Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Tony Blair should be Diane Abbott’s role model

13»

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Lennon said:

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.

    Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
    And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
    Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
    That will not stop negotiations

    No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.

    Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed :D
    Dated while still married is more apt...
    I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.

    Dates are not commitments. Marriages are. And only a fool gets married before knowing what the terms will be.

    Sure - no one will *sign* an FTA before the terms of the EU divorce are known. The question is whether they will negotiate them. They will - they may well reserve their position that 'this will need to be reviewed depending on' but they will see the chance of getting a better deal from the UK by accelerating the discussions.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Not sure how the result FPTP produced in 2017 in the UK is any better to the one that PR produced in Germany.

    Surely, if we believe in the will of the people, we should be keen to ensure the will of the people is reflected in how the House of Commons is populated.

    Well 2017 wasn't typical!

    The error is in thinking that 'reflecting' diverse opinion is a good thing in its own right. The job of parliament, and more especially government, and by extension therefore the purpose of an election, is to decide between mutually-exclusive policies. What's more those policies all interact, so having a (hopefully coherent) pre-agreed package makes much more sense than haggling after the event.
    Yes, the elections where FPTnP doesn't deliver a working majority aren't typical.

    The ones where the winning party, in votes, doesn't get the most seats, aren't typical either.

    The one where the third party almost caught up with the second party yet came away with a derisory number of seats wasn't typical.

    Landslide majority power based on 40% of the vote or less, isn't typical.

    Basically it's a lottery that doesn't have a typical result - at least nowadays - and even in the politically more stable and predictable 50s-70s there were NOM and winning second party results.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    TGOHF said:

    Lennon said:

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.

    Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
    And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
    Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
    That will not stop negotiations

    No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.

    Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed :D
    Dated while still married is more apt...
    I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.

    Dates are not commitments. Marriages are. And only a fool gets married before knowing what the terms will be.

    But we heard that the EU was going to act like a Victorian dad and ban us from even flashing our petticoats at other suitors - not turning out to be the case.

    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.
  • On all things EU what is happening in Germany - is Merkel secure
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.

    I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.

    But, it's probably what will happen.

    FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
    I'm to be convinced a PR system would be any better, they'd just give you a different type of problem.
    At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.

    It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
    That's a very interesting observation.
    Thanks. It's what has pushed me towards proportional systems (I used to argue against them) - the more I learned about how free markets are supposed to work for better allocation of resources and economic decision-making (the feedback mechanism from free choice is key), the more it seemed to point towards exactly analogous situations and feedback mechanisms with political decision-making.
    Prices are information. It's what makes capitalism work, and is why governments need to be very careful about interventions that affect price signals.
    Absolutely.
    And votes are information in electoral systems, so any system which discourages "honest" voting (pressures the voter away from their preferred choice to a "stop-the-worst" choice/tactical voting/so-and-so can't win here so vote for us instead) damages the vote-signal.

    (and now I really do have to close the laptop and head to the gym)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Both the BBC and Sky seemed to think the proposed transistion deal is likely to receive a positive welcome from the government but that detail would need to be negotiated. Their bulletins did not provide any indication that TM is under immediate threat.

    It seems South Korea is very keen for a trade deal and the problem for the EU once we are free is that trade deals we strike may well attract EU companies to locate here in a reverse effect and to benefit from lower corporation tax rates

    South Korea is probably the most free trade country in the world, being the only country in the world to have deals with the EU, China, the US and Japan. (Trump has stated that he wishes to end the current South Korea FTA, so that might change.)

    I would reckon that - alongside Canada, Australia and New Zealand - South Korea will be among the first countries that we sign an independent FTA with.

    That being said, the South Korean government also said that it wouldn't necessarily make the same concessions re access to the (largely financial) services market that it made to the EU. Our problem here is speed: because we need to sign deals quickly, we will probably end up accepting less good terms than might otherwise be the case.
  • TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.

    Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
    Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to give us less than what we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"
    We will get far more out of the US than we would as EU members, for the simple reason the EU won't ratify a deal with them. The same is true of many other third parties.
    I'm sorry, but it was the US that pulled out of the TPP and the TIPP.

    There is - if we're going to be realistic - no likelihood of a US-UK FTA under the current US administration. (Despite all the talk.) Why?

    1. The US would demand ISDS protections that would be at least as onerous as the ones in the NAFTA agreement.
    2. We would likely need to keep our intellectual property law in lock-step with the US in perpetuity.
    3. We would have a situation where US agricultural products would be sold in the UK while being produced to (lower) standards than we require of our own farmers.
    In 5 or 10 years time, when not a single trade deal has been done, we will crawl back to the EU. That's if we have ever left, which I still doubt.

