On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
To be blunt, this thread has been a whole lot more interesting than the usual reheated trash on Brexit even if the level of theological discussion is unfortunately not high, for which I wonder if we should thank the egregious Professor Emeritus Dawkins.
Agreed
People who are on low paid, unskilled jobs should technically be better off, because the supply of labour is cut. But that relies on the economy continuing to grow, which is not certain in any way.
The sectors who will probably take the biggest hit are the high pay, low skill sectors. ie financial services, insurance, property.
I think the people on low-paid, unskilled jobs will almost certainly be worse off, even though the pay for a particular job rises. Why? Because the people doing those low-paid jobs would otherwise have been doing more highly skilled jobs.
As a simplified example, consider Pavel the potato picker on £7/hr and his immediate boss, Dave, who drives the tractor and earns £10/hr. When Pavel goes home, Dave will have to do Pavel's job. Dave will be earning more than Pavel did, perhaps £8/hr given that the wages for potato picking will rise. But he'll be earning less than he did previously as a tractor driver.
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
To be blunt, this thread has been a whole lot more interesting than the usual reheated trash on Brexit even if the level of theological discussion is unfortunately not high, for which I wonder if we should thank the egregious Professor Emeritus Dawkins.
Agreed
People who are on low paid, unskilled jobs should technically be better off, because the supply of labour is cut. But that relies on the economy continuing to grow, which is not certain in any way.
The sectors who will probably take the biggest hit are the high pay, low skill sectors. ie financial services, insurance, property.
I think the people on low-paid, unskilled jobs will almost certainly be worse off, even though the pay for a particular job rises. Why? Because the people doing those low-paid jobs would otherwise have been doing more highly skilled jobs.
As a simplified example, consider Pavel the potato picker on £7/hr and his immediate boss, Dave, who drives the tractor and earns £10/hr. When Pavel goes home, Dave will have to do Pavel's job. Dave will be earning more than Pavel did, perhaps £8/hr given that the wages for potato picking will rise. But he'll be earning less than he did previously as a tractor driver.
If it's in the commandments, there will be a reason. The Israelites were a roving nomadic people living in poverty and on the edge of crisis. It is quite obvious that things like not eating pig (I adore pork myself, but it is scientific fact that the meat contains many more viruses and other nasties that survive cooking than other meats), to the prohibition of men having sex with men, harsh or not, were all things that contributed in some way to survival, to health and social cohesion in the face of destruction. You can argue that God handed down these commandments to the Israelites to help ensure their survival, or that the Israelites invented God to ensure their survival, depending on your persuasion.
Moses was raised as an Egyptian. Here are the 42 "Negative Confessions" or Laws of the Goddess Maat:
I have not committed sin. I have not committed robbery with violence. I have not stolen. I have not slain men or women. I have not stolen food. I have not swindled offerings. I have not stolen from God/Goddess. I have not told lies. I have not carried away food. I have not cursed. I have not closed my ears to truth. I have not committed adultery. I have not made anyone cry. I have not felt sorrow without reason. I have not assaulted anyone. I am not deceitful. I have not stolen anyone’s land. I have not been an eavesdropper. I have not falsely accused anyone. I have not been angry without reason. I have not seduced anyone’s wife. I have not polluted myself. I have not terrorized anyone. I have not disobeyed the Law. I have not been exclusively angry. I have not cursed God/Goddess. I have not behaved with violence. I have not caused disruption of peace. I have not acted hastily or without thought. I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern. I have not exaggerated my words when speaking. I have not worked evil. I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds. I have not polluted the water. I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly. I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds. I have not placed myself on a pedestal. I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess. I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased. I have not taken food from a child. I have not acted with insolence. I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess
Wow Sunil. That is a high bar. Are they the standards required for a day or just an hour once a year or so?
If it's in the commandments, there will be a reason. The Israelites were a roving nomadic people living in poverty and on the edge of crisis. It is quite obvious that things like not eating pig (I adore pork myself, but it is scientific fact that the meat contains many more viruses and other nasties that survive cooking than other meats), to the prohibition of men having sex with men, harsh or not, were all things that contributed in some way to survival, to health and social cohesion in the face of destruction. You can argue that God handed down these commandments to the Israelites to help ensure their survival, or that the Israelites invented God to ensure their survival, depending on your persuasion.
Moses was raised as an Egyptian. Here are the 42 "Negative Confessions" or Laws of the Goddess Maat:
I have not closed my ears to truth. I have not been angry without reason. I have not acted hastily or without thought. I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly. I have not placed myself on a pedestal.
