Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Does this Indy writer have a point – is Boris now really that

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited May 19 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Does this Indy writer have a point – is Boris now really that vulnerable and will be out by Christmas?

The above article has been posted this afternoon on The Independent website and puts forward what Sir Humphrey would describe as a ” very courageous” prediction. Sure Boris has not had the best of times leading a government facing the pandemic and sure the UK’s comparative record has not been that great.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,226
    edited May 19
    What mechanism is meant to dislodge him?

    Edit: sorry, point made in header.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 766
    To be fair, he's made a specific prediction within a specific timeline. So if it does, or doesn't, happen, then we have evidence on whether, or not, to take the author seriously in the future.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 46,465
    QTWTAIN.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,640

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 34,561
    RobD said:

    QTWTAIN.

    Clowns belong in the circus - not in No. 10 :lol::lol:

    :lol::lol:
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 863
    Hasn't he got a show on TV about dogs?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,232
    Okay all clear and understandable.

    Stay alert = Stay at home.

    And wash your hands.
  • MangoMango Posts: 574

    To be fair, he's made a specific prediction within a specific timeline. So if it does, or doesn't, happen, then we have evidence on whether, or not, to take the author seriously in the future.

    That is really not how the UK works...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316

    To be fair, he's made a specific prediction within a specific timeline. So if it does, or doesn't, happen, then we have evidence on whether, or not, to take the author seriously in the future.

    If we're taking the evidence of a single inaccurate prediction as an indicator of whether to take anyone seriously, then we can take very few on PB seriously.

    But now that you mention it, ....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    (FPT)
    ydoethur said:

    ukpaul said:

    I've said this before but it's as though this virus has an instant rebuttal system. As soon as people start thinking one thing about its nature, it reveals something about itself that throws what you thought you knew into confusion. Two steps forwards, one step back. I've been checking out people working in the COVID field on twitter, so many studies that compete against each other and the danger of acting on new data just makes the whole decision making even riskier.
    This may be a silly question, as I am no scientist.

    Is it possible it is just as unstable as hell and keeps mutating, so we get all this weird confusion of effects?
    It's more that as we learn more about the viral disease, its complexities become apparent.

    There is a certain amount of mutation that goes on, but far less so than in (for example) influenza viruses. It's even been suggested that some of the detected small mutations have functional effects on virus activity, but that's not been conclusively demonstrated (and in any event are relatively minor effects in the context of the disease).

    The virus can infect a load of different cell types in the body, and its interactions with the immune system are exceptionally complicated, and poorly understood. (The immune system itself is exceptionally complicated, and inadequately, if rather better understood.)

    So no, we get selective reporting of new phenomena as they are observed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,385
    edited May 19
    "The emotional maturity of a toddler" -

    I think this is bang on for Trump but rather harsh for Johnson. He clearly is immature but he's not down at toddler level. More teenager.

    As for him going this year - IMO only health or a sleaze scandal of huge proportions would cause that.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 2,759
    kjh said:

    Andrew said:

    A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.


    People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
    Presumably there will be a significant number of people who would have died in the near future who have died of Covid in the last couple of months thus bringing the death rate below the 5 year average for a number of future months when we are past the Covid impact.
    If someone is driving dangerously mounts the pavement and runs over one elderly person who "would have died in the near future" anyway, this is considered an outrageous tragedy.

    When 10,000 such people suffer a nasty death due to a pandemic, many people say 'it's sad but they would have died soon anyway'.

    I find this totally baffling.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    Good old fashioned QTWAIN.
  • eekeek Posts: 7,831
    edited May 19

    No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.

    Yes, and the products made for sale in the EU have to adhere to the legal trading standards set by the EU. Brexiteers insist that won't apply to Britain after we leave. Its bollocks and they know it.

    Not that we plan on downgrading EU standards of course. So they insist. So adhering to said EU standards which we choose to have as UK standards would be a good plan. Which would mean easy access to the EEA, no border down the Irish Sea etc etc. But can't have that because wazzocks.