    My guess is that most of our FTAs post-Brexit will be addendums to deals that the EU has already agreed.

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Both the BBC and Sky seemed to think the proposed transistion deal is likely to receive a positive welcome from the government but that detail would need to be negotiated. Their bulletins did not provide any indication that TM is under immediate threat.

    It seems South Korea is very keen for a trade deal and the problem for the EU once we are free is that trade deals we strike may well attract EU companies to locate here in a reverse effect and to benefit from lower corporation tax rates

    I think that's optimistic Big_G. The UK is a decent market, but the EU is a bigger one. As usual with this process it's a matter of forgetting there's a 24 hour news cycle and going about our business as normal. Brexit is going to be a long, tedious process, listening to frothing on Twitter etc will just make it more so.
  • Charles said:

    Lennon said:

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.

    Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
    And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
    Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
    That will not stop negotiations

    No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.

    Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed :D
    Dated while still married is more apt...
    I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.

    Dates are not commitments. Marriages are. And only a fool gets married before knowing what the terms will be.

    Sure - no one will *sign* an FTA before the terms of the EU divorce are known. The question is whether they will negotiate them. They will - they may well reserve their position that 'this will need to be reviewed depending on' but they will see the chance of getting a better deal from the UK by accelerating the discussions.

    Yes, that is a fair point.

  • John_M said:

    Both the BBC and Sky seemed to think the proposed transistion deal is likely to receive a positive welcome from the government but that detail would need to be negotiated. Their bulletins did not provide any indication that TM is under immediate threat.

    It seems South Korea is very keen for a trade deal and the problem for the EU once we are free is that trade deals we strike may well attract EU companies to locate here in a reverse effect and to benefit from lower corporation tax rates

    I think that's optimistic Big_G. The UK is a decent market, but the EU is a bigger one. As usual with this process it's a matter of forgetting there's a 24 hour news cycle and going about our business as normal. Brexit is going to be a long, tedious process, listening to frothing on Twitter etc will just make it more so.
    The good thing that having run my own business I am optimistic and I am not on Twitter. I do agree however that Brexit will be long and tedious but it does feel tonight that 29th March 2019 will be our last day as an EU member, for better or worse
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    FBI deputy director has resigned?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    Looks like Lab are moving towards CU and SM also...

    What are you basing that on?
    Excellent news if that’s the case IMO.
    Paul Blomfield as reported in the Graun.
    Hmm... he still says a custom union rather than the customs union...
    The only way to stay in *the* customs union is to stay in the EU.
    Really? My understanding is Monaco is in customs union but not EU.
    So are the Channel Islands.....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    Looks like Lab are moving towards CU and SM also...

    What are you basing that on?
    Excellent news if that’s the case IMO.
    Paul Blomfield as reported in the Graun.
    Hmm... he still says a custom union rather than the customs union...
    The only way to stay in *the* customs union is to stay in the EU.
    Really? My understanding is Monaco is in customs union but not EU.
    So are the Channel Islands.....
    Perhaps we could ask to become a dominion of Ireland and maintain participation that way?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited January 2018
    Charles said:

    FF43 said:


    Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to give us less than what we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"

    Except you are assuming that the current EU deals are optimal for the UK. This is not necessarily the case.
    It's a fair challenge. My answer is the EU deals are effectively guaranteed to be better then the UK only ones. This isn't an EU-specific point. It's a multilateral versus bilateral point. Do you get better arrangements as part of an economic zone and when you have that larger zone represent you with third parties? Or is it better when you are a third-party to that zone and are operating a bilateral arrangement in the shadow of that zone?

    Multilateral is better than bilateral every time because:

    - Cumulative rules of origin - You are Aston Martin who sources the engine in the rEU (40% of the total value) and construct the car in the UK (another 40% of the value). You want to export to Korea without paying import duties but Korea has (I think) a 55% content threshold. You either pay the duty or you move all the content to the EU or to the UK (but they can't because there aren't any suppliers of suitable engines). Moving production or suppliers for tax reasons is trade diversion, which is inefficient. Also the EU as the larger party is going to be beneficiary from that diversion.

    - Economic might is leverage in negotiations. You can get deeper and wider agreements. You can get all the other parties to work to your system rather having to work to raft of incompatible systems, meaning companies have to adapt their products and sales processes more to each market.

    The Australian Productivity Commission has done work on bilateral versus multilateral trade deals. They reckon most bilateral trade deals are only marginally beneficial. You lose as much in trade diversion as you gain in access. Politicians however LOVE bilateral trade deals because they can go to each other's capitals and stand in front of a flag when signing the deal.

    Nevertheless, we are leaving the EU and our third party trade deals are important even if,as with so much to do with Brexit, it's a case of making the best of bad job.


