On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.
The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.
When it finally gets over that we can talk.
If you want to get serious about protecting the country from the likes of China then you have to stop being childish about your relationship with countries that can help you with that.
Richard has outlined some practical steps that would improve our relationship with the EU, but you're still stuck in a futile blame game.
The EU isn't going to help us do that. You need to come to the realisation that the EU is nothing more than mercantilist organisation. It just signed an investment deal with China that allows Chinese state companies to invest in the EU so that EU countries get access to China's low cost worker base. Essentially it allows Siemens to get political dissident slave labour to make their dishwashers, import them to Germany screw on the casing and slap a made on Germany sticker on it.
That's the EU we're dealing with, not this idealised one you seem to think will stand up to human rights abuses in China or stand up to Russia for spurious prison sentences for political opposition leaders.
The value of a better EU deal falls everyday for the UK, in a decade our relationship with the EU is going to be completely different than what it is today and reflect the transactional nature of the EU. Westminster and Washington are learning now that the EU won't take any economic burden or hardship to further the cause of human rights reforms in China. They aren't our ally, that's the world we're living in.
Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔
Re the EMA, I'm not convinced. EMA may have been slowed by the removal of MHRA/employees and the MHRA approval of AZN and Pfizer was done under EU law (so staying in EMA would not have prevented it). We will have to spend more on individually approving medicines going forward, rather than just adopting EMA approvals and it's not implausible that some medicines will go to approval at EMA before they're submitted to MHRA* (bigger market). The EMA might have moved faster on AZN if there had actually been any to give out.
I'm not particularly bothered about EMA/MHRA split and MHRA is fine for us - this is an area where EU's loss is probably greater than ours - but I'd still be happy to have stayed in EMA and I don't think the EMA is the cause of the EU's vaccine problems - the cause of that is not investing and not ordering early enough.
* it's also plausible this goes the other way - if MHRA gets a reputation for being faster as well as thorough then companies could choose to go through the MHRA process first to identify any hurdles/needs for more data before submitting to EMA
Its an interesting list but the absolute key for future relationships with the EU is financial services. ... Personally, I think it was a serious error to sign a deal at all without mutual recognition of financial services being a part of it. I found the priorities of our negotiators bewildering and poorly focused. I do agree that there is no point indulging in unnecessary and childish aggravation such as the ambassador thing but I suspect some of the other proposals may take some time.
Given the trouble many in the fishing industry are having at the moment, despite the focus of British negotiators on that sector, perhaps the neglect of the financial services industry in the negotiations will prove to be a blessing in disguise.
However bad things are, they can always be worse.
Might end up being the Tory election slogan.
The problem with shellfish, as it has been explained to me, is that they can store dangerous toxins and become poisonous. This means that they need to be thoroughly washed out before they are consumed. Whilst we were in the EU SM there was no problem with this being done in Spain etc and we never bothered to set up washing facilities in this country on the scale needed for our export market in live shellfish (presumably we washed those consumed in the UK).
Once we became a third country unwashed shellfish cannot be admitted to the SM. The solution to this was to set up facilities in the UK in advance (the rules were pretty clear in advance) rather than assuming that we would get some sort of exemption but we didn't do that.
Until we do or the EU relents live shellfish will not be being exported to the EU.
Its a simple example of us failing to prepare for life outside the EU. The May government is primarily responsible for this but so are others who, unfortunately, seem more interested in making political points than fixing the problem.
The people who are responsible are the liars who said it was going to be the easiest trade deal in history. They knew it was a lie, and they knew there were enough gullible fools to swallow it. They also knew there would be a lot of people that would suffer, but they knew it wasn't going to be them.
Leaving the EU meant a change on the terms of trade. The extent to which that would be necessary was fixed by both sides determining what they were willing to continue with and what they weren't. The assumption of many Brexiteers that we could continue to have unrestricted access to the SM without agreeing to be bound by its rule book was naïve at best, and more probably disingenuous. I do not dispute that.
There are 2 different points arising from @Richard_Nabavi's piece. The first is can we still "narrow the differences" in a way by agreeing parts of their rule book in exchange for more unrestricted access? We see that there is still a difference of views on the merits of that with some pointing out that the potential upside of fixing our own rules may be considerable (the "nimble" argument).
This argument has got an enormous boost from EU incompetence in relation to vaccines but I do think we need to be careful not to overgeneralise from that disaster. REACH, for example, is pretty much the international standard for chemicals and will continue to be so whether we have our own rules or not. All we do by having different standards is complicate the lives of our producers.
The second point, which is the one I was making, is that once we accept life is different outside the SM we have to make the best of it and that means taking positive steps to address the consequences. It was a catastrophic failure of government to fail to do that in the period from 2016-2019. It is not a failure that we seem to be addressing with sufficient urgency (recognising, of course, that the government has rather a lot on its plate at the moment). Some, but not all, of that might involve working with some of Richard's ideas.
I think this thread shows that its much easier to come with vague general principles that can be agreed upon than actual policies to put those principles into practice.
Nabavi's supposedly uncontroversial policies here, scratch beneath the surface and they're actually pretty controversial.
Many others have already responded on why Erasmus was bad value for the UK and its successor scheme could be more suited to our needs. Mr Nabavi hasn't actually given a reason why rejoining Erasmus would be a good idea just taken it as granted.
Similarly with REACH. Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔
The arguments for having our own chemical regulations mirror those for having our own medical agency. Our ability to be nimble, to innovate, to lead the world in developments and not to be dragged to the slowest movement of Europe is not restricted to just vaccines. There's perfectly good reasons to be able to innovate with chemicals too and for other chemicals then an effectively copy and pasta method to get approval can work too as it will with medicines.
Mutual recognition, trusted trader, de-dramatised border, mutual recognition of SPS (similar to EU's with Aus and NZ perhaps not just Switzerland) etc are all ideas the EU not the UK have been rejecting.
So what practically are we left with? Perhaps GDPR? Maybe, though I know many hate that, I'm not sure how or if we'll diverge but its certainly not uncontroversial.
The only practical suggestion I see left is musicians and carnets. This is a good idea I think, this is the only one that I agree with unequivocally.
Then there's just the petty debate over the EU ambassador. This probably should and will be granted eventually, but right now its part of a silly petty tit-for-tat. Its puerile and petty but if we're going to have puerile and petty nonsense let it be over stuff that doesn't actually matter to anyone.
Our medicines agency was nimble before and after Brexit. The MHRA led Europe as the foremost Competent Authority in the bloc. Your post is, as usual, full of uninformed chauvinistic opinion and light on facts.
It was a leading Competent Authority, it was not the only one. The UK is able to move faster now than it could before across a whole swathe of areas.
But congratulations for missing the point entirely. The UK has gained tremendously in the past six weeks from having first mover advantage on the vaccine front.
For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
Perhaps it is because Richard and I know a little about business and the wider world, whereas you spend your whole life being a keyboard warrior and clearly know very little about the square root of fuck all. There are Brexit supporters on here that I have some respect for what they say as they seem reasonably informed. Your posts simply sound like the mad rantings of a lunatic that has been waterboarded for about 5 years by a henchman of Dominic Cummings.
On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.
The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.
When it finally gets over that we can talk.
If you want to get serious about protecting the country from the likes of China then you have to stop being childish about your relationship with countries that can help you with that.
Richard has outlined some practical steps that would improve our relationship with the EU, but you're still stuck in a futile blame game.
The EU isn't going to help us do that. You need to come to the realisation that the EU is nothing more than mercantilist organisation. It just signed an investment deal with China that allows Chinese state companies to invest in the EU so that EU countries get access to China's low cost worker base. Essentially it allows Siemens to get political dissident slave labour to make their dishwashers, import them to Germany screw on the casing and slap a made on Germany sticker on it.
That's the EU we're dealing with, not this idealised one you seem to think will stand up to human rights abuses in China or stand up to Russia for spurious prison sentences for political opposition leaders.
The value of a better EU deal falls everyday for the UK, in a decade our relationship with the EU is going to be completely different than what it is today and reflect the transactional nature of the EU. Westminster and Washington are learning now that the EU won't take any economic burden or hardship to further the cause of human rights reforms in China. They aren't our ally, that's the world we're living in.
Likewise Germany's dependence on Russia for gas means all sanctions will only be followed to the letter (if that) and not the spirit intended.
For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
The issue with creating our own equivalent of REACH (at a cost estimated at £1bn to the UK industry) is that it it is like writing your own bespoke accounting system at vast cost when you can get one off-the-shelf for peanuts. AFAIK there has never, ever, been any example given of how being outside REACH is an opportunity. Can you quote a single one? And even there is one, how much is it worth? A billion quid?
On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.
The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.
When it finally gets over that we can talk.
If you want to get serious about protecting the country from the likes of China then you have to stop being childish about your relationship with countries that can help you with that.
Richard has outlined some practical steps that would improve our relationship with the EU, but you're still stuck in a futile blame game.
Of course, the UK isn't (currently) the partner in the relationship that's sucking up to China, but that's by the by.
All that arguments over the EU's behaviour do is provide confirmation bias for both sides of the boring and exhausted leaver/remainer argument. Leavers point to the EU's desire to bind the UK in chains; remainers castigate the leavers for displaying a destructive lack of pragmatism.
