McConnell’s impeachment move means Trump looks set to serve a full term and there’ll be no President

Second - taking my time like McConnell is.

And being honest given the time available it makes sense to delay things until after the 20th - then you have as long as necessary to do things and can slowly damage Trump's reputation further by releasing things bit by bit.

DavidL said:

This was always inevitable. Whether Biden really wants to address the implied threat that a trial would delay the appointment of his cabinet is the real question now.

I wouldn't think Biden will want to hurry it, but it's in the hands of McConnell, unless the House delays handfing over the impeachment.

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

But to ensure we receive our goods we aren't caring about the paperwork - heck at times we've been explicit that we will ignore it to ensure the imports keep arriving.

DavidL said:

MikeSmithson said:

DavidL said:

This was always inevitable. Whether Biden really wants to address the implied threat that a trial would delay the appointment of his cabinet is the real question now.

Biden's first priority surely will be COVID and taking effective measures to try curtail it in the US

I agree. And the threat is that if the Senate is tied into a trial for a month or more with all the Senators in the jury box there will be no appointments made which will allow Biden to get on with that. He can do a certain amount with acting officials but he will want the key people for Covid in particular confirmed as fast as possible.

I can honestly see a situation where he is going to ask Congress to dump the impeachment as a "healing" process of bringing America together again, especially if Trump looks ever more pathetic once the apparels of office are removed.

Can they just vote for him to be barred from office?

That would do to remove him as a threat to democracy.

eek said:

Second - taking my time like McConnell is.

And being honest given the time available it makes sense to delay things until after the 20th - then you have as long as necessary to do things and can slowly damage Trump's reputation further by releasing things bit by bit.

You will also know whether the Trumpster base have delivered on threats to disrupt the Inauguration at various state Capitols - which will add to the charge sheet and frankly, make it much easier for Republicans to throw him under the bus. Hence yesterday, you had Trump saying to anyone who still listens "don't".

Betfair Trump to leave before end of term (inauguration is six days away):
Yes 22
No 1.04

Free money Trump to leave in 2021 is 1.01 but beware the opportunity cost of tying your stake up. There is more than a million pounds to be staked and it will be interesting to see when the big hitters mop it up.

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

rottenborough said:

DavidL said:

MikeSmithson said:

DavidL said:

This was always inevitable. Whether Biden really wants to address the implied threat that a trial would delay the appointment of his cabinet is the real question now.

Biden's first priority surely will be COVID and taking effective measures to try curtail it in the US

I agree. And the threat is that if the Senate is tied into a trial for a month or more with all the Senators in the jury box there will be no appointments made which will allow Biden to get on with that. He can do a certain amount with acting officials but he will want the key people for Covid in particular confirmed as fast as possible.

I can honestly see a situation where he is going to ask Congress to dump the impeachment as a "healing" process of bringing America together again, especially if Trump looks ever more pathetic once the apparels of office are removed.

Can they just vote for him to be barred from office?

That would do to remove him as a threat to democracy.

I don't think that's an option - it's a 2 step process

1) proof he isn't fit for office - by finding him guilty
2) then bar him from standing again

Otherwise you are barring someone for no reason (yes there are reasons but you haven't backed them up).

I made a comment yesterday that there were likely to be big geographical differences in vaccination rates. Just heard another anecdote.

My parents (78 and 72) are in Berkshire near Reading and they haven't been contacted yet about their vaccines. They have a friend who is closer to Reading who is 71 and has their vaccination scheduled for today. Meanwhile my 84 year old father in law in Buckinghamshire has not heard anything.

If this situation goes further out of line then I can see this becoming an issue. Particularly if some locations get through the top 4 priority groups and then start on the rest whilst some parts of the country are still well behind.

Very mild out this morning, with plenty of birdsong.

Make the most of it, lads...

MarqueeMark said:

Very mild out this morning, with plenty of birdsong.

Make the most of it, lads...

Snowing here.

In cricket news, Sri Lanka all out for 135. Galle looks beautiful, as usual.

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

The longer the EU let this fester, the more obvious it becomes they are really not a trading organisation, but a political one, that will throw its traders to the wolves. One we were right to leave.

The EU's traders are fine - we've explicitly stated that we'll be skipping checks on imports. It's our traders who are fucked.

OldKingCole said:

In cricket news, Sri Lanka all out for 135. Galle looks beautiful, as usual.

Galle is an absolutely beautiful town. Come on Sri Lanka, you can do better than this!

DavidL said:

MikeSmithson said:

DavidL said:

This was always inevitable. Whether Biden really wants to address the implied threat that a trial would delay the appointment of his cabinet is the real question now.