Damn, as people commenting on the internet I think we're pretty screwed on these ones.
If it's in the commandments, there will be a reason. The Israelites were a roving nomadic people living in poverty and on the edge of crisis. It is quite obvious that things like not eating pig (I adore pork myself, but it is scientific fact that the meat contains many more viruses and other nasties that survive cooking than other meats), to the prohibition of men having sex with men, harsh or not, were all things that contributed in some way to survival, to health and social cohesion in the face of destruction. You can argue that God handed down these commandments to the Israelites to help ensure their survival, or that the Israelites invented God to ensure their survival, depending on your persuasion.
Moses was raised as an Egyptian. Here are the 42 "Negative Confessions" or Laws of the Goddess Maat:
I have not committed sin. I have not committed robbery with violence. I have not stolen. I have not slain men or women. I have not stolen food. I have not swindled offerings. I have not stolen from God/Goddess. I have not told lies. I have not carried away food. I have not cursed. I have not closed my ears to truth. I have not committed adultery. I have not made anyone cry. I have not felt sorrow without reason. I have not assaulted anyone. I am not deceitful. I have not stolen anyone’s land. I have not been an eavesdropper. I have not falsely accused anyone. I have not been angry without reason. I have not seduced anyone’s wife. I have not polluted myself. I have not terrorized anyone. I have not disobeyed the Law. I have not been exclusively angry. I have not cursed God/Goddess. I have not behaved with violence. I have not caused disruption of peace. I have not acted hastily or without thought. I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern. I have not exaggerated my words when speaking. I have not worked evil. I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds. I have not polluted the water. I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly. I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds. I have not placed myself on a pedestal. I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess. I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased. I have not taken food from a child. I have not acted with insolence. I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess
Some of these seem quite redundant. There's six concerned with stealing, even though the first is quite clear 'I have not stolen'. And what does being 'exclusively angry' even mean?
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
To be blunt, this thread has been a whole lot more interesting than the usual reheated trash on Brexit even if the level of theological discussion is unfortunately not high, for which I wonder if we should thank the egregious Professor Emeritus Dawkins.
Agreed
People who are on low paid, unskilled jobs should technically be better off, because the supply of labour is cut. But that relies on the economy continuing to grow, which is not certain in any way.
The sectors who will probably take the biggest hit are the high pay, low skill sectors. ie financial services, insurance, property.
I think the people on low-paid, unskilled jobs will almost certainly be worse off, even though the pay for a particular job rises. Why? Because the people doing those low-paid jobs would otherwise have been doing more highly skilled jobs.
As a simplified example, consider Pavel the potato picker on £7/hr and his immediate boss, Dave, who drives the tractor and earns £10/hr. When Pavel goes home, Dave will have to do Pavel's job. Dave will be earning more than Pavel did, perhaps £8/hr given that the wages for potato picking will rise. But he'll be earning less than he did previously as a tractor driver.
Who drives the tractor ?
Dave's former boss. Obviously this is a simplification, but the main point is that if you have fewer migrants doing the most menial work, then, on average, Brits will end up doing more menial work than they would otherwise have been doing and earning less than they would otherwise have done.
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
But, the old bloke was done in, when Troy fell.
Of course he was. But your claim is not - I assume - that such a thing has never happened when a city has fallen to a Christian army?
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"
Papal Legate Amalric
Classy stuff.
One of my favourite quotes when people start going on about the innate goodness of Christianity compared to other religions.
And specifically to do with exterminating the Cathars of southern France during the Albigensian Crusade.
Even being generous and assuming he is doing some amount of work while the TV is on in the same room, and recognising even the president needs some off time to catch up on TV, that is way too much time if it is even close to being the right figure.
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
To be blunt, this thread has been a whole lot more interesting than the usual reheated trash on Brexit even if the level of theological discussion is unfortunately not high, for which I wonder if we should thank the egregious Professor Emeritus Dawkins.
Agreed
People who are on low paid, unskilled jobs should technically be better off, because the supply of labour is cut. But that relies on the economy continuing to grow, which is not certain in any way.
The sectors who will probably take the biggest hit are the high pay, low skill sectors. ie financial services, insurance, property.
I think the people on low-paid, unskilled jobs will almost certainly be worse off, even though the pay for a particular job rises. Why? Because the people doing those low-paid jobs would otherwise have been doing more highly skilled jobs.