    If we want to vary our standards we will be able to do so. Companies already make a plethora of models of products, if they want to manufacture a GB model of a product to be sold in GB then there is no reason they can't do that while still also manufacturing EU models to be sold in the EU.
    Ever heard of benefits of scale (you may remember it from such things as the pin manufacturing in Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations). Unless you think Britain should have poorer quality goods how do you think savings would be made?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 5,035
    It all depends on the toxicity of the Boris brand by then and the willpower of the man to carry on. He won a thumping 80 seat majority not long ago so must carry on, yes? Absolutely, as Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher went on and on after their own thumping victories of 87 and 05.

    He has always wanted to be Prime Minister. And he has achieved that ambition. Having reached the top and found the job to be not all it was hoped to be, with baby number 6/7 to occupy his attention and a new calmer/wiser set of life experience under his belt its not an outrageous suggestion that he won't walk away to use his considerable talents elsewhere?

    The question is will he do a Wilson and walk under his own steam or be forced out that Blair or Thatcher by a party who quickly found the thumping majority turned into a thumping liability. We're going to end this year with a big pile of bodies and a long queue at the Job Centre. Throwing a liability PM under the bus to start again again again again (with a 4th PM FFS) might have appeal to the notorious Machiavellian 22
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,182

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    As I said on the previous thread, this is (another?) topic that Mr Thompson is clearly completely out of his depth on.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    eristdoof said:


    kjh said:

    Andrew said:

    A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.


    People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
    Presumably there will be a significant number of people who would have died in the near future who have died of Covid in the last couple of months thus bringing the death rate below the 5 year average for a number of future months when we are past the Covid impact.
    If someone is driving dangerously mounts the pavement and runs over one elderly person who "would have died in the near future" anyway, this is considered an outrageous tragedy.

    When 10,000 such people suffer a nasty death due to a pandemic, many people say 'it's sad but they would have died soon anyway'.

    I find this totally baffling.
    That is not at all my reaction to Hancock/PHE's errors, FWIW.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,778
    TOPPING said:

    Okay all clear and understandable.

    Stay alert = Stay at home.

    And wash your hands.

    Unless you're going to "Pick for Britain".
    In which case wash your hands.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 2,759
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    ydoethur said:

    ukpaul said:

    I've said this before but it's as though this virus has an instant rebuttal system. As soon as people start thinking one thing about its nature, it reveals something about itself that throws what you thought you knew into confusion. Two steps forwards, one step back. I've been checking out people working in the COVID field on twitter, so many studies that compete against each other and the danger of acting on new data just makes the whole decision making even riskier.
    This may be a silly question, as I am no scientist.

    Is it possible it is just as unstable as hell and keeps mutating, so we get all this weird confusion of effects?
    It's more that as we learn more about the viral disease, its complexities become apparent.

    There is a certain amount of mutation that goes on, but far less so than in (for example) influenza viruses. It's even been suggested that some of the detected small mutations have functional effects on virus activity, but that's not been conclusively demonstrated (and in any event are relatively minor effects in the context of the disease).

    The virus can infect a load of different cell types in the body, and its interactions with the immune system are exceptionally complicated, and poorly understood. (The immune system itself is exceptionally complicated, and inadequately, if rather better understood.)

    So no, we get selective reporting of new phenomena as they are observed.
    Indeed.

    Biology is complicated but with Sars-Cov-2/Covid-19 people want results as soon as possible. It is quite normal that there are conflicting results in scientific experiments, but as findings get confirmed or contradicted by other groups doing similar experiments the overall scientific understanding converges. Usually ths goes on out of the glare of the media (or websites dedicated to political betting) and over a timescale of years not months.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,678
    edited May 19
    Number in hospital with virus UP 600 from yesterday.

    EDIT: Looks like reason is there were no numbers reported for Northern Ireland yesterday.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,428
    Hospital admissions up by over 600 and 545 new deaths which means a large amount occurred in the care homes and in the home .

    Not to worry Hancock had a protective ring around care homes ! So protective that they shipped in patients with the virus to those care homes .
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837
    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Okay all clear and understandable.

    Stay alert = Stay at home.

    And wash your hands.