Biden's first priority surely will be COVID and taking effective measures to try curtail it in the US

I agree. And the threat is that if the Senate is tied into a trial for a month or more with all the Senators in the jury box there will be no appointments made which will allow Biden to get on with that. He can do a certain amount with acting officials but he will want the key people for Covid in particular confirmed as fast as possible.

I can honestly see a situation where he is going to ask Congress to dump the impeachment as a "healing" process of bringing America together again, especially if Trump looks ever more pathetic once the apparels of office are removed.

Democrats control the scheduling, though.
McConnell’s ability to be his usual obstructionist self isn’t what it has been.

As for “healing”, this is the response they merit:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/why-are-republicans-being-so-divisive/617648/

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

It's not a "bit" of both. It's LOADS of both.

The question is, of course, whether they're SO stupid, incompetent and malign we'll never know, when we rejoin the Single Market, whether we really have rejoined or they're just lying about it.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

In cricket news, Sri Lanka all out for 135. Galle looks beautiful, as usual.

Galle is an absolutely beautiful town. Come on Sri Lanka, you can do better than this!

They certainly should. Some of the dismissals were shockingly bad, others were shockingly bad luck id est caught off Bairstow's ankle/boot and fingertip run out off Leach

Philip_Thompson said on a previous thread:

"Sorry but that is the same BS logic that the Republican diehard Senators backing Trump saying that because people believe that there was fraud it needs to be investigated further.
Plant a story for partisan reasons despite knowing it to be nonsense.
Spread the story far and wide for partisan reasons getting people who want to believe it to share it further..
Amplify the story you planted as much as possible.
Then claim that because people are talking about the story, it really is a story, so needs to be investigated further.
Fools may swallow this nonsense, doesn't make it a genuine story it just makes it a conspiracy theory rubbish that should be repelled by anyone sensible who can comprehend the facts."


@Philip_Thompson said the above yesterday in reply to one of my posts. Firstly let me make clear that I agree 100% with what Philip posted. In fact I strongly agree with it.

However as an analogy it was flawed because the media should be reporting this stuff about Trump's supporters and what they are up to and the arguments they are putting no matter how irrational and mendacious (Philip is confusing the media with the dishonest people asking for an investigation in his analogy). We have to do our best to expose it as such. I assume Philip was not calling for press censorship even though Trump's supporters were making up evidence, convincing people it was real and then calling for an investigation (classic conspiracy stuff).

The reason it is a poor analogy is that in fact the Trump story 100% should be reported whereas the Boris story really had very little merit and comes into the classic 'non-story' category of 'dog bites man' which the media whips up it to something greater. So it wasn't a good analogy of why Boris's story wasn't a story. However because the media has been full of 'what are the rules' stories and are going after anyone in power who transgresses then it should not come as a surprise that the media made it a story and boy did they drone on about it.

I am not going to defend the media for doing this, but it is what I expect them to do. Boris should also have expected that.

The 50:50 Senate is going to be a nightmare for Biden, with even a single absence enough to derail the day’s business.

He needs to decide what he wants to do with his first few weeks in office, and whether ‘dealing’ with Trump is more important than getting his Cabinet appointed and approved.

I think he might leave Trump to fester for a few months.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.

rottenborough said:

AlistairM said:

I made a comment yesterday that there were likely to be big geographical differences in vaccination rates. Just heard another anecdote.

My parents (78 and 72) are in Berkshire near Reading and they haven't been contacted yet about their vaccines. They have a friend who is closer to Reading who is 71 and has their vaccination scheduled for today. Meanwhile my 84 year old father in law in Buckinghamshire has not heard anything.

If this situation goes further out of line then I can see this becoming an issue. Particularly if some locations get through the top 4 priority groups and then start on the rest whilst some parts of the country are still well behind.

Especially if it turns out that the North is missing out or that certain deprived postcodes aren't getting supplies and so on.

Yet Berks and Bucks not getting it doesn't sustain that notion.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

The longer the EU let this fester, the more obvious it becomes they are really not a trading organisation, but a political one, that will throw its traders to the wolves. One we were right to leave.

On that basis, how should we treat our own government, which is throwing its traders to the wolves ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-55593308

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

Yeah. It looked like a hostage video. If you are batshit crazy and have an AR-15 for protection, might you not see the video and think you *really really* need to go to Washington to rescue the President?

I really hope not but it is a fair point

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Starry said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.

I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating

Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on

The US has a mountain of healing to do following the disaster that is Trump

Making sure he can't run again is the most important I agree.