The problem is, of course, that it is perfectly possible to argue that both are correct at the same time. Brexit has only brought into sharp relief those fundamental realities that existed before the EU referendum happened. Europe as a whole is in long-term decline, both in absolute terms and relative to Asia. How is this, from Britain's point of view, to be best addressed? By circling the wagons with the rest of the EU or by sailing off into the sunset? One route leaves the country stuck in a sclerotic and unresponsive bloc but one which at least enables all of the members to pool their remaining strength. The other offers the prospect of reinvention and dynamism but also of sinking and drowning.
Personally I think that, having gone to all the trouble of both leaving the EU and its economic area, there is no point in being the perma-dithering Vicky Pollard of Europe and trying to build a close relationship with the EU and other parts of the world at the same time, because the former necessarily precludes the latter. This is not to say that nothing can be done at all to help things along - the ambassador spat was unnecessary and could be easily fixed - but the scope for rapprochement is limited and will remain so.
A good comment.
Everyone is still in divorce mode at the moment, it will slowly calm down over time though, and the attitude to discussions will get more productive.
... Convincing article by Richard N. The problem is that all these measures will be seen as slightly recanting on Brexit (cf. Max's answer, I assume, though he doesn't elaborate on why he disagrees), which annoys both Brexiteers and the "oh, do shut up about Europe" neutral faction, who between them are probably 60% of the population). I'd think that nearer 2024 it will seem a lot more sensible.
How an opposition party should frame policy on this is an interesting conundrum. I take the point about 'slightly recanting on Brexit', but that is to fall into the government's spin that any cooperation with our EU friends is somehow a rejection of the referendum result, which is obvious nonsense (just look at the Vote Leave website, which promised us tariff-free, barrier-free trade with the EU). So Labour's position on this needs to be carefully presented as pragmatic but respecting the referendum result. After all, nothing in what I've suggested re-introduces freedom of movement, or the role of the ECJ in UK domestic law, or 'ever-closer union', or the 'EU Army' and 'EU foreign policy' and all that nonsense, so Brexit would still be Brexit.
Labour's position at the moment falls between two stools. Keir Starmer and other Labour figures complain about Boris' thin deal, but don't actually suggest how it could be improved starting from here. I think that's a big mistake, it's what I characterised in part 1 as Starmer's 'forensic whingeing', which impresses no-one.
There's no point in Labour trying to out-Brexit the Tories, so pragmatism ought to be an obvious approach. What's-the-point-of Starmer is taking his time to work that out.
As for 'respecting the referendum result', I would prefer never to encounter that injunction ever again. We have left, so it has been 'respected'. The force of that vote is now extinct.
That is true, Brexit is done, but both on here and in parts of the Conservative Party the battle for Brexit rages on, victory will only be complete when the EU falls. The masterbatory joy at seeing Von derLeyen tie herself in knots over vaccine procurement amplified this notion.
If Starmer is for real, he needs to take Brexit as a done deal, but look to make it work for UK plc as pronounced by Mr Navabi, and forget about the flag waving sideshows.
On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.
The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.
When it finally gets over that we can talk.
If you want to get serious about protecting the country from the likes of China then you have to stop being childish about your relationship with countries that can help you with that.
Richard has outlined some practical steps that would improve our relationship with the EU, but you're still stuck in a futile blame game.
The EU isn't going to help us do that. You need to come to the realisation that the EU is nothing more than mercantilist organisation. It just signed an investment deal with China that allows Chinese state companies to invest in the EU so that EU countries get access to China's low cost worker base. Essentially it allows Siemens to get political dissident slave labour to make their dishwashers, import them to Germany screw on the casing and slap a made on Germany sticker on it.
That's the EU we're dealing with, not this idealised one you seem to think will stand up to human rights abuses in China or stand up to Russia for spurious prison sentences for political opposition leaders.
The value of a better EU deal falls everyday for the UK, in a decade our relationship with the EU is going to be completely different than what it is today and reflect the transactional nature of the EU. Westminster and Washington are learning now that the EU won't take any economic burden or hardship to further the cause of human rights reforms in China. They aren't our ally, that's the world we're living in.
Likewise Germany's dependence on Russia for gas means all sanctions will only be followed to the letter (if that) and not the spirit intended.
Yes the whole "well Germany had Nazis so Russia gets a pipeline" line on Nord Stream 2 was as funny as it was disgusting.
I think this thread shows that its much easier to come with vague general principles that can be agreed upon than actual policies to put those principles into practice.
Nabavi's supposedly uncontroversial policies here, scratch beneath the surface and they're actually pretty controversial.
Many others have already responded on why Erasmus was bad value for the UK and its successor scheme could be more suited to our needs. Mr Nabavi hasn't actually given a reason why rejoining Erasmus would be a good idea just taken it as granted.
Similarly with REACH. Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔
The arguments for having our own chemical regulations mirror those for having our own medical agency. Our ability to be nimble, to innovate, to lead the world in developments and not to be dragged to the slowest movement of Europe is not restricted to just vaccines. There's perfectly good reasons to be able to innovate with chemicals too and for other chemicals then an effectively copy and pasta method to get approval can work too as it will with medicines.
Mutual recognition, trusted trader, de-dramatised border, mutual recognition of SPS (similar to EU's with Aus and NZ perhaps not just Switzerland) etc are all ideas the EU not the UK have been rejecting.
So what practically are we left with? Perhaps GDPR? Maybe, though I know many hate that, I'm not sure how or if we'll diverge but its certainly not uncontroversial.
The only practical suggestion I see left is musicians and carnets. This is a good idea I think, this is the only one that I agree with unequivocally.
Then there's just the petty debate over the EU ambassador. This probably should and will be granted eventually, but right now its part of a silly petty tit-for-tat. Its puerile and petty but if we're going to have puerile and petty nonsense let it be over stuff that doesn't actually matter to anyone.
Our medicines agency was nimble before and after Brexit. The MHRA led Europe as the foremost Competent Authority in the bloc. Your post is, as usual, full of uninformed chauvinistic opinion and light on facts.
It was a leading Competent Authority, it was not the only one. The UK is able to move faster now than it could before across a whole swathe of areas.
But congratulations for missing the point entirely. The UK has gained tremendously in the past six weeks from having first mover advantage on the vaccine front.
For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
Perhaps it is because Richard and I know a little about business and the wider world, whereas you spend your whole life being a keyboard warrior and clearly know very little about the square root of fuck all. There are Brexit supporters on here that I have some respect for what they say as they seem reasonably informed. Your posts simply sound like the mad rantings of a lunatic that has been waterboarded for about 5 years by a henchman of Dominic Cummings.
No, I know about business and the wide world too and I don't spend that much time on here as much as you act like I do. I've been here for 15 years and have a comparable post count to Carlotta and many others here. 🤷🏻♂️
The fact is you're just a troll who makes stupid remarks, gets called out on them, then can't answer back with logical arguments so you reach for ad hominem attacks instead. If you were actually able to answer the points made maybe you would instead of making silly and fake personal attacks instead.
I think this thread shows that its much easier to come with vague general principles that can be agreed upon than actual policies to put those principles into practice.
Nabavi's supposedly uncontroversial policies here, scratch beneath the surface and they're actually pretty controversial.
Many others have already responded on why Erasmus was bad value for the UK and its successor scheme could be more suited to our needs. Mr Nabavi hasn't actually given a reason why rejoining Erasmus would be a good idea just taken it as granted.
Similarly with REACH. Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔
The arguments for having our own chemical regulations mirror those for having our own medical agency. Our ability to be nimble, to innovate, to lead the world in developments and not to be dragged to the slowest movement of Europe is not restricted to just vaccines. There's perfectly good reasons to be able to innovate with chemicals too and for other chemicals then an effectively copy and pasta method to get approval can work too as it will with medicines.
Mutual recognition, trusted trader, de-dramatised border, mutual recognition of SPS (similar to EU's with Aus and NZ perhaps not just Switzerland) etc are all ideas the EU not the UK have been rejecting.
So what practically are we left with? Perhaps GDPR? Maybe, though I know many hate that, I'm not sure how or if we'll diverge but its certainly not uncontroversial.
The only practical suggestion I see left is musicians and carnets. This is a good idea I think, this is the only one that I agree with unequivocally.
Then there's just the petty debate over the EU ambassador. This probably should and will be granted eventually, but right now its part of a silly petty tit-for-tat. Its puerile and petty but if we're going to have puerile and petty nonsense let it be over stuff that doesn't actually matter to anyone.
Our medicines agency was nimble before and after Brexit. The MHRA led Europe as the foremost Competent Authority in the bloc. Your post is, as usual, full of uninformed chauvinistic opinion and light on facts.
It was a leading Competent Authority, it was not the only one. The UK is able to move faster now than it could before across a whole swathe of areas.
But congratulations for missing the point entirely. The UK has gained tremendously in the past six weeks from having first mover advantage on the vaccine front.
For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
I hope the Government pays you handsomely for writing this nonsense, all day and every day.
We should add to Richard's list, restoring mutual recognition for the pet passport. An easily solved annoyance and unnecessary expense for people travelling with pets in both directions.
IMHO, pet passports are a ridiculous First World self-indulgence.
Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
LOL obviously. 😂
He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
Yes he is comical Ali. And a thoroughly misleading piece. Collapses as soon as you check his links, never mind that there's key stuff missed out.