  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    So will a third country negotiating an FTA on services with us thereby be able to sell those services into the EU without needing to register an EU-domiciled entity?
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Blair just continued government policy since 1971 MoDA introduced prohibition and Nixon's war on the blacks and the hippies, and based his judgement on drug policy on prejudice rather than evidence.However,Blair's Human Rights Act is a jewel of civil liberties legislation.
    Diane Abbott even gets kudos from The Spectator-she is the 1st black woman MP in this country and the nation should be proud of her achievements but to understand that you must understand not what she is but what she means and could mean for the future.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    We definitely won't have the long term arrangement with the EU settled even in outline by March 2019. The whole point of the "transition" is to avoid a WTO Brexit at this stage.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FF43 said:

    Charles said:

    FF43 said:


    Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to giv we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"

    Except you are assuming that the current EU deals are optimal for the UK. This is not necessarily the case.
    It's a fair challenge. My answer is the EU deals are effectively guaranteed to be better then the UK only ones. This isn't an EU-specific point. It's a multilateral versus bilateral point. Do you get better arrangements as part of an economic zone and when you have that larger zone represent you with third parties? Or is it better when you are a third-party to that zone and are operating a bilateral arrangement in the shadow of that zone?

    Multilateral is better than bilateral every time because:

    - Cumulative rules of origin - You are Aston Martin who sources the engine in the rEU (40% of the total value) and construct the car in the UK (another 40% of the value). You want to export to Korea without paying import duties but Korea has (I think) a 55% content threshold. You either pay the duty or you move all the content to the EU or to the UK (but they can't because there aren't any suppliers of suitable engines). Moving production or suppliers for tax reasons is trade diversion, which is inefficient. Also the EU as the larger party is going to be beneficiary from that diversion.

    - Economic might is leverage in negotiations. You can get deeper and wider agreements. You can get all the other parties to work to your system rather having to work to raft of incompatible systems, meaning companies have to adapt their products and sales processes more to each market.

    The Australian Productivity Commission has done work on bilateral versus multilateral trade deals. They reckon most bilateral trade deals are only marginally beneficial. You lose as much in trade diversion as you gain in access. Politicians however LOVE bilateral trade deals because they can go to each other's capitals and stand in front of a flag when signing the deal.

    Nevertheless, we are leaving the EU and our third party trade deals are important even if,as with so much to do with Brexit, it's a case of making the best of bad job.


    Not clear.

    Value of post Brexit FTA = UK negotiating power * 100%

    Value of pre Brexit FTA = (EU negotiating power * UK negotiating weight inside EU (say 12% based on GDP but could be less or more)) + (EU negotiating power * some benefit to the UK for other rights that are not optimised for the UK)


  • IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    FF43 said:

    - Cumulative rules of origin - You are Aston Martin who sources the engine in the rEU (40% of the total value) and construct the car in the UK (another 40% of the value). You want to export to Korea without paying import duties but Korea has (I think) a 55% content threshold. You either pay the duty or you move all the content to the EU or to the UK (but they can't because there aren't any suppliers of suitable engines). Moving production or suppliers for tax reasons is trade diversion, which is inefficient. Also the EU as the larger party is going to be beneficiary from that diversion.

    People don't really understand Rules of Origin, and that's a big problem.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    So will a third country negotiating an FTA on services with us thereby be able to sell those services into the EU without needing to register an EU-domiciled entity?
    They would not be able to anyway. If they are negotiating an FTA with us then it is with us alone not with the EU.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Blair just continued government policy since 1971 MoDA introduced prohibition and Nixon's war on the blacks and the hippies, and based his judgement on drug policy on prejudice rather than evidence.However,Blair's Human Rights Act is a jewel of civil liberties legislation.
    Diane Abbott even gets kudos from The Spectator-she is the 1st black woman MP in this country and the nation should be proud of her achievements but to understand that you must understand not what she is but what she means and could mean for the future.

    Nothing good, IMHO.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    Of course not but the longer out it gets the greater the possibility of, say, Labour deciding to keep the transitional arrangements permanent.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    Charles said:

    FF43 said:


    It's a fair challenge. My answer is the EU deals are effectively guaranteed to be better then the UK only ones. This isn't an EU-specific point. It's a multilateral versus bilateral point. Do you get better arrangements as part of an economic zone and when you have that larger zone represent you with third parties? Or is it better when you are a third-party to that zone and are operating a bilateral arrangement in the shadow of that zone?

