Government summary first; subsequent dips into the detailed text have not really added anything worthwhile to my understanding.

Yep that's fair enough. Sadly it does mean that some of the myths that are being propagated - such as the one I mentioned earlier about swaps - are not challenged because they are covered in the text but not in the summary.

Glad we are still talking about Brexit on here. We need to discuss it more often! 👍🇪🇺

rcs1000 said:

BluestBlue said:

IshmaelZ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If the death penalty really is on the cards I will consider emigrating

Why? What did you do?

LOL, I mean the talk of it being reintroduced. If that did happen I would consider emigrating on principle, I really can't support a country that does it

What talk of it being introduced?

You're the first person I've seen bring it up.

Support for the death penalty is highly correlated with support for Brexit. If the Tories warned to recreate the Brexit coalition a death penalty referendum would be the obvious way to do it. I would probably emigrate too.

And it would succeed. "Let's take all the money we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS." How i loathe direct democracy.

Ah, that helps to explain your antipathy towards 5th-century Athens. It seems that the breakdown of the jury vote for Socrates' conviction was about 56% to 44% - not quite the Brexit ratio, but closer than some of us who suffered through the Platonic dialogues might have expected. After he then acted like a smartarse and suggested that as an alternative to execution he should be feasted like an Olympic victor at public expense for the rest of his life, the jurors voted overwhelmingly for the hemlock...

I would definitely have voted to execute Socrates. Indeed, I'd probably have chucked Plato on the pile with him. I would support digging up Kant's body and hanging it, just to be sure. And let's not even start on Hegel.

I have a Philosophy degree, so I know of which I speak.

A philosophy degree? So you know Foucault?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

By the way, not sure if it has been posted yet but if anyone wants to see the detail of the deal it can be found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948119/EU-UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement_24.12.2020.pdf

Amusingly, even though it is published on the EC website, there it is marked

"Distribution only on a ‘Need to know' basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be
stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure
deletion."

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2020/EN/COM-2020-857-F1-EN-ANNEX-1-PART-1.PDF

For those with lives to live, this is a useful summary:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal

To be fair these treaties are not as onerous as one might think if you are looking only at specific areas of interest and at detail which might not be covered in the executive summary. It is only MPs like Ken Clarke who seem to have difficulty with basic comprehension and so don't bother.

It is pretty dense though.

I found it useful to read the Institue for Government summary first; subsequent dips into the detailed text have not really added anything worthwhile to my understanding.

Yep that's fair enough. Sadly it does mean that some of the myths that are being propagated - such as the one I mentioned earlier about swaps - are not challenged because they are covered in the text but not in the summary.

Fair point.

FF43 said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

..

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting

The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.

What a combination

Brexit revealed as a face-saving exercise for the British establishment parties.

Snappy point by OJ about Labour voting Yes to the Deal to avoid pissing off their Leave voters -
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1343299555102777346

I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.

Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do.
Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.

They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.

So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.

I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence.
That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)

Let’s play the “What If”.

The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?

Not really.

Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.

I don’t see that as inevitable.
If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.

No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.

Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.

How do you figure?

The EU have moved much more than the UK have.

Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.

One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.

Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.

Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.

Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union

This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?

The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.

The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.

But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"

Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.

This really is boring now.

Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.

Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.

Yeah but you don't need to be pompous about it. Britain made a mistake. It will have to death it. We all will. It's how it is.

But it's only you guys who are still whingeing. Stop.

Does anyone think that Turing and Eurasmus won't sign up to each other soon enough?

Among the gloom, some not bad news:

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1343613407052918786?s=20

Labour voting For the deal gives me hope for Labour. My worry is Starmer isn't strategic, the test is: Does he take Dodds too seriously?

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:

This really is boring now.

This is what you voted for.

You won! Suck it up...

I didn't vote to read your inane, sad, bleating, pathetic, I'm-a-sad-loser comments about Brexit FOR A DECADE.

To be honest, if Remain HAD put that in their campaign literature - you will get sad men moaning at you for twelve years - they might have persuaded me more to their cause.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1343679499167264773

Leon said:

I didn't vote to read your inane, sad, bleating, pathetic, I'm-a-sad-loser comments about Brexit FOR A DECADE.

Oh, So NOW you didn't know what you were voting for...