1 - Misleading headline. The operator did not say "all deliveries have been made". They said "all contractual requirements have been complied with." Different, consistent with the AZ account, 2 - Did not mention that "no problems" was Feb 8th, and "Production Problems" was mid-Jan. 3 - Or that he Belgian Govt inspection found that production difficulties did indeed exist.
... Convincing article by Richard N. The problem is that all these measures will be seen as slightly recanting on Brexit (cf. Max's answer, I assume, though he doesn't elaborate on why he disagrees), which annoys both Brexiteers and the "oh, do shut up about Europe" neutral faction, who between them are probably 60% of the population). I'd think that nearer 2024 it will seem a lot more sensible.
How an opposition party should frame policy on this is an interesting conundrum. I take the point about 'slightly recanting on Brexit', but that is to fall into the government's spin that any cooperation with our EU friends is somehow a rejection of the referendum result, which is obvious nonsense (just look at the Vote Leave website, which promised us tariff-free, barrier-free trade with the EU). So Labour's position on this needs to be carefully presented as pragmatic but respecting the referendum result. After all, nothing in what I've suggested re-introduces freedom of movement, or the role of the ECJ in UK domestic law, or 'ever-closer union', or the 'EU Army' and 'EU foreign policy' and all that nonsense, so Brexit would still be Brexit.
Labour's position at the moment falls between two stools. Keir Starmer and other Labour figures complain about Boris' thin deal, but don't actually suggest how it could be improved starting from here. I think that's a big mistake, it's what I characterised in part 1 as Starmer's 'forensic whingeing', which impresses no-one.
On Labour's position, I don't disagree; except that maybe you, and others, are being too impatient: Labour has no power whatsoever at the moment.
Full Brexit only happened a few weeks ago, and its impact is yet to unfurl properly. Starmer has to first of all detoxify any allegation that he is seeking to overturn, or even weaken, Brexit. What matters is that well before the next election Labour has a set of policies, perhaps in line with what you suggest, to tackle any downsides of Brexit and improve any upsides. Patience is a virtue - it's too early at the moment, and anyway nothing Labour says gets much of an airing in Covid times.
Meanwhile, those on here constantly referring to the 'hostility' of the EU are hilarious. We were never best mates, our press has always been pretty hostile, and more recently we have been telling them very firmly to F off and die. I'm not sure our behaviour has done anything to promote affection from the EU.
For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
The issue with creating our own equivalent of REACH (at a cost estimated at £1bn to the UK industry) is that it it is like writing your own bespoke accounting system at vast cost when you can get one off-the-shelf for peanuts. AFAIK there has never, ever, been any example given of how being outside REACH is an opportunity. Can you quote a single one? And even there is one, how much is it worth? A billion quid?
Cost isn't the only issue with UK REACH from what I read.
A lot of chemicals include ingredients or processes from other companies, who may be competitors for your final product. Everyone was in the same boat when EURO REACH was created, so there was an incentive to co-operate. Now UK companies need to get information from their European competitors who are already registered with their version of REACH.
Products may also be dosed with small quantities of specialist chemicals that deliver the extra 5% of performance: a more lustrous paint, a stronger adhesive bond and so on. It's hard to justify a REACH registration for chemicals that maybe only have a market of £100 000s in the UK. But without them, the products won't be the very best they can be.
For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
The issue with creating our own equivalent of REACH (at a cost estimated at £1bn to the UK industry) is that it it is like writing your own bespoke accounting system at vast cost when you can get one off-the-shelf for peanuts. AFAIK there has never, ever, been any example given of how being outside REACH is an opportunity. Can you quote a single one? And even there is one, how much is it worth? A billion quid?
And a few weeks ago mightn't you have said the exact same thing about leaving the EMA?
Probably a bit short for an election years away, but basically the correct odds if the election had been on 12 February 1975.
Fortune shone (maybe it was Divine Intervention) on Mrs Thatcher. Callaghan bottling the 1978 GE, and later Argentina surrending, just hours before we expected to throw in the towel, improved her fortunes infinitely.
They are just about the only country in the world that has come close to our performance in sequencing the virus.
On a per-capita basis they're actually ahead - and they're leading the EU in vaccine roll out (ex-Malta which didn't put all its eggs in the EU basket). Notably it was both the UK and Denmark seriously and quickly spooked by that mink farm outbreak - the rest don't have much of a clue.....
I think this thread shows that its much easier to come with vague general principles that can be agreed upon than actual policies to put those principles into practice.
Nabavi's supposedly uncontroversial policies here, scratch beneath the surface and they're actually pretty controversial.
Many others have already responded on why Erasmus was bad value for the UK and its successor scheme could be more suited to our needs. Mr Nabavi hasn't actually given a reason why rejoining Erasmus would be a good idea just taken it as granted.
Similarly with REACH. Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔
The arguments for having our own chemical regulations mirror those for having our own medical agency. Our ability to be nimble, to innovate, to lead the world in developments and not to be dragged to the slowest movement of Europe is not restricted to just vaccines. There's perfectly good reasons to be able to innovate with chemicals too and for other chemicals then an effectively copy and pasta method to get approval can work too as it will with medicines.
Mutual recognition, trusted trader, de-dramatised border, mutual recognition of SPS (similar to EU's with Aus and NZ perhaps not just Switzerland) etc are all ideas the EU not the UK have been rejecting.
So what practically are we left with? Perhaps GDPR? Maybe, though I know many hate that, I'm not sure how or if we'll diverge but its certainly not uncontroversial.
The only practical suggestion I see left is musicians and carnets. This is a good idea I think, this is the only one that I agree with unequivocally.
Then there's just the petty debate over the EU ambassador. This probably should and will be granted eventually, but right now its part of a silly petty tit-for-tat. Its puerile and petty but if we're going to have puerile and petty nonsense let it be over stuff that doesn't actually matter to anyone.
Our medicines agency was nimble before and after Brexit. The MHRA led Europe as the foremost Competent Authority in the bloc. Your post is, as usual, full of uninformed chauvinistic opinion and light on facts.
It was a leading Competent Authority, it was not the only one. The UK is able to move faster now than it could before across a whole swathe of areas.
But congratulations for missing the point entirely. The UK has gained tremendously in the past six weeks from having first mover advantage on the vaccine front.
For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
Perhaps it is because Richard and I know a little about business and the wider world, whereas you spend your whole life being a keyboard warrior and clearly know very little about the square root of fuck all. There are Brexit supporters on here that I have some respect for what they say as they seem reasonably informed. Your posts simply sound like the mad rantings of a lunatic that has been waterboarded for about 5 years by a henchman of Dominic Cummings.
No, I know about business and the wide world too and I don't spend that much time on here as much as you act like I do. I've been here for 15 years and have a comparable post count to Carlotta and many others here. 🤷🏻♂️
The fact is you're just a troll who makes stupid remarks, gets called out on them, then can't answer back with logical arguments so you reach for ad hominem attacks instead. If you were actually able to answer the points made maybe you would instead of making silly and fake personal attacks instead.
I feel sorry for you.
Mate I think you add greatly to the site - good, bad, and ugly.
But you are on here for 10-15 hours a day. It's why imo some people don't engage with you - they know that you are going to be here literally all day repeating your points hence people don't want to get into that as they will inevitably have to leave the discussion before you.
Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
LOL obviously. 😂
He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
Yes he is comical Ali. And a thoroughly misleading piece. Collapses as soon as you check his links, never mind that there's key stuff missed out.
1 - Misleading headline. The operator did not say "all deliveries have been made". They said "all contractual requirements have been complied with." Different, consistent with the AZ account, 2 - Did not mention that "no problems" was Feb 8th, and "Production Problems" was mid-Jan. 3 - Or that he Belgian Govt inspection found that production difficulties did indeed exist.
He's trolling.
Why are you wasting your time fact checking an idiot, then ? And why do people keep posting his tweets ?
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
I suspect the £90,000 or so without kickback incentives makes selling a UK university hard work.
Quite; I have a niece who works for a British Uni with a Malaysian 'branch'. Suspect that when she can she'll be out there rather more now. Although does the £90k apply to British passport-holders as well as 'others'?
Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
LOL obviously. 😂
He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
Yes he is comical Ali. And a thoroughly misleading piece. Collapses as soon as you check his links, never mind that there's key stuff missed out.
1 - Misleading headline. The operator did not say "all deliveries have been made". They said "all contractual requirements have been complied with." Different, consistent with the AZ account, 2 - Did not mention that "no problems" was Feb 8th, and "Production Problems" was mid-Jan. 3 - Or that he Belgian Govt inspection found that production difficulties did indeed exist.
He's trolling.
Why are you wasting your time fact checking an idiot, then ? And why do people keep posting his tweets ?
There's plenty of fake crap out there - good to see it challenged. You seem embarassed by having such a biased journos views challenged. Wonder why.
once we accept life is different outside the SM we have to make the best of it and that means taking positive steps to address the consequences.
While this is undoubtedly true, it's a step BoZo and chums can't make.
The entire Brexit edifice was built on the lie that there were no "consequences"
He can't admit to that lie lest the rest comes crashing down on his head...
I am sure that the Tories can find ways to nuance that point and the sort of pragmatism that made the likes of Richard (and even yourself) life long Tories will reassert itself over time. It will take time, however. This was a pretty brutal break up and both sides will take time to calm down and come to terms.