    Multilateral is better than bilateral every time because:

    - Cumulative rules of origin - You are Aston Martin who sources the engine in the rEU (40% of the total value) and construct the car in the UK (another 40% of the value). You want to export to Korea without paying import duties but Korea has (I think) a 55% content threshold. You either pay the duty or you move all the content to the EU or to the UK (but they can't because there aren't any suppliers of suitable engines). Moving production or suppliers for tax reasons is trade diversion, which is inefficient. Also the EU as the larger party is going to be beneficiary from that diversion.

    - Economic might is leverage in negotiations. You can get deeper and wider agreements. You can get all the other parties to work to your system rather having to work to raft of incompatible systems, meaning companies have to adapt their products and sales processes more to each market.

    The Australian Productivity Commission has done work on bilateral versus multilateral trade deals. They reckon most bilateral trade deals are only marginally beneficial. You lose as much in trade diversion as you gain in access. Politicians however LOVE bilateral trade deals because they can go to each other's capitals and stand in front of a flag when signing the deal.

    Nevertheless, we are leaving the EU and our third party trade deals are important even if,as with so much to do with Brexit, it's a case of making the best of bad job.


    Not clear.

    Value of post Brexit FTA = UK negotiating power * 100%

    Value of pre Brexit FTA = (EU negotiating power * UK negotiating weight inside EU (say 12% based on GDP but could be less or more)) + (EU negotiating power * some benefit to the UK for other rights that are not optimised for the UK)


    The main reason why multilateral is better than bilateral is inherent to the nature of trade agreements, as I wrote. On your point about specialisation it isn't the case that UK companies are only interested in 12% of an EU trade deal but in 100% of a UK one. The more trade those deals cover, the better it is for all companies, whether UK or Spanish. There are very few products the UK doesn't sell at all. Oranges is the one I can think of at the moment.
  • TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    Of course not but the longer out it gets the greater the possibility of, say, Labour deciding to keep the transitional arrangements permanent.
    Indeed but that wasn't the point you were making earlier. And we would still be formally out of the EU which means a completely new treaty to re-enter. Good luck with that one.
  • Absolutely.
    And votes are information in electoral systems, so any system which discourages "honest" voting (pressures the voter away from their preferred choice to a "stop-the-worst" choice/tactical voting/so-and-so can't win here so vote for us instead) damages the vote-signal.

    (and now I really do have to close the laptop and head to the gym)

    I appreciate you're off, but in case you see this later:

    The point is that PR gives you signals which aren't terribly useful (and which you can get from opinion polls, for that matter). Yes, it might tell you that for 7% of the population, animal welfare is the most important issue, or that for 9% of the population tax cuts are very important. But it suppresses the information about what trade-offs you are prepared to accept to have your first wish, and (most importantly) it by design suppresses the information about whether everyone else strongly disapproves of party X's position. Much better to force any party which wants to get into government to have to consider these trade-offs before going to voters, rather than the absurd position where you don't know whether a vote for a centre-left party is a vote for a coalition with the far-left and a religious-nutter party, or a vote for a coalition with a centre-right and an anti-foxhunting party.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    Of course not but the longer out it gets the greater the possibility of, say, Labour deciding to keep the transitional arrangements permanent.
    Indeed but that wasn't the point you were making earlier. And we would still be formally out of the EU which means a completely new treaty to re-enter. Good luck with that one.
    The point I was making earlier is that no one can negotiate with us until our final state with the EU is known.

    Not a complicated point.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Everyone needs to get Monster Hunter 4. It's bloody brilliant
  • FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    We definitely won't have the long term arrangement with the EU settled even in outline by March 2019. The whole point of the "transition" is to avoid a WTO Brexit at this stage.
    No. The whole point is specifically to allow current trade arrangements to continue while a new deal is negotiated. But that does not cover matters such as single market and customs union membership. Those are matters that are covered by treaty and must be completed by March 2019 unless there is an A50 extension. If those matters are not settled and there is no extension then there will be a very hard Brexit
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Charles said:

    Not clear.

    Value of post Brexit FTA = UK negotiating power * 100%

    Value of pre Brexit FTA = (EU negotiating power * UK negotiating weight inside EU (say 12% based on GDP but could be less or more)) + (EU negotiating power * some benefit to the UK for other rights that are not optimised for the UK)


    While your calculation is - no doubt - correct, I think FF43 makes a good point wrt to Rules of Origin. If the UK, the EU, and South Korea all have free trade agreements with each other, it does not mean that (say) Aston Martin can export cars to Seoul duty free as the cars may fail the percentage of local content test.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited January 2018

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    It changes the false statement in your earlier posting, that the March 19 alternative to a deal is unavoidably a hard Brexit.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited January 2018