As a simplified example, consider Pavel the potato picker on £7/hr and his immediate boss, Dave, who drives the tractor and earns £10/hr. When Pavel goes home, Dave will have to do Pavel's job. Dave will be earning more than Pavel did, perhaps £8/hr given that the wages for potato picking will rise. But he'll be earning less than he did previously as a tractor driver.
Who drives the tractor ?
Dave's former boss. Obviously this is a simplification, but the main point is that if you have fewer migrants doing the most menial work, then, on average, Brits will end up doing more menial work than they would otherwise have been doing and earning less than they would otherwise have done.
So who does the work Dave's former boss did ?
What actually happens is that Dave goes to work for a farmer who invests in new equipment and needs a tractor driver.
Even being generous and assuming he is doing some amount of work while the TV is on in the same room, and recognising even the president needs some off time to catch up on TV, that is way too much time if it is even close to being the right figure.
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
I would have thought there was no need for any outsider to tell these to the EU. It clearly is not in the EU members own interest to allow a non-member similar rights and privileges. What is the point of being a member then ?
Logically, [ if the Irish border extension to the UK as a whole implies ], UK will have to pay proportionally more than Norway because between Norway and Sweden , it is a hard border for goods.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Norway pays because it is a member of the EEA. If we are negotiating a trade deal then there is certainly no way we should be paying for such a deal.
And bear in mind if there is no trade deal then the whole edifice of the agreement collapses.
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
To be blunt, this thread has been a whole lot more interesting than the usual reheated trash on Brexit even if the level of theological discussion is unfortunately not high, for which I wonder if we should thank the egregious Professor Emeritus Dawkins.
Agreed
People who are on low paid, unskilled jobs should technically be better off, because the supply of labour is cut. But that relies on the economy continuing to grow, which is not certain in any way.
The sectors who will probably take the biggest hit are the high pay, low skill sectors. ie financial services, insurance, property.
I think the people on low-paid, unskilled jobs will almost certainly be worse off, even though the pay for a particular job rises. Why? Because the people doing those low-paid jobs would otherwise have been doing more highly skilled jobs.
As a simplified example, consider Pavel the potato picker on £7/hr and his immediate boss, Dave, who drives the tractor and earns £10/hr. When Pavel goes home, Dave will have to do Pavel's job. Dave will be earning more than Pavel did, perhaps £8/hr given that the wages for potato picking will rise. But he'll be earning less than he did previously as a tractor driver.
Who drives the tractor ?
Dave's former boss. Obviously this is a simplification, but the main point is that if you have fewer migrants doing the most menial work, then, on average, Brits will end up doing more menial work than they would otherwise have been doing and earning less than they would otherwise have done.
Not if you make long overdue changes to the benefits system to make sure people take the jobs that are there. Go and look at the job centres in the main farming areas and there are always adverts for places, even now. But people would rather stay on benefits. Make sure that is no longer an option.
That said of course I don't want the restrictions on foreign labour in the first place so I am the wrong person really to be arguing this. But it is still a fact that the workforce is there to do these jobs if they choose to.
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
But, the old bloke was done in, when Troy fell.
Of course he was. But your claim is not - I assume - that such a thing has never happened when a city has fallen to a Christian army?
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"
Papal Legate Amalric
Classy stuff.
One of my favourite quotes when people start going on about the innate goodness of Christianity compared to other religions.
And specifically to do with exterminating the Cathars of southern France during the Albigensian Crusade.
The point of course being that they were happy to exterminate their own true believers as well just to make sure they got all the heretics.
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
I would have thought there was no need for any outsider to tell these to the EU. It clearly is not in the EU members own interest to allow a non-member similar rights and privileges. What is the point of being a member then ?
Logically, [ if the Irish border extension to the UK as a whole implies ], UK will have to pay proportionally more than Norway because between Norway and Sweden , it is a hard border for goods.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Norway pays because it is a member of the EEA. If we are negotiating a trade deal then there is certainly no way we should be paying for such a deal.
And bear in mind if there is no trade deal then the whole edifice of the agreement collapses.
Nothing is settled until everything is settled.
The real story at the end of all of this, is that we're going to get a reasonable trade deal, with what actually appears to be a pretty modest divorce bill (once you take into account the two year transition period that... errr... we asked for).
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
Presumably there are a large number of "Global Powers" lobbying the UK against giving the EU too generous an agreement?
You might very well think that but I’m sure the UK government wouldn’t dream of commenting - and if they did, the Guardian wouldn’t splash it......you see, it’s only ever A VICTORY FOR THE EU.....