I don't want to be personal but it does seem to me that you and many others who were on the other side of the argument see all of this as a one way street with the UK doing all of the making up, conceding, being nice and are reluctant to accept that the EU chose to make this more difficult than it had to have been for strategic reasons of their own as well as a certain amour-propre.
Hopefully, in time, both sides will get over that.
Its an interesting list but the absolute key for future relationships with the EU is financial services. ... Personally, I think it was a serious error to sign a deal at all without mutual recognition of financial services being a part of it. I found the priorities of our negotiators bewildering and poorly focused. I do agree that there is no point indulging in unnecessary and childish aggravation such as the ambassador thing but I suspect some of the other proposals may take some time.
Given the trouble many in the fishing industry are having at the moment, despite the focus of British negotiators on that sector, perhaps the neglect of the financial services industry in the negotiations will prove to be a blessing in disguise.
However bad things are, they can always be worse.
Might end up being the Tory election slogan.
The problem with shellfish, as it has been explained to me, is that they can store dangerous toxins and become poisonous. This means that they need to be thoroughly washed out before they are consumed. Whilst we were in the EU SM there was no problem with this being done in Spain etc and we never bothered to set up washing facilities in this country on the scale needed for our export market in live shellfish (presumably we washed those consumed in the UK).
Once we became a third country unwashed shellfish cannot be admitted to the SM. The solution to this was to set up facilities in the UK in advance (the rules were pretty clear in advance) rather than assuming that we would get some sort of exemption but we didn't do that.
Until we do or the EU relents live shellfish will not be being exported to the EU.
Its a simple example of us failing to prepare for life outside the EU. The May government is primarily responsible for this but so are others who, unfortunately, seem more interested in making political points than fixing the problem.
The people who are responsible are the liars who said it was going to be the easiest trade deal in history. They knew it was a lie, and they knew there were enough gullible fools to swallow it. They also knew there would be a lot of people that would suffer, but they knew it wasn't going to be them.
Leaving the EU meant a change on the terms of trade. The extent to which that would be necessary was fixed by both sides determining what they were willing to continue with and what they weren't. The assumption of many Brexiteers that we could continue to have unrestricted access to the SM without agreeing to be bound by its rule book was naïve at best, and more probably disingenuous. I do not dispute that.
There are 2 different points arising from @Richard_Nabavi's piece. The first is can we still "narrow the differences" in a way by agreeing parts of their rule book in exchange for more unrestricted access? We see that there is still a difference of views on the merits of that with some pointing out that the potential upside of fixing our own rules may be considerable (the "nimble" argument).
This argument has got an enormous boost from EU incompetence in relation to vaccines but I do think we need to be careful not to overgeneralise from that disaster. REACH, for example, is pretty much the international standard for chemicals and will continue to be so whether we have our own rules or not. All we do by having different standards is complicate the lives of our producers.
The second point, which is the one I was making, is that once we accept life is different outside the SM we have to make the best of it and that means taking positive steps to address the consequences. It was a catastrophic failure of government to fail to do that in the period from 2016-2019. It is not a failure that we seem to be addressing with sufficient urgency (recognising, of course, that the government has rather a lot on its plate at the moment). Some, but not all, of that might involve working with some of Richard's ideas.
First of all, thanks to @Richard_Nabavi for two excellent posts, in which he puts the case very clearly. I'd agree with his point that, in certain areas, it makes sense to compromise. My main problem with his thesis, though, is that it is based on the assumption that the EU will play ball and will soften its stance once we show sufficient humility. Unfortunately, the EU's actions suggest anything but. What would be likely to happen if we took some of the steps above is that the EU would say "thank you very much" and then ask for more / refuse to negotiate in the areas we'd like (e.g. financial services) because (a) it still hasn't properly got over the vote (b) it would see it as weakness and therefore push for more and (c) related to (a), there is a lack of goodwill. If I was confident that the EU would be prepared to give and take, then I would be much happier following down Richard's suggested route.
As usual, @DavidL makes a very important point, namely that what history suggests is that once we get past the initial disruption, businesses will adapt to the new ways just in the ways they have had to adopt to Covid in many cases. It seems as though we are now making up for last time from before.
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
I suspect the £90,000 or so without kickback incentives makes selling a UK university hard work.
Quite; I have a niece who works for a British Uni with a Malaysian 'branch'. Suspect that when she can she'll be out there rather more now. Although does the £90k apply to British passport-holders as well as 'others'?
... Convincing article by Richard N. The problem is that all these measures will be seen as slightly recanting on Brexit (cf. Max's answer, I assume, though he doesn't elaborate on why he disagrees), which annoys both Brexiteers and the "oh, do shut up about Europe" neutral faction, who between them are probably 60% of the population). I'd think that nearer 2024 it will seem a lot more sensible.
How an opposition party should frame policy on this is an interesting conundrum. I take the point about 'slightly recanting on Brexit', but that is to fall into the government's spin that any cooperation with our EU friends is somehow a rejection of the referendum result, which is obvious nonsense (just look at the Vote Leave website, which promised us tariff-free, barrier-free trade with the EU). So Labour's position on this needs to be carefully presented as pragmatic but respecting the referendum result. After all, nothing in what I've suggested re-introduces freedom of movement, or the role of the ECJ in UK domestic law, or 'ever-closer union', or the 'EU Army' and 'EU foreign policy' and all that nonsense, so Brexit would still be Brexit.
Labour's position at the moment falls between two stools. Keir Starmer and other Labour figures complain about Boris' thin deal, but don't actually suggest how it could be improved starting from here. I think that's a big mistake, it's what I characterised in part 1 as Starmer's 'forensic whingeing', which impresses no-one.
On Labour's position, I don't disagree; except that maybe you, and others, are being too impatient: Labour has no power whatsoever at the moment.
Full Brexit only happened a few weeks ago, and its impact is yet to unfurl properly. Starmer has to first of all detoxify any allegation that he is seeking to overturn, or even weaken, Brexit. What matters is that well before the next election Labour has a set of policies, perhaps in line with what you suggest, to tackle any downsides of Brexit and improve any upsides. Patience is a virtue - it's too early at the moment, and anyway nothing Labour says gets much of an airing in Covid times.
Meanwhile, those on here constantly referring to the 'hostility' of the EU are hilarious. We were never best mates, our press has always been pretty hostile, and more recently we have been telling them very firmly to F off and die. I'm not sure our behaviour has done anything to promote affection from the EU.
We do need to check the Labour pulse from time to time, for fear that when we do need the Labour Party it has not infact expired like the LDs.
Exploring a positive and grown up relationship with the EU from now on, and looking at how we navigate the UK through the reality of post- Brexit world recession would at least hint that the party was still breathing. I am not expecting a fully costed manifesto yet.
A good article, and a Noble effort to try and place some common sense around our relationship with the EU.
However - our relationship with the EU is not going to improve anytime soon. The EU as I can see is already starting to diverge form the UK and USA re. its approach to China. It continues to want to integrate further. The divides between us and it will only grow in that respect.
Supposedly with REACH there is "absolutely no reason" for the UK to have its own scheme - yet if you'd written this a month ago I'd put money on the fact this would have said REACH and the EMA. For Remainers arguments about regulation there's supposedly been no reason for us to divert from either REACH or the EMA and that argument goes hand-in-hand . . . but now suddenly in the last few weeks the EMA has been dropped as an institution we should rejoin. I wonder why? Has something changed in the past month that has made the penny drop as to why us having our own ability to set our own regulations may actually be a good idea? 🤔
Re the EMA, I'm not convinced. EMA may have been slowed by the removal of MHRA/employees and the MHRA approval of AZN and Pfizer was done under EU law (so staying in EMA would not have prevented it). We will have to spend more on individually approving medicines going forward, rather than just adopting EMA approvals and it's not implausible that some medicines will go to approval at EMA before they're submitted to MHRA* (bigger market). The EMA might have moved faster on AZN if there had actually been any to give out.
I'm not particularly bothered about EMA/MHRA split and MHRA is fine for us - this is an area where EU's loss is probably greater than ours - but I'd still be happy to have stayed in EMA and I don't think the EMA is the cause of the EU's vaccine problems - the cause of that is not investing and not ordering early enough.
* it's also plausible this goes the other way - if MHRA gets a reputation for being faster as well as thorough then companies could choose to go through the MHRA process first to identify any hurdles/needs for more data before submitting to EMA
I went to a lecture when the split was first mooted where the British medicines expert (I know, I know) urged us all to lobby our MP's to prevent the split. He was convinced it would be bad for both sides, but probably worse for the EMA because of the need to replace British expertise.
For many years into the future, free from REACH, the UK has the opportunity to have first mover advantage when it comes to chemicals too. Chemical companies have the opportunity to base themselves in the UK and get leading development in the UK before the EU bureaucracy can get around to acting. That you and Nabavi can only see the 'cost' of being outside REACH and not the opportunity - even after the last six weeks - is rather tragic and shows how petty and smallminded you are at refusing to even acknowledge the potential upside.
The issue with creating our own equivalent of REACH (at a cost estimated at £1bn to the UK industry) is that it it is like writing your own bespoke accounting system at vast cost when you can get one off-the-shelf for peanuts. AFAIK there has never, ever, been any example given of how being outside REACH is an opportunity. Can you quote a single one? And even there is one, how much is it worth? A billion quid?