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    We definitely won't have the long term arrangement with the EU settled even in outline by March 2019. The whole point of the "transition" is to avoid a WTO Brexit at this stage.
    No. The whole point is specifically to allow current trade arrangements to continue while a new deal is negotiated. But that does not cover matters such as single market and customs union membership. Those are matters that are covered by treaty and must be completed by March 2019 unless there is an A50 extension. If those matters are not settled and there is no extension then there will be a very hard Brexit
    I may have misunderstood your point. You mean whether membership of the Customs Union and Single Market is included in the "transition" arrangement? The EU's negotiating guidelines released here today make this clear I think in para 16:

    In line with the European Council guidelines of 15 December 2017, any transitional arrangements require the United Kingdom's continued participation in the Customs Union andbthe Single Market (with all four freedoms) during the transition. The United Kingdom should take all necessary measures to preserve the integrity of the Single Market and of the Customs Union. The United Kingdom should continue to comply with the Union trade policy. It should also in particular ensure that its customs authorities continue to act in accordance with the mission of EU customs authorities including by collecting Common Customs Tariff duties and by performing all checks required under Union law at the border vis-à-vis other third
    countries. During the transition period, the United Kingdom may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.


    PS. The "transition" arrangements are part of the Article 50 withdrawal Agreement and will be a treaty between the UK and the EU.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    MaxPB said:

    Everyone needs to get Monster Hunter 4. It's bloody brilliant

    What platform?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    Good evening, everyone. Still lurking, and very glad we didn't leave it any later to disentangle ourselves.

    As a result of the previous thread, I have discovered that I could get a grant for university education with very little likelihood of ever having to pay any of it back.

    Doesn't seem right that someone my age could do that.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    John_M said:

    Both the BBC and Sky seemed to think the proposed transistion deal is likely to receive a positive welcome from the government but that detail would need to be negotiated. Their bulletins did not provide any indication that TM is under immediate threat.

    It seems South Korea is very keen for a trade deal and the problem for the EU once we are free is that trade deals we strike may well attract EU companies to locate here in a reverse effect and to benefit from lower corporation tax rates

    I think that's optimistic Big_G. The UK is a decent market, but the EU is a bigger one. As usual with this process it's a matter of forgetting there's a 24 hour news cycle and going about our business as normal. Brexit is going to be a long, tedious process, listening to frothing on Twitter etc will just make it more so.
    The good thing that having run my own business I am optimistic and I am not on Twitter. I do agree however that Brexit will be long and tedious but it does feel tonight that 29th March 2019 will be our last day as an EU member, for better or worse
    I've stopped watching, tuned out of Brexit completely. We see about 2% of what is going on. Whats the point?

    I thought that the Nadine Dorries buzzfeed revelations were pretty funny though. It turns out from her Whatsapp messages with other MP's that she doesn't understand how the customs union works, but thinks we are better off out, because she has an instinct that it is too complicated. This was in October last year, 18 months after the referendum.

    I don't understand the customs union either, but I'm not an MP. If I was, I would at least get my head round the basic way in which the EU works before I start advocating to leave it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited January 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Everyone needs to get Monster Hunter 4. It's bloody brilliant

    What platform?
    PS4. I'm house sitting for my parents in London at the moment because they are away, I've brought my PS4 with me just for that.
  • FF43 said:



    I may have misunderstood your point. You mean whether membership of the Customs Union and Single Market is included in the "transition" arrangement? The EU's negotiating guidelines released here today make this clear I think in para 16:

    In line with the European Council guidelines of 15 December 2017, any transitional arrangements require the United Kingdom's continued participation in the Customs Union andbthe Single Market (with all four freedoms) during the transition. The United Kingdom should take all necessary measures to preserve the integrity of the Single Market and of the Customs Union. The United Kingdom should continue to comply with the Union trade policy. It should also in particular ensure that its customs authorities continue to act in accordance with the mission of EU customs authorities including by collecting Common Customs Tariff duties and by performing all checks required under Union law at the border vis-à-vis other third
    countries. During the transition period, the United Kingdom may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.


    PS. The "transition" arrangements are part of the Article 50 withdrawal Agreement and will be a treaty between the UK and the EU.

    Nope. Membership of the customs union and Single Market are indeed to be maintained during the transition period. But we have to have decided with the EU whether or not that will be permanent after we leave before the end of the A50 negotiations in March 2019 (or later if we have a formal extension). We cannot continue to negotiate the final constitutional deal on our relationship with the EU during the transition period.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    rkrkrk said:

    FBI deputy director has resigned?

    Leaving early. Due to retire soon I think.