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
I would have thought there was no need for any outsider to tell these to the EU. It clearly is not in the EU members own interest to allow a non-member similar rights and privileges. What is the point of being a member then ?
Logically, [ if the Irish border extension to the UK as a whole implies ], UK will have to pay proportionally more than Norway because between Norway and Sweden , it is a hard border for goods.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Norway pays because it is a member of the EEA. If we are negotiating a trade deal then there is certainly no way we should be paying for such a deal.
And bear in mind if there is no trade deal then the whole edifice of the agreement collapses.
Nothing is settled until everything is settled.
The real story at the end of all of this, is that we're going to get a reasonable trade deal, with what actually appears to be a pretty modest divorce bill (once you take into account the two year transition period that... errr... we asked for).
The likelihood nevertheless is that during the second stage of the talks, we will concede additional ongoing payments, badged as contribrutions to EU funds for east Europe reconstruction, and offset against the 0.7% foreign aid target, just as a portion of our EU subscription is currently.
I would have thought there was no need for any outsider to tell these to the EU. It clearly is not in the EU members own interest to allow a non-member similar rights and privileges. What is the point of being a member then ?
Logically, [ if the Irish border extension to the UK as a whole implies ], UK will have to pay proportionally more than Norway because between Norway and Sweden , it is a hard border for goods.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Norway pays because it is a member of the EEA. If we are negotiating a trade deal then there is certainly no way we should be paying for such a deal.
And bear in mind if there is no trade deal then the whole edifice of the agreement collapses.
Nothing is settled until everything is settled.
A few comments on this exchange:
1. It is true that most FTAs include a 'most favoured nation' provision that forces (say) the EU to grant the same superior access to them that that they would later grant to (say) the UK. 2. These MFN clauses (which are different from WTO MFN provisions, they only apply to nations to which the EU has an FTA) don't usually apply to all sectors and therefore it is probable that the EU can grant better access to services to the UK than other nations, if they wanted to, because most FTAs don't cover services to that degree and therefore the MFN provisions will not apply. Remember that these provisions have to be reciprocal. 3. The Guardian are full of it as usual - other nations don't want to stop the UK getting privileged access to the EU - they are just reminding that they want it as well and this only applies to nations with whom the EU has an FTA - eg not many. 4. As a result it is highly likely that CETA+ will be what we are looking at, so Remainers will need to calm down about soft Brexit. 5. About the only thing that I don't expect the UK Govt to sell us down the river on is ongoing payment for market access. It won't happen not because the UK Govt will stand up, but because this deal is always likely to be far more CETA than EEA so the issue just isn't going to come up.Nobody pays for SM access on FTA terms, only for 'quasi' membership of the SM but that cannot apply to the UK because we will not accept FOM.
"Their despair at the thought of having to deal with Boris Johnson was the foreign secretary’s most important contribution to the week."
"One of the only things to be said for this tortuous and perilous experiment is that it has served as an education for some of the Brexiters, as their illusions have been forced into contact with reality."
The likelihood nevertheless is that during the second stage of the talks, we will concede additional ongoing payments, badged as contribrutions to EU funds for east Europe reconstruction, and offset against the 0.7% foreign aid target, just as a portion of our EU subscription is currently.
As always, it's a bit more complicated than that.
Let's look at Norway. They pay GBP740m a year to the EU.
But that's not all for EEA membership. Indeed, less than half their bill relates to levies associated with "reducing social and economic disparities in the EEA". The majority is a series of bills associated with the membership of specific EU administered bodies, such as the European Space Agency, the EMA, Gallileo, ERASMUS. etc.
I think it is actually quite likely we will choose to be members of some of those bodies. In particular, given the British armed forces use a combination of Gallileo and the US GPS system for positioning, I think it would be very unwise for us to leave Gallileo. How much is it to be a member of Gallileo? Probably about GBP25m for us a year. Worth it? Well, you could pay the Russians for access to Glonass or the Chinese for access to BeiDou. But it probably makes more sense to use the system that our existing equipment already uses, and continue to have redundancy by using that and GPS.
I don't think we'll make an EEA access payment. But I suspect we will choose to be members of half a dozen EU administered bodies: ERASMUS and Gallileo are good value for money IMHO. I would probably pay for EMA access too, because replicating it is more expensive. (Or you could go the Swiss route of passing a law saying that subject to the rubber stamp of the Federal Department of Home Affairs, EMA rulings apply too.)