And a few weeks ago mightn't you have said the exact same thing about leaving the EMA?
While MAKE UK have said in the past that some manufacturers would like the UK to be outside of REACH too.
A UK REACH doesn't need to be a like-for-like comprehensive alternative to it, in fact not being so could be part of the advantage.
No, I've never said we should stay in the EMA. I don't even know if that's legally possible, but either way I'm perfectly happy with having our own MHRA running this. I did suggest a couple of years ago that the EU were silly to move the EMA out of London. That was them being ideological rather than pragmatic; they could have moved the brass plate to Amsterdam and subcontracted all of the actual work to the existing operation in Canary Wharf. It's probably held them back on the vaccinations approvals, although of course they weren't to know that the pandemic was going to hit whilst they were still unpacking the removals crates.
I don't want to be personal but it does seem to me that you and many others who were on the other side of the argument see all of this as a one way street with the UK doing all of the making up, conceding, being nice and are reluctant to accept that the EU chose to make this more difficult than it had to have been for strategic reasons of their own as well as a certain amour-propre.
Ummmm...
We were the ones who wanted Brexit. We wanted to be a Third party. This is what that looks like.
We made our bed. It is up to us if we ever want to get out of it.
That doesn't mean "conceding" to the EU, it does mean conceding to reality.
... Convincing article by Richard N. The problem is that all these measures will be seen as slightly recanting on Brexit (cf. Max's answer, I assume, though he doesn't elaborate on why he disagrees), which annoys both Brexiteers and the "oh, do shut up about Europe" neutral faction, who between them are probably 60% of the population). I'd think that nearer 2024 it will seem a lot more sensible.
How an opposition party should frame policy on this is an interesting conundrum. I take the point about 'slightly recanting on Brexit', but that is to fall into the government's spin that any cooperation with our EU friends is somehow a rejection of the referendum result, which is obvious nonsense (just look at the Vote Leave website, which promised us tariff-free, barrier-free trade with the EU). So Labour's position on this needs to be carefully presented as pragmatic but respecting the referendum result. After all, nothing in what I've suggested re-introduces freedom of movement, or the role of the ECJ in UK domestic law, or 'ever-closer union', or the 'EU Army' and 'EU foreign policy' and all that nonsense, so Brexit would still be Brexit.
Labour's position at the moment falls between two stools. Keir Starmer and other Labour figures complain about Boris' thin deal, but don't actually suggest how it could be improved starting from here. I think that's a big mistake, it's what I characterised in part 1 as Starmer's 'forensic whingeing', which impresses no-one.
On Labour's position, I don't disagree; except that maybe you, and others, are being too impatient: Labour has no power whatsoever at the moment.
Full Brexit only happened a few weeks ago, and its impact is yet to unfurl properly. Starmer has to first of all detoxify any allegation that he is seeking to overturn, or even weaken, Brexit. What matters is that well before the next election Labour has a set of policies, perhaps in line with what you suggest, to tackle any downsides of Brexit and improve any upsides. Patience is a virtue - it's too early at the moment, and anyway nothing Labour says gets much of an airing in Covid times.
Meanwhile, those on here constantly referring to the 'hostility' of the EU are hilarious. We were never best mates, our press has always been pretty hostile, and more recently we have been telling them very firmly to F off and die. I'm not sure our behaviour has done anything to promote affection from the EU.
Can you link to the article which told the Europeans to "F off and die"? I seem to have missed that gem. Meanwhile you ignore the very hostile comments in public from Macron, Weber and the Belgian PM on the vaccine issue. Not to mention of course the decision to invoke article 16 of the NI Protocol without consulting Eire, NI or the UK Government. All because of spat with a drug company and their own mess-up ordering vaccines late in the day while pennypinching on the price. Now that was 'hilarious'.
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
They have a scheme in Canada where if you pay to study there for 3(?) years then you can stay on and live there permanently. My wife's cousin's daughter is doing this right now - easier for her with having family there.
Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
LOL obviously. 😂
He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
Yes he is comical Ali. And a thoroughly misleading piece. Collapses as soon as you check his links, never mind that there's key stuff missed out.
1 - Misleading headline. The operator did not say "all deliveries have been made". They said "all contractual requirements have been complied with." Different, consistent with the AZ account, 2 - Did not mention that "no problems" was Feb 8th, and "Production Problems" was mid-Jan. 3 - Or that he Belgian Govt inspection found that production difficulties did indeed exist.
He's trolling.
Why are you wasting your time fact checking an idiot, then ? And why do people keep posting his tweets ?
There's plenty of fake crap out there - good to see it challenged. You seem embarassed by having such a biased journos views challenged. Wonder why.
As usual, @DavidL makes a very important point, namely that what history suggests is that once we get past the initial disruption, businesses will adapt to the new ways just in the ways they have had to adopt to Covid in many cases. It seems as though we are now making up for last time from before.
Businesses are adapting by shifting operations to the EU.
On hotel quarantine just chatting online with a friend who is a PR in Singapore - on his return he's been quarantined in The Stamford - lucky so & so....luck of the draw apparently - others are "in shit holes in Little India"......
I had wondered if Guernsey (which has had mandatory quarantine since March last year) would do a deal with the UK to allow transit to Guernsey to do quarantine here. Not a bit of it. 10 days in the UK followed by 14 days in Guernsey......they really don't want you to travel.....
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
I suspect the £90,000 or so without kickback incentives makes selling a UK university hard work.
Quite; I have a niece who works for a British Uni with a Malaysian 'branch'. Suspect that when she can she'll be out there rather more now. Although does the £90k apply to British passport-holders as well as 'others'?
Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
LOL obviously. 😂
He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
Yes he is comical Ali. And a thoroughly misleading piece. Collapses as soon as you check his links, never mind that there's key stuff missed out.
1 - Misleading headline. The operator did not say "all deliveries have been made". They said "all contractual requirements have been complied with." Different, consistent with the AZ account, 2 - Did not mention that "no problems" was Feb 8th, and "Production Problems" was mid-Jan. 3 - Or that he Belgian Govt inspection found that production difficulties did indeed exist.
He's trolling.
Why are you wasting your time fact checking an idiot, then ? And why do people keep posting his tweets ?
There's plenty of fake crap out there - good to see it challenged. You seem embarassed by having such a biased journos views challenged. Wonder why.
A good article, and a Noble effort to try and place some common sense around our relationship with the EU.
However - our relationship with the EU is not going to improve anytime soon. The EU as I can see is already starting to diverge form the UK and USA re. its approach to China. It continues to want to integrate further. The divides between us and it will only grow in that respect.
To say nothing of the great Russian-German love-in...
Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
LOL obviously. 😂
He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
Yes he is comical Ali. And a thoroughly misleading piece. Collapses as soon as you check his links, never mind that there's key stuff missed out.
1 - Misleading headline. The operator did not say "all deliveries have been made". They said "all contractual requirements have been complied with." Different, consistent with the AZ account, 2 - Did not mention that "no problems" was Feb 8th, and "Production Problems" was mid-Jan. 3 - Or that he Belgian Govt inspection found that production difficulties did indeed exist.
He's trolling.
Why are you wasting your time fact checking an idiot, then ? And why do people keep posting his tweets ?
There's plenty of fake crap out there - good to see it challenged. You seem embarassed by having such a biased journos views challenged. Wonder why.
Rapid coronavirus tests: a guide for the perplexed Scientists still debate whether millions of cheap, fast diagnostic kits will help control the pandemic. Here’s why. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00332-4
On hotel quarantine just chatting online with a friend who is a PR in Singapore - on his return he's been quarantined in The Stamford - lucky so & so....luck of the draw apparently - others are "in shit holes in Little India"......
I had wondered if Guernsey (which has had mandatory quarantine since March last year) would do a deal with the UK to allow transit to Guernsey to do quarantine here. Not a bit of it. 10 days in the UK followed by 14 days in Guernsey......they really don't want you to travel.....
I’ve stayed at The Stamford in Singapore, and very nice it is too. One of the top dozen or so hotels in the city, proper 5* quarantine!
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
I suspect the £90,000 or so without kickback incentives makes selling a UK university hard work.
Quite; I have a niece who works for a British Uni with a Malaysian 'branch'. Suspect that when she can she'll be out there rather more now. Although does the £90k apply to British passport-holders as well as 'others'?
Thanks. With two other daughters to educate, can see why my son isn't interested in a UK Uni. And before you ask, not without equity release. And I've six other grandchildren who might be interested in a legacy.
Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
LOL obviously. 😂
He really is Comical Ali isn't he?
Yes he is comical Ali. And a thoroughly misleading piece. Collapses as soon as you check his links, never mind that there's key stuff missed out.
1 - Misleading headline. The operator did not say "all deliveries have been made". They said "all contractual requirements have been complied with." Different, consistent with the AZ account, 2 - Did not mention that "no problems" was Feb 8th, and "Production Problems" was mid-Jan. 3 - Or that he Belgian Govt inspection found that production difficulties did indeed exist.
He's trolling.
Why are you wasting your time fact checking an idiot, then ? And why do people keep posting his tweets ?
There's plenty of fake crap out there - good to see it challenged. You seem embarassed by having such a biased journos views challenged. Wonder why.