    I did see a note that says he is now free to be a witness for Mueller...
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    It changes the false statement in your earlier posting, that the March 19 alternative to a deal is unavoidably a hard Brexit.
    No It does not. I have always recognised that it is possible to have a formal extension. But that is not the same thing as the transition period which some people here seem to think.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    It changes the false statement in your earlier posting, that the March 19 alternative to a deal is unavoidably a hard Brexit.
    No It does not. I have always recognised that it is possible to have a formal extension. But that is not the same thing as the transition period which some people here seem to think.
    "Always", as in when you said: "Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit"?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    IanB2 said:

    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China

    I've often thought that the Industrial Revolution should have taken place in the Roman Empire or Ptolmeiac Egypt. Both societies such had the science and technical skills to achieve it.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China

    I've often thought that the Industrial Revolution should have taken place in the Roman Empire or Ptolmeiac Egypt. Both societies such had the science and technical skills to achieve it.
    An old college chum has just published a novel about a Roman IR - Kingdom of the Wicked. Not read it yet myself, but it's had some very good reviews.
  • "Jeremy and Diane go back a long way –during a romantic period in early 80s he took her on a first date to Highgate cemetery."

    So that's ok then??!! And you seriously aren't going to condemn this outright as a way of picking a shadow cabinet? Because they've slept together? And you would vote for them to form a government?


    Unbelievable. Simply breathtaking hypocricy.


  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    FF43 said:



    I may have misunderstood your point. You mean whether membership of the Customs Union and Single Market is included in the "transition" arrangement? The EU's negotiating guidelines released here today make this clear I think in para 16:

    In line with the European Council guidelines of 15 December 2017, any transitional arrangements require the United Kingdom's continued participation in the Customs Union andbthe Single Market (with all four freedoms) during the transition. The United Kingdom should take all necessary measures to preserve the integrity of the Single Market and of the Customs Union. The United Kingdom should continue to comply with the Union trade policy. It should also in particular ensure that its customs authorities continue to act in accordance with the mission of EU customs authorities including by collecting Common Customs Tariff duties and by performing all checks required under Union law at the border vis-à-vis other third
    countries. During the transition period, the United Kingdom may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.


    PS. The "transition" arrangements are part of the Article 50 withdrawal Agreement and will be a treaty between the UK and the EU.

    Nope. Membership of the customs union and Single Market are indeed to be maintained during the transition period. But we have to have decided with the EU whether or not that will be permanent after we leave before the end of the A50 negotiations in March 2019 (or later if we have a formal extension). We cannot continue to negotiate the final constitutional deal on our relationship with the EU during the transition period.
    You’ve misunderstood something somewhere. Whether we have an EEA-style solution or not does not have to be determined before the formal exit.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,055

    "Jeremy and Diane go back a long way –during a romantic period in early 80s he took her on a first date to Highgate cemetery."

    So that's ok then??!! And you seriously aren't going to condemn this outright as a way of picking a shadow cabinet? Because they've slept together? And you would vote for them to form a government?


    Unbelievable. Simply breathtaking hypocricy.


    Loyalty to old friends is admirable, and that works both ways, but Diane Abbott needs to step aside for her own health.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    nielh said:

    John_M said:

    Both the BBC and Sky seemed to think the proposed transistion deal is likely to receive a positive welcome from the government but that detail would need to be negotiated. Their bulletins did not provide any indication that TM is under immediate threat.

    It seems South Korea is very keen for a trade deal and the problem for the EU once we are free is that trade deals we strike may well attract EU companies to locate here in a reverse effect and to benefit from lower corporation tax rates

    I think that's optimistic Big_G. The UK is a decent market, but the EU is a bigger one. As usual with this process it's a matter of forgetting there's a 24 hour news cycle and going about our business as normal. Brexit is going to be a long, tedious process, listening to frothing on Twitter etc will just make it more so.
    The good thing that having run my own business I am optimistic and I am not on Twitter. I do agree however that Brexit will be long and tedious but it does feel tonight that 29th March 2019 will be our last day as an EU member, for better or worse
    I've stopped watching, tuned out of Brexit completely. We see about 2% of what is going on. Whats the point?

    I thought that the Nadine Dorries buzzfeed revelations were pretty funny though. It turns out from her Whatsapp messages with other MP's that she doesn't understand how the customs union works, but thinks we are better off out, because she has an instinct that it is too complicated. This was in October last year, 18 months after the referendum.