    Unless you're going to "Pick for Britain".
    In which case wash your hands.
    You can hold off picking for Britain for a wee bit yet.

    'The service is unavailable.'

    https://pickforbritain.org.uk/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 46,465

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Okay all clear and understandable.

    Stay alert = Stay at home.

    And wash your hands.

    Unless you're going to "Pick for Britain".
    In which case wash your hands.
    You can hold off picking for Britain for a wee bit yet.

    'The service is unavailable.'

    https://pickforbritain.org.uk/
    Crashed because of demand, perhaps?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,182
    On thread, I love the headline, so much of it true, but I think he will be held in the post for considerable time by those around him. It will be a carbon copy of Jeremy Corbyn - an absurd individual in a role that even he has realised he is not cut for. People will eventually feel sorry for him. Like watching a washed up rock star that was never really that good anyway, but people still try and make him sing.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 216
    It looks like we have the C Team again. I've forgotten waht Whitty and Vallance look like! Wasn't there a character in the Beano called "Useless Eustace"?

    😊
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069
    If the PM leaves before the end of 2022 it will be down to health and personal issues imo. I think it is quite plausible but not value in the betting markets.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,307
    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Okay all clear and understandable.

    Stay alert = Stay at home.

    And wash your hands.

    Unless you're going to "Pick for Britain".
    In which case wash your hands.
    You can hold off picking for Britain for a wee bit yet.

    'The service is unavailable.'

    https://pickforbritain.org.uk/
    Crashed because of demand, perhaps?
    Perhaps, people don't generally want to be sitting at home on UC.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,182

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,097
    Like Lady Macbeth, he looks as though having achieved his heart's desire, he is struggling to deal with the enormity of the price he has had to pay to win it.

    I don't see him being forced out by the end of the year but I can conceive of him resigning in that timescale.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,678
    nico67 said:

    Hospital admissions up by over 600 and 545 new deaths which means a large amount occurred in the care homes and in the home .

    Not to worry Hancock had a protective ring around care homes ! So protective that they shipped in patients with the virus to those care homes .

    TOTAL in hospital up 600 because no numbers reported for Northern Ireland yesterday.

    NEW admissions to hospital 639, down from 678 yesterday.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 46,465

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
    I'm actually curious, which parts of the post are incorrect?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837
    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Okay all clear and understandable.

    Stay alert = Stay at home.

    And wash your hands.

    Unless you're going to "Pick for Britain".
    In which case wash your hands.
    You can hold off picking for Britain for a wee bit yet.

    'The service is unavailable.'

    https://pickforbritain.org.uk/
    Crashed because of demand, perhaps?
    All those folk wanting to give those lazy, cowardly teachers and council workers a good showing up?
  • DensparkDenspark Posts: 68
    edited May 19
    MikeL said:

    Number in hospital with virus UP 600 from yesterday.

    EDIT: Looks like reason is there were no numbers reported for Northern Ireland yesterday.

    eh?
    639 admitted ,but 685 less people in hospital than the day before.

    edit. Hmm the dataset doesn't seem to match the slide due to NI.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,966
    "Germany naturally had more testing capacity in their economy" says Cabinet minister.

    Naturally?

    The tests grow on trees?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 46,465

    "Germany naturally had more testing capacity in their economy" says Cabinet minister.

    Naturally?

    The tests grow on trees?

    Their diagnostics industry was larger pre-crisis. I don't think that's a controversial statement.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    eek said:

    No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.

    Yes, and the products made for sale in the EU have to adhere to the legal trading standards set by the EU. Brexiteers insist that won't apply to Britain after we leave. Its bollocks and they know it.

    Not that we plan on downgrading EU standards of course. So they insist. So adhering to said EU standards which we choose to have as UK standards would be a good plan. Which would mean easy access to the EEA, no border down the Irish Sea etc etc. But can't have that because wazzocks.

    If we want to vary our standards we will be able to do so. Companies already make a plethora of models of products, if they want to manufacture a GB model of a product to be sold in GB then there is no reason they can't do that while still also manufacturing EU models to be sold in the EU.
    Ever heard of benefits of scale (you may remember it from such things as the pin manufacturing in Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations). Unless you think Britain should have poorer quality goods how do you think savings would be made?
    Manufacturers can do scale by using common components in both where possible while using other components where it isn't possible. As they already do!