As usual, @DavidL makes a very important point, namely that what history suggests is that once we get past the initial disruption, businesses will adapt to the new ways just in the ways they have had to adopt to Covid in many cases. It seems as though we are now making up for last time from before.
Businesses are adapting by shifting operations to the EU.
Or closing.
With this sort of event, there is always some level of disruption and / or adjustment.
The mistake would be to assume it is a permanent state of affairs.
On topic, some good ideas here but trust works both ways - the EU has treated the UK with zero respect over vaccines, won't grant us what it grants Switzerland and the USA without chains and won't grant us the vet equivalence it grants Australia and New Zealand. It also persists in using NI as a lever, whereas both the RoI and the UK want practical solutions for it - and it's otherwise really none of the EU's business.
The EU is still a semi-hostile rival, and an aggrieved ex-spouse, rather than a friendly partner. If it really was the latter we'd already be much further on.
When it finally gets over that we can talk.
If you want to get serious about protecting the country from the likes of China then you have to stop being childish about your relationship with countries that can help you with that.
Richard has outlined some practical steps that would improve our relationship with the EU, but you're still stuck in a futile blame game.
Of course, the UK isn't (currently) the partner in the relationship that's sucking up to China, but that's by the by.
All that arguments over the EU's behaviour do is provide confirmation bias for both sides of the boring and exhausted leaver/remainer argument. Leavers point to the EU's desire to bind the UK in chains; remainers castigate the leavers for displaying a destructive lack of pragmatism.
The problem is, of course, that it is perfectly possible to argue that both are correct at the same time. Brexit has only brought into sharp relief those fundamental realities that existed before the EU referendum happened. Europe as a whole is in long-term decline, both in absolute terms and relative to Asia. How is this, from Britain's point of view, to be best addressed? By circling the wagons with the rest of the EU or by sailing off into the sunset? One route leaves the country stuck in a sclerotic and unresponsive bloc but one which at least enables all of the members to pool their remaining strength. The other offers the prospect of reinvention and dynamism but also of sinking and drowning.
Personally I think that, having gone to all the trouble of both leaving the EU and its economic area, there is no point in being the perma-dithering Vicky Pollard of Europe and trying to build a close relationship with the EU and other parts of the world at the same time, because the former necessarily precludes the latter. This is not to say that nothing can be done at all to help things along - the ambassador spat was unnecessary and could be easily fixed - but the scope for rapprochement is limited and will remain so.
Good argument. I think there are a lot of assumptions, which have underlied Brexit back to 2016, but which are very doubtful and where the evidence mostly points the other way. That Brexit is a globalist project. That the UK apart from a "sclerotic" Europe won't just be a backwater to a backwater. That only by doing less business with Europe will you do more elsewhere.
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
They have a scheme in Canada where if you pay to study there for 3(?) years then you can stay on and live there permanently. My wife's cousin's daughter is doing this right now - easier for her with having family there.
That was one of the things that impressed my son. We've relations in British Columbia so that might offer some support.
On hotel quarantine just chatting online with a friend who is a PR in Singapore - on his return he's been quarantined in The Stamford - lucky so & so....luck of the draw apparently - others are "in shit holes in Little India"......
I had wondered if Guernsey (which has had mandatory quarantine since March last year) would do a deal with the UK to allow transit to Guernsey to do quarantine here. Not a bit of it. 10 days in the UK followed by 14 days in Guernsey......they really don't want you to travel.....
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
I suspect the £90,000 or so without kickback incentives makes selling a UK university hard work.
Quite; I have a niece who works for a British Uni with a Malaysian 'branch'. Suspect that when she can she'll be out there rather more now. Although does the £90k apply to British passport-holders as well as 'others'?
Thanks. With two other daughters to educate, can see why my son isn't interested in a UK Uni. And before you ask, not without equity release. And I've six other grandchildren who might be interested in a legacy.
Is there anything to stop your granddaughter from "moving back to the uk" prior to applying. Maybe you have a spare room . Then should be normal fees
Though as pointed out in the replies, it is perfectly possible the Belgian contractor also had "best reasonable efforts" clauses in its contract.....(which no one has seen), and the other EU vaccine contracts published also had "best reasonable efforts".....
I am looking forward to the 2nd test vs India in a couple of days, so I can listen to some less biased commentary on events....
This from @Richard_Nabavi is a bunch of good old-fashioned commonsense from a good old-fashioned Conservative who worries about how the economy will get on post Brexit. It's a brave header, imo, because it is much easier for a Tory these days, 80 seat majority in the tank, to wallow in throwback fantasies of a great great nation, unfettered from its chains and back in touch with its inner buccaneer, once more ruling the waves, the continent of Europe a minor irritant at best.
But, yes, back in the real world, having exited the EU with the chaotic, last minute "thin deal" whose sole purpose was to give good headline in the tabloids, there is now a need to plug the gaping holes. All the difficult stuff was skipped. God knows what "Frosty" & Co were doing all that time. Just trying to look the part, I suppose. Complete doss. Anyway, the hard work starts now and it hardly needs saying that a Boris Johnson government will not be doing it.
Labour must however be careful. The Cons have smashed one Union Jack election and they'll be well up for another. Labour's pragmatic plans for some convergence with the Single Market could be painted by a populist charlatan with a gift for Rule Britannia tub-thumping as a betrayal of our 'back to the future yet newly minted' Global Britain destiny. "We are free. Don't let Labour take us back." I'd be concerned about this sort of messaging. Ok, so you'd hope the public would not fall for it again, but I think they might.
I don't want to be personal but it does seem to me that you and many others who were on the other side of the argument see all of this as a one way street with the UK doing all of the making up, conceding, being nice and are reluctant to accept that the EU chose to make this more difficult than it had to have been for strategic reasons of their own as well as a certain amour-propre.
Ummmm...
We were the ones who wanted Brexit. We wanted to be a Third party. This is what that looks like.
We made our bed. It is up to us if we ever want to get out of it.
That doesn't mean "conceding" to the EU, it does mean conceding to reality.
With respect Scott maybe you conceding to the reality that Brexit has happened, we are not going back, and change is the order of the day for a long time to come, some good some bad
You are basically dreadfully 'homesick' for the EU, but like most people who suffer from being homesick you will find it passes, though in your case I expect it will be a very long time away
Some of Richard's thread I agree with - there is no point in being gratuitously bellicose. We should recognise the EU's ambassador (in return for getting something else), though I see absolutely no reason to rejoin Erasmus (and Richard doesn't give one).
I also have (some) sympathy with the SPS thing, especially as it gives us a 'note from our Mum' to say we can't have the chlorinated chicken when negotiating with the US. Which is useful. But I come down on the side of disagreeing. I would prefer that we support our food producers to be regulatory superheroes - to meet all the EU requirements and more with no sweat, supported by the world's most hi tech tools. These are what we'll need to export stuff everywhere - we may as well get really good at it. There will also (and probably already is) be some displacement of imports with domestic production, which isn't a bad thing.
Overall, I must say I find this list could be more imaginative; it reads more like an angry parent listing out to a child all the things they must do to get back in Great Aunt Mildred's good books after putting a ball through her greenhouse. Richard is an extremely intelligent poster, but I think his recommendations are still too coloured by emotion to be of much practical use. Though good on him for making them at all.
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
I suspect the £90,000 or so without kickback incentives makes selling a UK university hard work.
Quite; I have a niece who works for a British Uni with a Malaysian 'branch'. Suspect that when she can she'll be out there rather more now. Although does the £90k apply to British passport-holders as well as 'others'?
Thanks. With two other daughters to educate, can see why my son isn't interested in a UK Uni. And before you ask, not without equity release. And I've six other grandchildren who might be interested in a legacy.
Is there anything to stop your granddaughter from "moving back to the uk" prior to applying. Maybe you have a spare room . Then should be normal fees
Poor teenage girl surely doesn't need to have to cope with 80 year old grandparents. In a small town where she doesn't know anyone. But yes, that is an option.
I have now confirmed that the cost of Erasmus is based on a country's GDP. That is why it is so expensive for the UK (& Switzerland) to join.
(As is the cost of Horizon Europe (2021-2027), which we did join).
The last time I made the point on pb.com, it was contested as untrue by FF43.
But as pointed out earlier Erasmus isn't actually that liked by UK universities, the ability to send people abroad doesn't make up for the far greater demand from Students wanting a year in the UK.
Eldest Granddaughter in Thailand is beginning to peer over the horizon towards Uni. Or at least her father (our younger son) is! Her International school recently held a Parents Evening presentation on Uni's from Australia, Canada and Ireland. My son was very impressed by the Canadian opportunities. Don't think there's been anything from British Uni's yet.
They have a scheme in Canada where if you pay to study there for 3(?) years then you can stay on and live there permanently. My wife's cousin's daughter is doing this right now - easier for her with having family there.
That was one of the things that impressed my son. We've relations in British Columbia so that might offer some support.
I'd do it. I had the opportunity to become a Canadian citizen by attending Uni in BC, but chose to return to the UK because it was much cheaper in those days. Possibly my worst decision. Or maybe not. I'll never know.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
Very good article @Richard_Nabavi . All of these suggestions could and should also be embraced by a future more serious Conservative government once The Clown and his circus are hopefully ignominiously removed .