    I don't understand the customs union either, but I'm not an MP. If I was, I would at least get my head round the basic way in which the EU works before I start advocating to leave it.
    This is why the likes of Hannan and Carswell have a heavy responsibility for what has happened. People like Dorries might reasonably have expected that such ‘respected’ figures on the right would at least know what they were talking about and that it was safe to copy their rhetoric.
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    It changes the false statement in your earlier posting, that the March 19 alternative to a deal is unavoidably a hard Brexit.
    No It does not. I have always recognised that it is possible to have a formal extension. But that is not the same thing as the transition period which some people here seem to think.
    "Always", as in when you said: "Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit"?
    Bother reading practically every other post I have made this evening and I mentioned the possibility of an extension. If the only way you can score a point is by picking one post where I didn't repeat that point then you really are getting desperate. One might almost think you have no other answers to my comments.
  • FF43 said:



    I may have misunderstood your point. You mean whether membership of the Customs Union and Single Market is included in the "transition" arrangement? The EU's negotiating guidelines released here today make this clear I think in para 16:

    In line with the European Council guidelines of 15 December 2017, any transitional arrangements require the United Kingdom's continued participation in the Customs Union andbthe Single Market (with all four freedoms) during the transition. The United Kingdom should take all necessary measures to preserve the integrity of the Single Market and of the Customs Union. The United Kingdom should continue to comply with the Union trade policy. It should also in particular ensure that its customs authorities continue to act in accordance with the mission of EU customs authorities including by collecting Common Customs Tariff duties and by performing all checks required under Union law at the border vis-à-vis other third
    countries. During the transition period, the United Kingdom may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.


    PS. The "transition" arrangements are part of the Article 50 withdrawal Agreement and will be a treaty between the UK and the EU.

    Nope. Membership of the customs union and Single Market are indeed to be maintained during the transition period. But we have to have decided with the EU whether or not that will be permanent after we leave before the end of the A50 negotiations in March 2019 (or later if we have a formal extension). We cannot continue to negotiate the final constitutional deal on our relationship with the EU during the transition period.
    You’ve misunderstood something somewhere. Whether we have an EEA-style solution or not does not have to be determined before the formal exit.
    Yes it does. Since it also determines every other aspect of our relationship with the EU including payments, freedom of movement, membership of the CAP and the CFP and the role of the ECJ. If these are not resolved before the formal Brexit then we default to a no deal situation. The only way to avoid this is with a formal extension.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    It changes the false statement in your earlier posting, that the March 19 alternative to a deal is unavoidably a hard Brexit.
    No It does not. I have always recognised that it is possible to have a formal extension. But that is not the same thing as the transition period which some people here seem to think.
    "Always", as in when you said: "Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit"?
    Bother reading practically every other post I have made this evening and I mentioned the possibility of an extension. If the only way you can score a point is by picking one post where I didn't repeat that point then you really are getting desperate. One might almost think you have no other answers to my comments.
    Honestly, it was the only one I read when I last dipped in. Bad luck if I hit on the only one that was inaccurate.
  • Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China

    I've often thought that the Industrial Revolution should have taken place in the Roman Empire or Ptolmeiac Egypt. Both societies such had the science and technical skills to achieve it.
    I always understood that the seeds of the industrial revolution germinated in England because of the availability of capital and the rule of law: you could have great ideas and be rewarded for developing them without the top level elites taking all the wealth you generated away from you. In Rome, the society was such a cleptocracy that - coupled with slavery - there would have been insufficient competition and protection to allow this. What do the PB historians think?
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:



    OK so logically* do you think it would be possible for a third country to negotiate with us if our final relationship with the EU is unknown?

    *appreciate perhaps not a strength.

    It will be known. As I said earlier there is no choice in this. Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit. Either way we and any prospective trade partners will know what the arrangements are.
    If March 19 is looming and there is no deal, there will be massive pressure for an extension.
    True but that changes nothing in terms of the transition period except the date. If there is a formal extension then we stay in the EU for that period and nothing changes. Once the transition period starts we are back in the position I stated.
    It changes the false statement in your earlier posting, that the March 19 alternative to a deal is unavoidably a hard Brexit.
    No It does not. I have always recognised that it is possible to have a formal extension. But that is not the same thing as the transition period which some people here seem to think.
    "Always", as in when you said: "Either we have the constitutional issues including the Single Market and Customs Union sorted by March 2019 or we hard Brexit"?
    Bother reading practically every other post I have made this evening and I mentioned the possibility of an extension. If the only way you can score a point is by picking one post where I didn't repeat that point then you really are getting desperate. One might almost think you have no other answers to my comments.
    Honestly, it was the only one I read when I last dipped in. Bad luck if I hit on the only one that was inaccurate.
    No worries. I know normally you argue on substantive points which was why this threw me.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    It is been hard fo

    "Jeremy and Diane go back a long way –during a romantic period in early 80s he took her on a first date to Highgate cemetery."

    So that's ok then??!! And you seriously aren't going to condemn this outright as a way of picking a shadow cabinet? Because they've slept together? And you would vote for them to form a government?


    Unbelievable. Simply breathtaking hypocricy.