Obviously the base of whackos may attached itself to Ivanka or some other family member but it wont have same traction I am hoping.

.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

The longer the EU let this fester, the more obvious it becomes they are really not a trading organisation, but a political one, that will throw its traders to the wolves. One we were right to leave.

The EU's traders are fine - we've explicitly stated that we'll be skipping checks on imports. It's our traders who are fucked.

Not entirely.
EU small businesses exporting to the UK are impacted in a similar way to UK small businesses exporting to the EU

EU firms refuse UK deliveries over Brexit tax changes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55530721
...The moves follow changes in VAT rules brought in by HM Revenue and Customs on 1 January.
VAT is now being collected at the point of sale rather than at the point of importation.
This essentially means that overseas retailers sending goods to the UK are expected to register for UK VAT and account for it to HMRC if the sale value is less than €150 (£135)...

turbotubbs said:

AlistairM said:

I made a comment yesterday that there were likely to be big geographical differences in vaccination rates. Just heard another anecdote.

My parents (78 and 72) are in Berkshire near Reading and they haven't been contacted yet about their vaccines. They have a friend who is closer to Reading who is 71 and has their vaccination scheduled for today. Meanwhile my 84 year old father in law in Buckinghamshire has not heard anything.

If this situation goes further out of line then I can see this becoming an issue. Particularly if some locations get through the top 4 priority groups and then start on the rest whilst some parts of the country are still well behind.

Its tricky, but unless the gov were prepared to generate a list of all the 50 million plus in exact age order and jab accordingly, there were always going to be issues like this. Anecdotally, some areas will have been more proactive, notably with the Pfizer jab, and will thus be 'ahead'. Other areas may not have deemed it possible to use the Pfizer jab owing to the issues entailed, and will only now be getting going. The country is incredibly diverse in population density, age distribution etc. Its also bloody complex. My mother in law reported that a nurse turned up to her next door neighbour with her jab (the neighbour is housebound), but what the nurse wasn't aware of was the neighbour is currently in hospital... (rehab after pneumonia).
I would advise patience. If we have nationally vaccinated half of the over 80's, then half of them won't have been done, and quite a few will have heard nothing yet. It will come.

I believe it was reported that supplies have been targeted away from some areas that were "ahead" to allow for catchup.

Yes, some people have been very "self-starting" on this. While others have taken the approach of "It's a bit tricky. What I need to do is complain until someone comes to do it for me".

I believe that GPs are getting £40+ a head for vaccinating the over 80s - up to the 17th Jan, I read.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Starry said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.

I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating

Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...

Which is exactly why he needs to be impeached.

MarqueeMark said:

Very mild out this morning, with plenty of birdsong.

Make the most of it, lads...

Snowing heavily here. Not helping everyone get to their vaccine appointment! I hope there aren't any falls, although the NHS staff delivering the vaccine didn't help by taking up all the car parking slots nearest to the door.

Oxford vaccine this week (were using Pfizer last week). Much quicker, no need for the 15 minute wait. I reckon they'll do twice as many without the seating bottleneck.

AlistairM said:

I made a comment yesterday that there were likely to be big geographical differences in vaccination rates. Just heard another anecdote.

My parents (78 and 72) are in Berkshire near Reading and they haven't been contacted yet about their vaccines. They have a friend who is closer to Reading who is 71 and has their vaccination scheduled for today. Meanwhile my 84 year old father in law in Buckinghamshire has not heard anything.

If this situation goes further out of line then I can see this becoming an issue. Particularly if some locations get through the top 4 priority groups and then start on the rest whilst some parts of the country are still well behind.

Well we could always vaccinate at the rate of the slowest area.

That will make things nice and fair but result in lockdown until Christmas and tens of thousands of extra deaths.

AlistairM said:

I made a comment yesterday that there were likely to be big geographical differences in vaccination rates. Just heard another anecdote.

My parents (78 and 72) are in Berkshire near Reading and they haven't been contacted yet about their vaccines. They have a friend who is closer to Reading who is 71 and has their vaccination scheduled for today. Meanwhile my 84 year old father in law in Buckinghamshire has not heard anything.

If this situation goes further out of line then I can see this becoming an issue. Particularly if some locations get through the top 4 priority groups and then start on the rest whilst some parts of the country are still well behind.

I have a Group 4 (Clinically extremely vulnerable) friend being vaccinated in South London today. I agree we should try nationally to do 1-4 completely before moving further down. Interesting approach in Scotland - prioritising Health Workers (which is within the "blended Group 1 & 2" guidance) ahead of over 80s.