    Its remarkable how car companies for instance can manufacture Vauxhall specification cars for the UK and manufacture Opel specification cars for the EU. And they did even when we were in the EU because the Vauxhall brand suited the UK.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    It looks like we have the C Team again. I've forgotten waht Whitty and Vallance look like! Wasn't there a character in the Beano called "Useless Eustace"?

    😊

    Id forgotten he was in the cabinet, very anonymous but to be fair better at these than Williamson, Patel, Sharma, Shapps, similarly grey and dull to Raab.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,307
    MikeL said:

    nico67 said:

    Hospital admissions up by over 600 and 545 new deaths which means a large amount occurred in the care homes and in the home .

    Not to worry Hancock had a protective ring around care homes ! So protective that they shipped in patients with the virus to those care homes .

    TOTAL in hospital up 600 because no numbers reported for Northern Ireland yesterday.

    NEW admissions to hospital 639, down from 678 yesterday.
    A 6% reduction (Which would be in line with the 14 day halving time) rather than the 88% increase your initial post hinted at ?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898
    Johnson might decide to go of his own volition, but I'd suspect that would be more likely in 2021 when the Brexit transition is over.

    One factor that is keeping him safe is that there's no Churchill figure, who had been warning of virus dangers, to replace him with.

    The other factor is that most of the public pressure is misaligned with that from his backbenches.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,589
    eristdoof said:


    kjh said:

    Andrew said:

    A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.


    People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
    Presumably there will be a significant number of people who would have died in the near future who have died of Covid in the last couple of months thus bringing the death rate below the 5 year average for a number of future months when we are past the Covid impact.
    If someone is driving dangerously mounts the pavement and runs over one elderly person who "would have died in the near future" anyway, this is considered an outrageous tragedy.

    When 10,000 such people suffer a nasty death due to a pandemic, many people say 'it's sad but they would have died soon anyway'.

    I find this totally baffling.
    Posting this again, because Neil Ferguson's idiotic assertion that "up to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway" seems to have stuck:

    https://www.theactuary.com/features/2020/05/07/co-morbidity-question

    Plenty of people live for decades with serious pre-existing medical conditions (diabetes, in particular). Even obese male 80-year-old smokers with heart conditions can be expected to live, on average, another five to ten years. It is complete nonsense to assume that the people who have died to Covid-19 in the past few months will have a material downward impact on mortality for the rest of the year, just by no longer being in the population.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    eek said:

    No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.

    Yes, and the products made for sale in the EU have to adhere to the legal trading standards set by the EU. Brexiteers insist that won't apply to Britain after we leave. Its bollocks and they know it.

    Not that we plan on downgrading EU standards of course. So they insist. So adhering to said EU standards which we choose to have as UK standards would be a good plan. Which would mean easy access to the EEA, no border down the Irish Sea etc etc. But can't have that because wazzocks.

    If we want to vary our standards we will be able to do so. Companies already make a plethora of models of products, if they want to manufacture a GB model of a product to be sold in GB then there is no reason they can't do that while still also manufacturing EU models to be sold in the EU.
    Ever heard of benefits of scale (you may remember it from such things as the pin manufacturing in Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations). Unless you think Britain should have poorer quality goods how do you think savings would be made?
    Manufacturers can do scale by using common components in both where possible while using other components where it isn't possible. As they already do!

    Its remarkable how car companies for instance can manufacture Vauxhall specification cars for the UK and manufacture Opel specification cars for the EU. And they did even when we were in the EU because the Vauxhall brand suited the UK.
    If you ask Vauxhall could they build their cars cheaper if they didnt have to do LHD and RHD models, what would their answer be?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 40,166
    edited May 19
    Frost's letter to Barnier:

    Overall, at this moment in negotiations, what is on offer is not a fair free trade relationship between close economic partners, but a relatively low-quality trade agreement coming with unprecedented EU oversight of our laws and institutions.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
    No you are. You know I'm right and have no retort so resort to smartarsed replies because you have nothing actually smart to say.