The Conservative Party need to taste defeat, a Corbyn style spanking, to purge themselves of Johnson AND his entourage. There are plenty of sage Conservative politicians. None of them are anywhere near either the levers of government or their party at the moment.
There are plenty of people willing to vote to replace the Tories, which can only be done by Labour, if they knew the broad direction of travel over Brexit that Labour believed. Dealing with case by case ameliorations won't do if you don't have a broad and clear policy.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
LOL! See Part 1. My first principle: "1. No fantasy. This means forgetting about rejoining the EU "
Pressure on governments post 2024 will turn to the vast trading opportunities across the world tariff free, and brexit will become a distant memory
Keep chasing that Unicorn...
+1 - those opportunities existed before Brexit, us leaving the EU hasn't made selling to the rest of the world any different from how it was last year.
Yes has plunged on that poll, now on just 2% above the 45% it got in 2014 on 47% including undecideds
It didn't get 45% in 2014 including undecideds 🤦🏻♂️. They got 45% in 2014 excluding undecideds.
I'm sure Yes will be happier being 2% above 45% than No will be being 13% below the 55% they got in 2014. Wonder why you didn't say that?
As I am not an English nationalist like you with an ideological agenda to break up the Union
You think that adding the undecided to the No count will save the Union?
The Undecided are Undecided, they're neither Yes nor No.
That is what happened in Quebec in 1995, Yes to independence led final polls, the undecideds went No and No won with 51%
No it isn't the case. Firstly we're not at the final poll stage, secondly we've covered this before, so why do you keep making these lies? Across the final two months of polling the average polls for Quebec were:
Yes 42.6% No 43.8% Undecided 13.6%
Excluding undecideds that's an average of Yes 49.3%, No 50.7% Giving undecideds to No gives an average of Yes 42.6%, No 57.4% The actual result was Yes 49.4%, No 50.6% - almost identical to the polling average excluding undecided and nothing close to the polling average giving undecideds to no.
Pressure on governments post 2024 will turn to the vast trading opportunities across the world tariff free, and brexit will become a distant memory
Keep chasing that Unicorn...
+1 - those opportunities existed before Brexit, us leaving the EU hasn't made selling to the rest of the world any different from how it was last year.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
That's not fair, I think the mistake Richard has made is to assume that the EU wants to play ball and that the UK-EU relationship is as valuable as assumes.
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
This article is just the view of a bitter remainer who wants to rejoin. Erasmus for example was incredibly expensive and many of the universities involved were second rate at best. If it's replacement is as touted it will be cheaper and offer far more opportunities to British students.
Do second rate universities teach correct apostrophe usage, I wonder.
This from @Richard_Nabavi is a bunch of good old-fashioned commonsense from a good old-fashioned Conservative who worries about how the economy will get on post Brexit. It's a brave header, imo, because it is much easier for a Tory these days, 80 seat majority in the tank, to wallow in throwback fantasies of a great great nation, unfettered from its chains and back in touch with its inner buccaneer, once more ruling the waves, the continent of Europe a minor irritant at best.
But, yes, back in the real world, having exited the EU with the chaotic, last minute "thin deal" whose sole purpose was to give good headline in the tabloids, there is now a need to plug the gaping holes. All the difficult stuff was skipped. God knows what "Frosty" & Co were doing all that time. Just trying to look the part, I suppose. Complete doss. Anyway, the hard work starts now and it hardly needs saying that a Boris Johnson government will not be doing it.
Labour must however be careful. The Cons have smashed one Union Jack election and they'll be well up for another. Labour's pragmatic plans for some convergence with the Single Market could be painted by a populist charlatan with a gift for Rule Britannia tub-thumping as a betrayal of our 'back to the future yet newly minted' Global Britain destiny. "We are free. Don't let Labour take us back." I'd be concerned about this sort of messaging. Ok, so you'd hope the public would not fall for it again, but I think they might.
Labour having a policy and selling one are two different departments. PBers are quite interested in both, but not unless both are in place. At the moment Labour have neither, and I think this one is too important to fudge. They need to risk seeing the Brexit future as an opportunity and show us the direction of travel.
Pressure on governments post 2024 will turn to the vast trading opportunities across the world tariff free, and brexit will become a distant memory
Keep chasing that Unicorn...
+1 - those opportunities existed before Brexit, us leaving the EU hasn't made selling to the rest of the world any different from how it was last year.
Actually Brexit makes it a bit more difficult to export to the rest of the world because of rules of origin. Not as much difference as to the EU obviously. It also reduces investment into the UK from everywhere.
Very good article @Richard_Nabavi . All of these suggestions could and should also be embraced by a future more serious Conservative government once The Clown and his circus are hopefully ignominiously removed .
The Conservative Party need to taste defeat, a Corbyn style spanking, to purge themselves of Johnson AND his entourage. There are plenty of sage Conservative politicians. None of them are anywhere near either the levers of government or their party at the moment.
There are plenty of people willing to vote to replace the Tories, which can only be done by Labour, if they knew the broad direction of travel over Brexit that Labour believed. Dealing with case by case ameliorations won't do if you don't have a broad and clear policy.
We will need case by case ameliorations set out by late 2022/ early 2023 in anticipation of an early GE.
At the moment, Starmer's Labour seems conflicted as to whether (over the EU) it is UKIP-lite or the Lib Dems. That is not a pragmatic approach.
Yes has plunged on that poll, now on just 2% above the 45% it got in 2014 on 47% including undecideds
It didn't get 45% in 2014 including undecideds 🤦🏻♂️. They got 45% in 2014 excluding undecideds.
I'm sure Yes will be happier being 2% above 45% than No will be being 13% below the 55% they got in 2014. Wonder why you didn't say that?
As I am not an English nationalist like you with an ideological agenda to break up the Union
You think that adding the undecided to the No count will save the Union?
The Undecided are Undecided, they're neither Yes nor No.
That is what happened in Quebec in 1995, Yes to independence led final polls, the undecideds went No and No won with 51%
The nightmare for Unionists was that the polls which showed Indy at 58% were part of a trend that would soon break the 60% barrier, and stay there, which had been seen as a prerequisite for a second IndyRef. That clearly hasn't happened despite Nicola still being wall-to-wall on the TV and the "rally to the flag" phenomenon with Covid.
The nightmare for (some) nationalists is that Nicola has allowed the moment to slip. Already one ingredient - a desperately unpopular UK Labour Leader (Corbyn) who was ambivalent about the union - has gone. The fear is that after May we will see a minority SNP Govt limping along for another 5 years with no prospect of a second referendum. It's quite possible that SNP lead will shrink under the pressure of an election campaign. Happened to Theresa...
The mistake would be to assume it is a permanent state of affairs.
Indeed.
The pressure on future Governments to unwind some of the madness of Brexit will be immense.
I think one of the problems, and this applies to Richard's article too, is hysteresis.
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.
The issue with variants is that they keep cropping up in countries with excellent testing for variants. I don't know about Brazil but the UK, SA and Denmark can trace this stuff - other countries can't. However when you track the progess of the pandemic in countries with scary, headline grabbing, variants they are not, currently, doing measurably worse than countries that have not. We are making some progress (finger crossed) and regulat posters will have been bored senseless by now by my constant refrain regarding the precipitous drop in South African cases. In terms of cases per million they have more of a reason to put us on a Red List than visa versa. Brasil can't seem to get on top of this, probably because of their less than helpful president, but the figures speak for themselves.
Comments
That's the EU we're dealing with, not this idealised one you seem to think will stand up to human rights abuses in China or stand up to Russia for spurious prison sentences for political opposition leaders.
The value of a better EU deal falls everyday for the UK, in a decade our relationship with the EU is going to be completely different than what it is today and reflect the transactional nature of the EU. Westminster and Washington are learning now that the EU won't take any economic burden or hardship to further the cause of human rights reforms in China. They aren't our ally, that's the world we're living in.
I'm not particularly bothered about EMA/MHRA split and MHRA is fine for us - this is an area where EU's loss is probably greater than ours - but I'd still be happy to have stayed in EMA and I don't think the EMA is the cause of the EU's vaccine problems - the cause of that is not investing and not ordering early enough.
* it's also plausible this goes the other way - if MHRA gets a reputation for being faster as well as thorough then companies could choose to go through the MHRA process first to identify any hurdles/needs for more data before submitting to EMA
There are 2 different points arising from @Richard_Nabavi's piece. The first is can we still "narrow the differences" in a way by agreeing parts of their rule book in exchange for more unrestricted access? We see that there is still a difference of views on the merits of that with some pointing out that the potential upside of fixing our own rules may be considerable (the "nimble" argument).
This argument has got an enormous boost from EU incompetence in relation to vaccines but I do think we need to be careful not to overgeneralise from that disaster. REACH, for example, is pretty much the international standard for chemicals and will continue to be so whether we have our own rules or not. All we do by having different standards is complicate the lives of our producers.
The second point, which is the one I was making, is that once we accept life is different outside the SM we have to make the best of it and that means taking positive steps to address the consequences. It was a catastrophic failure of government to fail to do that in the period from 2016-2019. It is not a failure that we seem to be addressing with sufficient urgency (recognising, of course, that the government has rather a lot on its plate at the moment). Some, but not all, of that might involve working with some of Richard's ideas.
https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1227138235341660160?s=20
Everyone is still in divorce mode at the moment, it will slowly calm down over time though, and the attitude to discussions will get more productive.