"Their despair at the thought of having to deal with Boris Johnson was the foreign secretary’s most important contribution to the week."
"One of the only things to be said for this tortuous and perilous experiment is that it has served as an education for some of the Brexiters, as their illusions have been forced into contact with reality."
A chorus of Tory commentators are now singing hallelujahs to the prime minister. They applaud Mrs May for the apparently remarkable feat of aligning her riven cabinet, her divided party, the island of Ireland and the EU behind the same deal. Can this be the same Mrs May whom the Tory choir had previously been bewailing as a maladroit incompetent who could be out of her job by Christmas? The very same.
Comments
As a simplified example, consider Pavel the potato picker on £7/hr and his immediate boss, Dave, who drives the tractor and earns £10/hr. When Pavel goes home, Dave will have to do Pavel's job. Dave will be earning more than Pavel did, perhaps £8/hr given that the wages for potato picking will rise. But he'll be earning less than he did previously as a tractor driver.
Strange, but their loss......
https://fullfact.org/europe/where-does-eu-export/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/trump-reportedly-drinks-12-diet-cokes-watches-up-to-8-hours-of-tv-daily.html
What actually happens is that Dave goes to work for a farmer who invests in new equipment and needs a tractor driver.
● Three MPs said Zac Goldsmith told colleagues his four-year-old daughter could do a better job than May.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexiteers-michael-gove-and-boris-johnson-insist-on-payback-from-theresa-may-dxkbk6b3w
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5163515/Masked-men-throw-Molotov-cocktails-Gothenburg-synagogue.html
And bear in mind if there is no trade deal then the whole edifice of the agreement collapses.
Nothing is settled until everything is settled.
That said of course I don't want the restrictions on foreign labour in the first place so I am the wrong person really to be arguing this. But it is still a fact that the workforce is there to do these jobs if they choose to.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-5156169/Benefits-overhaul-mean-thousands-lose-homes.html
1. It is true that most FTAs include a 'most favoured nation' provision that forces (say) the EU to grant the same superior access to them that that they would later grant to (say) the UK.
2. These MFN clauses (which are different from WTO MFN provisions, they only apply to nations to which the EU has an FTA) don't usually apply to all sectors and therefore it is probable that the EU can grant better access to services to the UK than other nations, if they wanted to, because most FTAs don't cover services to that degree and therefore the MFN provisions will not apply. Remember that these provisions have to be reciprocal.
3. The Guardian are full of it as usual - other nations don't want to stop the UK getting privileged access to the EU - they are just reminding that they want it as well and this only applies to nations with whom the EU has an FTA - eg not many.
4. As a result it is highly likely that CETA+ will be what we are looking at, so Remainers will need to calm down about soft Brexit.
5. About the only thing that I don't expect the UK Govt to sell us down the river on is ongoing payment for market access. It won't happen not because the UK Govt will stand up, but because this deal is always likely to be far more CETA than EEA so the issue just isn't going to come up.Nobody pays for SM access on FTA terms, only for 'quasi' membership of the SM but that cannot apply to the UK because we will not accept FOM.
"One of the only things to be said for this tortuous and perilous experiment is that it has served as an education for some of the Brexiters, as their illusions have been forced into contact with reality."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/10/the-more-they-say-they-are-all-happy-the-more-sceptical-you-should-be
Let's look at Norway. They pay GBP740m a year to the EU.
But that's not all for EEA membership. Indeed, less than half their bill relates to levies associated with "reducing social and economic disparities in the EEA". The majority is a series of bills associated with the membership of specific EU administered bodies, such as the European Space Agency, the EMA, Gallileo, ERASMUS. etc.
I think it is actually quite likely we will choose to be members of some of those bodies. In particular, given the British armed forces use a combination of Gallileo and the US GPS system for positioning, I think it would be very unwise for us to leave Gallileo. How much is it to be a member of Gallileo? Probably about GBP25m for us a year. Worth it? Well, you could pay the Russians for access to Glonass or the Chinese for access to BeiDou. But it probably makes more sense to use the system that our existing equipment already uses, and continue to have redundancy by using that and GPS.
I don't think we'll make an EEA access payment. But I suspect we will choose to be members of half a dozen EU administered bodies: ERASMUS and Gallileo are good value for money IMHO. I would probably pay for EMA access too, because replicating it is more expensive. (Or you could go the Swiss route of passing a law saying that subject to the rubber stamp of the Federal Department of Home Affairs, EMA rulings apply too.)