    To be honest I'm not sure events really support the idea that the only way into Corbyn's shadow cabinet is by sleeping with him...
  • Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China

    I've often thought that the Industrial Revolution should have taken place in the Roman Empire or Ptolmeiac Egypt. Both societies such had the science and technical skills to achieve it.
    I always understood that the seeds of the industrial revolution germinated in England because of the availability of capital and the rule of law: you could have great ideas and be rewarded for developing them without the top level elites taking all the wealth you generated away from you. In Rome, the society was such a cleptocracy that - coupled with slavery - there would have been insufficient competition and protection to allow this. What do the PB historians think?
    I thought that one of the main drivers across Northern Europe was the adoption of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism. This drives changes in forms of Government and in the growth of the idea of individual achievement that was lacking in the more centralised Catholic countries.
  • Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China

    I've often thought that the Industrial Revolution should have taken place in the Roman Empire or Ptolmeiac Egypt. Both societies such had the science and technical skills to achieve it.
    It may well be that competing countries as in 18C and 19C Europe was a better base than Empires spanning half a continent.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.

    I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.

    .

    Like in 1964 and 1974?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China

    I've often thought that the Industrial Revolution should have taken place in the Roman Empire or Ptolmeiac Egypt. Both societies such had the science and technical skills to achieve it.
    I always understood that the seeds of the industrial revolution germinated in England because of the availability of capital and the rule of law: you could have great ideas and be rewarded for developing them without the top level elites taking all the wealth you generated away from you. In Rome, the society was such a cleptocracy that - coupled with slavery - there would have been insufficient competition and protection to allow this. What do the PB historians think?
    I thought that one of the main drivers across Northern Europe was the adoption of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism. This drives changes in forms of Government and in the growth of the idea of individual achievement that was lacking in the more centralised Catholic countries.
    Being centralised and Catholic didn't seem to slow da Vinci down much.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China

    I've often thought that the Industrial Revolution should have taken place in the Roman Empire or Ptolmeiac Egypt. Both societies such had the science and technical skills to achieve it.
    I always understood that the seeds of the industrial revolution germinated in England because of the availability of capital and the rule of law: you could have great ideas and be rewarded for developing them without the top level elites taking all the wealth you generated away from you. In Rome, the society was such a cleptocracy that - coupled with slavery - there would have been insufficient competition and protection to allow this. What do the PB historians think?
    I think that the widespread use of slave labour in mining and technology would have retarded industrial development, compared to the use of wage labour, and self-employment. Being sent to the mines was a death sentence in the Ancient World. Also, the Roman elite were hugely prejudiced against trade and commerce (which didn't stop the engaging in moneylending, building and property speculation). But financing inventors or engineers, let alone doing such things themselves, would have meant social death. This prejudice also existed in 18th and 19th century England, but was outweighed by a desire to make money.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Interesting information on the Immigration Minister:

    http://jacparty.weebly.com/caroline-nokes-mp.html
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Slightly off topic...The Roman Empire (27 BC-1453 AD) along with its Eastern counterpart, the Han Dynasty of China (206 BC-220 AD) were roughly equal, with regards to their respective technological levels of attainment.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-was-more-technologically-advanced-the-Roman-Empire-or-Han-China

    I've often thought that the Industrial Revolution should have taken place in the Roman Empire or Ptolmeiac Egypt. Both societies such had the science and technical skills to achieve it.
    I always understood that the seeds of the industrial revolution germinated in England because of the availability of capital and the rule of law: you could have great ideas and be rewarded for developing them without the top level elites taking all the wealth you generated away from you. In Rome, the society was such a cleptocracy that - coupled with slavery - there would have been insufficient competition and protection to allow this. What do the PB historians think?
    I thought that one of the main drivers across Northern Europe was the adoption of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism. This drives changes in forms of Government and in the growth of the idea of individual achievement that was lacking in the more centralised Catholic countries.
    Renaissance Italy was pretty entrepreneurial, and France and the Austrian Netherlands were industrialising as quickly as England after 1750. But the Revolution and subsequent wars set back industrialisation in those places, while boosting its pace in the UK.
  • NEW THREAD

  • Foxy said:

    "Jeremy and Diane go back a long way –during a romantic period in early 80s he took her on a first date to Highgate cemetery."

    So that's ok then??!! And you seriously aren't going to condemn this outright as a way of picking a shadow cabinet? Because they've slept together? And you would vote for them to form a government?


    Unbelievable. Simply breathtaking hypocricy.


    Loyalty to old friends is admirable, and that works both ways, but Diane Abbott needs to step aside for her own health.

    So you'd give a job to someone because you'd slept with them? Worse still, youd give a job to them in the public sector? Paid for by taxpayers?

    Revolting hypocricy from the Left. Words fail one....
This discussion has been closed.