If Starmer is for real, he needs to take Brexit as a done deal, but look to make it work for UK plc as pronounced by Mr Navabi, and forget about the flag waving sideshows.
https://twitter.com/FerdiGiugliano/status/1359809150113480704?s=20
https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1227139596682702848
Alas, poor Ted.
The fact is you're just a troll who makes stupid remarks, gets called out on them, then can't answer back with logical arguments so you reach for ad hominem attacks instead. If you were actually able to answer the points made maybe you would instead of making silly and fake personal attacks instead.
I feel sorry for you.
1 - Misleading headline. The operator did not say "all deliveries have been made". They said "all contractual requirements have been complied with." Different, consistent with the AZ account,
2 - Did not mention that "no problems" was Feb 8th, and "Production Problems" was mid-Jan.
3 - Or that he Belgian Govt inspection found that production difficulties did indeed exist.
He's trolling.
Full Brexit only happened a few weeks ago, and its impact is yet to unfurl properly. Starmer has to first of all detoxify any allegation that he is seeking to overturn, or even weaken, Brexit. What matters is that well before the next election Labour has a set of policies, perhaps in line with what you suggest, to tackle any downsides of Brexit and improve any upsides. Patience is a virtue - it's too early at the moment, and anyway nothing Labour says gets much of an airing in Covid times.
Meanwhile, those on here constantly referring to the 'hostility' of the EU are hilarious. We were never best mates, our press has always been pretty hostile, and more recently we have been telling them very firmly to F off and die. I'm not sure our behaviour has done anything to promote affection from the EU.
A lot of chemicals include ingredients or processes from other companies, who may be competitors for your final product. Everyone was in the same boat when EURO REACH was created, so there was an incentive to co-operate. Now UK companies need to get information from their European competitors who are already registered with their version of REACH.
Products may also be dosed with small quantities of specialist chemicals that deliver the extra 5% of performance: a more lustrous paint, a stronger adhesive bond and so on. It's hard to justify a REACH registration for chemicals that maybe only have a market of £100 000s in the UK. But without them, the products won't be the very best they can be.
The entire Brexit edifice was built on the lie that there were no "consequences"
He can't admit to that lie lest the rest comes crashing down on his head...
It will take time to show the advantages for being outside REACH but leaving REACH was explicitly a pro-science Vote Leave commitment during the referendum: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_science.html
While MAKE UK have said in the past that some manufacturers would like the UK to be outside of REACH too.
A UK REACH doesn't need to be a like-for-like comprehensive alternative to it, in fact not being so could be part of the advantage.
It appears that some are making it.
There Is No Defense—Only Complicity
Republican senators are shrinking before the eyes of the whole country.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/there-is-no-defenseonly-complicity/617996/
Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump partyhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/11/dozens-former-republican-officials-talks-form-anti-trump-party
But you are on here for 10-15 hours a day. It's why imo some people don't engage with you - they know that you are going to be here literally all day repeating your points hence people don't want to get into that as they will inevitably have to leave the discussion before you.
https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1359812871501283328?s=20
And why do people keep posting his tweets ?
Although does the £90k apply to British passport-holders as well as 'others'?
What the Red Wall is taking about.
(Not sure about the spelling there)
I don't want to be personal but it does seem to me that you and many others who were on the other side of the argument see all of this as a one way street with the UK doing all of the making up, conceding, being nice and are reluctant to accept that the EU chose to make this more difficult than it had to have been for strategic reasons of their own as well as a certain amour-propre.
Hopefully, in time, both sides will get over that.
As usual, @DavidL makes a very important point, namely that what history suggests is that once we get past the initial disruption, businesses will adapt to the new ways just in the ways they have had to adopt to Covid in many cases. It seems as though we are now making up for last time from before.
I'm sure Yes will be happier being 2% above 45% than No will be being 13% below the 55% they got in 2014. Wonder why you didn't say that?
Exploring a positive and grown up relationship with the EU from now on, and looking at how we navigate the UK through the reality of post- Brexit world recession would at least hint that the party was still breathing. I am not expecting a fully costed manifesto yet.
However - our relationship with the EU is not going to improve anytime soon. The EU as I can see is already starting to diverge form the UK and USA re. its approach to China. It continues to want to integrate further. The divides between us and it will only grow in that respect.
We were the ones who wanted Brexit. We wanted to be a Third party. This is what that looks like.
We made our bed. It is up to us if we ever want to get out of it.
That doesn't mean "conceding" to the EU, it does mean conceding to reality.
Or closing.
I had wondered if Guernsey (which has had mandatory quarantine since March last year) would do a deal with the UK to allow transit to Guernsey to do quarantine here. Not a bit of it. 10 days in the UK followed by 14 days in Guernsey......they really don't want you to travel.....
Where have we seen that before
Scientists still debate whether millions of cheap, fast diagnostic kits will help control the pandemic. Here’s why.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00332-4
And before you ask, not without equity release. And I've six other grandchildren who might be interested in a legacy.
The mistake would be to assume it is a permanent state of affairs.
The pressure on future Governments to unwind some of the madness of Brexit will be immense.
But, yes, back in the real world, having exited the EU with the chaotic, last minute "thin deal" whose sole purpose was to give good headline in the tabloids, there is now a need to plug the gaping holes. All the difficult stuff was skipped. God knows what "Frosty" & Co were doing all that time. Just trying to look the part, I suppose. Complete doss. Anyway, the hard work starts now and it hardly needs saying that a Boris Johnson government will not be doing it.
Labour must however be careful. The Cons have smashed one Union Jack election and they'll be well up for another. Labour's pragmatic plans for some convergence with the Single Market could be painted by a populist charlatan with a gift for Rule Britannia tub-thumping as a betrayal of our 'back to the future yet newly minted' Global Britain destiny. "We are free. Don't let Labour take us back." I'd be concerned about this sort of messaging. Ok, so you'd hope the public would not fall for it again, but I think they might.
You are basically dreadfully 'homesick' for the EU, but like most people who suffer from being homesick you will find it passes, though in your case I expect it will be a very long time away
The Undecided are Undecided, they're neither Yes nor No.
If we don't row back on at least some of the madness, we are in big trouble.
I also have (some) sympathy with the SPS thing, especially as it gives us a 'note from our Mum' to say we can't have the chlorinated chicken when negotiating with the US. Which is useful. But I come down on the side of disagreeing. I would prefer that we support our food producers to be regulatory superheroes - to meet all the EU requirements and more with no sweat, supported by the world's most hi tech tools. These are what we'll need to export stuff everywhere - we may as well get really good at it. There will also (and probably already is) be some displacement of imports with domestic production, which isn't a bad thing.
Overall, I must say I find this list could be more imaginative; it reads more like an angry parent listing out to a child all the things they must do to get back in Great Aunt Mildred's good books after putting a ball through her greenhouse. Richard is an extremely intelligent poster, but I think his recommendations are still too coloured by emotion to be of much practical use. Though good on him for making them at all.
But yes, that is an option.
Possibly my worst decision. Or maybe not. I'll never know.
Pressure on governments post 2024 will turn to the vast trading opportunities across the world tariff free, and brexit will become a distant memory
Prof Sharon Peacock tells the BBC's Newscast podcast the new variant has "swept the country" and "it's going to sweep the world, in all probability".
Its like the Empire all over again....
Will this count as a thumping majority?
https://twitter.com/profpmiddleton/status/1359795552590905344?s=21
You do not spend all day defending the indefensible (even though your military intervention plans for Scotland might need further work).
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1359817080829313034?s=20
Not very smart, are you?
Yes 42.6%
No 43.8%
Undecided 13.6%
Excluding undecideds that's an average of Yes 49.3%, No 50.7%
Giving undecideds to No gives an average of Yes 42.6%, No 57.4%
The actual result was Yes 49.4%, No 50.6% - almost identical to the polling average excluding undecided and nothing close to the polling average giving undecideds to no.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2021/02/119_303915.html
Change those two assumptions and the part 2 of this series is a lot less good than part 1.
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1359818254227828737
At the moment, Starmer's Labour seems conflicted as to whether (over the EU) it is UKIP-lite or the Lib Dems. That is not a pragmatic approach.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/10/spectator-asks-judge-to-allow-fuller-release-of-alex-salmond-claims?__twitter_impression=true
The nightmare for (some) nationalists is that Nicola has allowed the moment to slip. Already one ingredient - a desperately unpopular UK Labour Leader (Corbyn) who was ambivalent about the union - has gone. The fear is that after May we will see a minority SNP Govt limping along for another 5 years with no prospect of a second referendum. It's quite possible that SNP lead will shrink under the pressure of an election campaign. Happened to Theresa...
By the time we get to 2024 a lot of the damage will be done already. Businesses will have relocated operations or closed. Money will have been spent on complying with new chemicals regulations.
Even if Richard's policies still made long-term sense, some of them might by then involve short-term costs, and others may simply make little or no difference.
Labour policies in 2024 will need to reflect the reality in 2024, not what would have made sense in 2021. Constructive suggestions like Richard's have to be carefully framed as a way of preventing damage being done now, rather than as cure-alls that will reverse that damage in 2024, so that blame for that damage is pinned to the Tories, but Labour isn't tied to policies rooted in the past.