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I'm leaving, don't know when I will be back. All the best.

Is it because of the death penalty?

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1343681260875558916

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1343681502018736133

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1343679127996538881

The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.

ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.

Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.

Where are you going to get the vaccines from?

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

..

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting

The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.

What a combination

Brexit revealed as a face-saving exercise for the British establishment parties.

Snappy point by OJ about Labour voting Yes to the Deal to avoid pissing off their Leave voters -
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1343299555102777346

I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.

Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do.
Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.

They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.

So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.

I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence.
That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)

Let’s play the “What If”.

The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?

Not really.

Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.

I don’t see that as inevitable.
If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.

No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.

Johnson wasn't entirely bluffing (Frost didn't get to make that call), in my opinion. Problem was he and Frost thought the brinkmanship would have an effect on the EU. It turned out the EU was bluffing less than the UK was. With the result that the deal is less good for the UK than it need to have been, even given the constraints of the parties' red lines.

How do you figure?

The EU have moved much more than the UK have.

Look at the outcomes not the movement. Let's take one outcome.

One of the regular complaints on here by Brexiteers has been that the EU has a surplus with us in goods ie that the Single Market has helped the EU far more than Britain because Britain's strength is in services.

Now look at the deal: the EU gets to continue trading in goods with us, in an area in which it is strong. Britain loses frictionless trade in goods. Britain gets nothing on services, an area in which it is strong. That trade surplus which so annoyed Brexiteers is likely to get larger not smaller.

Or take finance. The government has already admitted that its deal is not good for finance. It will need to agree something with the EU on that. The EU has already stated that it will agree whatever is in the EU's interests. Britain has lost leverage because it has already agreed the rest of the trading relationship with the EU. Finance was one of Britain's strongest cards. It was one which the government chose not to play when it mattered.

Is this news? Anyone with a brain who voted Brexit knew that we would suffer in the ensuing trade negotiations, and that it might threaten the Union

This was bloody obvious. They are bigger than us, The overriding question was, in the medium-long term, was this a price worth paying for a very definite gain in sovereignty? Was this cost worth it, if thereby we were freeing Britain from n economically solid but sluggish bloc, determined on greater Federalism, and thereby cementing bureaucratic, non-democratic rule virtually forever?

The comparisons, often made, with the Reformation, remain pertinent. You either want the Pope to rule your inner life, and much of your public life, or you don’t.

The Brexit question was quasi-religious, hence the strange and violent passions it has invoked.

But the bus ... I never saw, "Let's have quasi-religion instead"

Jesus. Fuck the Bus. I know it annoys Remainers, but... it was a bus. Get over it.

This really is boring now.

Remain lost. Leave won. Remain thereafter tried to cancel democracy, but they failed (thank God) and so we are Leaving. Some of this Leaving will be shit, and disappointing, some of it will be good, and energising. It is a major geopolitical rupture, and a new reality dawns. Expect turbulence.

Britain has been around for 2000 years, the EU has been around for 70 years. We will surely endure and we will very likely prosper, in the end. As of now, a temporary trading arrangement with evermore onerous political duties has come to a close. So be it.

It's curious how those who hail this "major geopolitical rupture" and dawn of a "new reality" seem to want to stop discussion of what this means for us all. And on a politics website of all places.

Why would that be, I wonder.

It REALLY is because it is boring. We are in the midst of a much greater crisis than anything Brexit might do. And Brexit is also a done deal. It is happening. Who cares about the small print of a trade treaty compared to the Blaclk Death?

There will be a time when we can, at leisure, discuss paragraph 4b.3 of subsection 8 of the reciprocal UK-EU health insurance schemes, but this, I feel, ain't it.

And this is not because I fear scrutiny of Brexit. Brexit was always going to be painful. We will suffer pain. There it is.

alex_ said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1343679127996538881

The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.

ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.

Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.

Where are you going to get the vaccines from?

From the stock of AZ vaccine already produced and in storage. (I read 20 million somewhere)

alex_ said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1343679127996538881

The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.

ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.

Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.

Where are you going to get the vaccines from?

Astra Zeneca. I think we have to take the punt.

alex_ said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1343679127996538881

The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.

ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.

Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.

Where are you going to get the vaccines from?

Serious question as I have not noticed this discussed.