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

NerysHughes said:

eek said:

NerysHughes said:

rottenborough said:

AlistairM said:

I made a comment yesterday that there were likely to be big geographical differences in vaccination rates. Just heard another anecdote.

My parents (78 and 72) are in Berkshire near Reading and they haven't been contacted yet about their vaccines. They have a friend who is closer to Reading who is 71 and has their vaccination scheduled for today. Meanwhile my 84 year old father in law in Buckinghamshire has not heard anything.

If this situation goes further out of line then I can see this becoming an issue. Particularly if some locations get through the top 4 priority groups and then start on the rest whilst some parts of the country are still well behind.

Especially if it turns out that the North is missing out or that certain deprived postcodes aren't getting supplies and so on.

A lot of it depends on how proactice surgeries are. In Southampton some surgeries have got through their 80+ people and are now moving on to their 75+ . Others have barely done any.

Currently I think it's logistics that are the issue as Pfizer has complex requirements.

From memory Southampton University Hospital is a hub so moving that vaccine around Southampton is so much easier than say South Cumbria where the nearest hub is Carlisle.

The difference between neighbouring surgeries in Southampton is remarkable.

As with so much with the NHS. You need pointy elbows and to shout loudly to get just about anything done.

I would bet those surgeries with the vaccine were pro-active; those without were/are still waiting to be contacted.

OldKingCole said:

rottenborough said:

AlistairM said:

I made a comment yesterday that there were likely to be big geographical differences in vaccination rates. Just heard another anecdote.

My parents (78 and 72) are in Berkshire near Reading and they haven't been contacted yet about their vaccines. They have a friend who is closer to Reading who is 71 and has their vaccination scheduled for today. Meanwhile my 84 year old father in law in Buckinghamshire has not heard anything.

If this situation goes further out of line then I can see this becoming an issue. Particularly if some locations get through the top 4 priority groups and then start on the rest whilst some parts of the country are still well behind.

Especially if it turns out that the North is missing out or that certain deprived postcodes aren't getting supplies and so on.

Purely anecdotally the North-West and London have done better than East Anglia, However, I’ve got now an appointment for Saturday, so it’s obviously being rolled out locally.
Told to turn up with a short sleeve shirt so I don’t have to waste time uncovering top of my arm.

Excellent OKC - am hoping my 81 year old wife has hers soon but this is Drakeford's Wales!!!!

another_richard said:

AlistairM said:

I made a comment yesterday that there were likely to be big geographical differences in vaccination rates. Just heard another anecdote.

My parents (78 and 72) are in Berkshire near Reading and they haven't been contacted yet about their vaccines. They have a friend who is closer to Reading who is 71 and has their vaccination scheduled for today. Meanwhile my 84 year old father in law in Buckinghamshire has not heard anything.

If this situation goes further out of line then I can see this becoming an issue. Particularly if some locations get through the top 4 priority groups and then start on the rest whilst some parts of the country are still well behind.

Well we could always vaccinate at the rate of the slowest area.

That will make things nice and fair but result in lockdown until Christmas and tens of thousands of extra deaths.

Ideally the system needs to join up more so that those that are ahead can help those that are behind. I don't think we will be capable of that unfortunately.

I am flagging that this could become a headline worthy event if some locations are vaccinating the under 70s whilst others are still working on the over 80s.

I am fairly patient about it and understand why there may be regional differences. I am not sure all the newspapers will handle it in such a measured way.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1349641979555147776?s=20

Yes, Fascism is a distinct political ideology. It believes the individual should subsume themselves within a military citizenship for the greater glory of the state under a strong dictator, which is in a life or death Darwinian "win-lose" struggle with other states.

I suspect that Trump has no personal interest in that as a philosophy. The biggest reason we're confused is because the word "fascist" has been de-based so often, and against anyone pursuing right-wing policies for no long, that we now forget what it really means.

He's clearly a demagogue. A nationalistic narcissistic demagogue, with hardly any morals or scruples whatsoever, and obsessed with winning or being seen to win (at any cost) - and even with quasi-fascist methods at time on social media - but not a Fascist.

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).

And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present

That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.

Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

Surrendering to threats of violence is hardly the way to turn the page on Trump.
Impeachment is not ‘vengeance’; it is a constitutional remedy to his behaviour, which cannot be ignored.

I am not arguing he should not be impeached and he must be removed from standing again

However, he has millions of armed and idiotic supporters and continuing a feud with him will only embolden them

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1349641979555147776?s=20

Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.

LOL
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1349536516964548610