We know the German Vaccine from Pfizer is being manufactured in Belgium. Where is the Oxford/AZ vaccine being manufactured?

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1343682938697900034

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1343682941709398018

San Marino jumps back to the top of the deaths per 100k population with 1 additional death today

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Richard_Tyndall said:

alex_ said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1343679127996538881

The Telegraph is right. We need to vaccinate millions a week. The new variant will overwhelm us, otherwise. It is starkly obvious.

ALL the government's focus must now be on vaccination. Sod Brexit. sod everything, sod the lot: get as many jabs in as many arms as is nationally possible. This is like the Battle of Britain. Our survival as an economy depends on this happening. IF we lose the air war - the vaccine war - we lose the war. And we are vanquished.

Get in the army. Get every retired doc and nurse out there with a syringe. Or we will crumble.

Where are you going to get the vaccines from?

Serious question as I have not noticed this discussed.

We know the German Vaccine from Pfizer is being manufactured in Belgium. Where is the Oxford/AZ vaccine being manufactured?

Initially in Belgium but large-scale vaccine manufacturing capacity in Britain is nearly ready. Or so I saw in The Times.

We need to treat this the way we treated the making of Spitfires in 1940. Everything depends on this, now. Everything else is peripheral.

Leon said:

We need to treat this the way we treated the making of Spitfires in 1940. Everything depends on this, now. Everything else is peripheral.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1343680209065832450

TrèsDifficile said:

Carnyx said:

TrèsDifficile said:

YBarddCwsc said:

TrèsDifficile said:

What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?

Higher education is devolved.

So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.

For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.

Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?

It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).

And of course it's still discrimination if it's based on where one lives. It might not be discrimination on a protected characteristic but it's still, vey clearly, anti-English discrimination.

It's about as discriminatory as giving, say, grants to Scottish resident householders for attic insulation, and charging only Scottish residents the Scottish income tax.

It also [edit] hits e.g. Scottish students living in England (logically, as there is no UK legal definition of a Scot - no passport, after all).

And of course the same policy was applied, pari passu, by tyhe other three nations.

The discrinimation thing is a false issue - more important is the basic educational issue.

SandyRentool said:

Covid rates in York now higher than Leeds or Bradford. And they are still in Tier 2.

Because they are still in Tier 2 - hosting the Covid Hordes from Leeds and Bradford....

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

TrèsDifficile said:

YBarddCwsc said:

TrèsDifficile said:

What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?

Higher education is devolved.

So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.

For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.

Can they discriminate between English and Scottish (& rest of EU) students as they have done for years? Erasmus+ is a far smaller issue for both countries financially. It's also a less important educationally; haven't fewer Scots been able to go to uni since the mad punish the English students policy was introduced?

It's not discrimination as (a) it is based solely on residence not nationality (b) was operated by all the other three home nations, and (c) operates solely by default (ie it was 'introduced' only because the English/UK Gmt withdrew in the first place).

Though its odd that the Scottish Government chooses to not charge EU citizens their fees, but does charge English ones . . . when if a Scottish student goes to the EU then the arrangement is not reciprocal. Scottish students studying abroad can definitely face tuition fees.

So post-Brexit why should the Scottish Government continue to pay for the education of Europeans - given that Scots going to the continent face fees?

I could understand if the arrangement was based on reciprocity. Students from countries not charging Scottish students fees won't face fees - while those from countries that do charge fees have to pay up like the English.

It was that, if local students were allowed free tuition in Scotland, then students from all other EU nations must also be entitled to the same. The case of discrimination against English students was refused by the EU court, as being an internal U.K. matter.

Indeed but why continue with that post-Brexit?

Why should the Scottish government and universities be more generous to European students than European universities and governments are to their own students and Scottish students?

Post-Brexit the government is entitled to discriminate between EU nations so could say that free tuition would only continue on a reciprocal basis.

Correct, EU universities are now entitled to charge U.K. students the ‘international’ rate.

It will be interesting to see how Scotland reacts. The obvious way is for them to keep free tuition for Scottish students while charging everyone else, which will be a huge Brexit benefit for both Scottish universities and the Scottish Treasury.

I'll be interested too. Obviously the situation has changed well beyond the historic status quo, of which the Scottish policy is simply the last remnant.