    Anyone intelligent can see that it's entirely possible for Asian nations to manufacture to European standards without having European laws domestically. Only a blithering imbecile would think otherwise.

    Oh sorry just realised who I was talking to.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,428
    MikeL said:

    nico67 said:

    Hospital admissions up by over 600 and 545 new deaths which means a large amount occurred in the care homes and in the home .

    Not to worry Hancock had a protective ring around care homes ! So protective that they shipped in patients with the virus to those care homes .

    TOTAL in hospital up 600 because no numbers reported for Northern Ireland yesterday.

    NEW admissions to hospital 639, down from 678 yesterday.
    Overall less have recovered hence the net increase in hospitalized . The NI figure wouldn’t be that much given its size so the 639 figure is mostly coming from the other nations , mostly England .

    Apart from the better news on new confirmed cases today’s update is dismal .
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,097

    Frost's letter to Barnier:

    Overall, at this moment in negotiations, what is on offer is not a fair free trade relationship between close economic partners, but a relatively low-quality trade agreement coming with unprecedented EU oversight of our laws and institutions.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

    Both sides look like they are just going through the motions right now.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969
    These daily conference have become a waste of time

    2 or 3 times a week at max
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,678
    edited May 19
    Ignore number in hospital yesterday as Northern Ireland data missing.

    So go back two days for comparison. TOTAL in hospital:

    17 May slide: 10,035
    19 May slide: 10,025

    So almost static over last 48 hours.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 2,221
    kinabalu said:

    "The emotional maturity of a toddler" -

    I think this bang on for Trump but rather harsh for Johnson. He clearly is immature but he's not down at toddler level. More teenager.

    As for him going this year - IMO only health or a sleaze scandal of huge proportions would cause that.

    Yeah more like a teenager. The sexual incontinence would be weird in a toddler.
    With respect to the question - seems a stretch, but it wouldn't be without precedent. In the modern era (which I define as my lifetime because I am a self centred bastard) five PMs have been defenestrated mid-term in favour of a successor from their own party - May, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher and Wilson. That's one more than the number who went after losing an election (Wilson has a foot in both camps but his 1970 election defeat is outside my sample period).
    Of those five, you could argue that only Blair and May seemed obviously for the chop seven months before they went. Thatcher was unpopular in February 1990 I think (she was always unpopular in our house, obvs) but I don't remember it being obvious she would be replaced at that point. Cameron wasn't expected to lose the EU referendum, and Wilson's resignation on health grounds was a shock. So like I say, seems unlikely but wouldn't rule it out. 25% probability?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
    I'm actually curious, which parts of the post are incorrect?
    Thank you. I'm curious too but expect silence on that matter.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    eek said:

    No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.

    Yes, and the products made for sale in the EU have to adhere to the legal trading standards set by the EU. Brexiteers insist that won't apply to Britain after we leave. Its bollocks and they know it.

    Not that we plan on downgrading EU standards of course. So they insist. So adhering to said EU standards which we choose to have as UK standards would be a good plan. Which would mean easy access to the EEA, no border down the Irish Sea etc etc. But can't have that because wazzocks.

    If we want to vary our standards we will be able to do so. Companies already make a plethora of models of products, if they want to manufacture a GB model of a product to be sold in GB then there is no reason they can't do that while still also manufacturing EU models to be sold in the EU.
    Ever heard of benefits of scale (you may remember it from such things as the pin manufacturing in Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations). Unless you think Britain should have poorer quality goods how do you think savings would be made?
    Manufacturers can do scale by using common components in both where possible while using other components where it isn't possible. As they already do!

    Its remarkable how car companies for instance can manufacture Vauxhall specification cars for the UK and manufacture Opel specification cars for the EU. And they did even when we were in the EU because the Vauxhall brand suited the UK.
    If you ask Vauxhall could they build their cars cheaper if they didnt have to do LHD and RHD models, what would their answer be?
    Does it matter?

    They are capable of doing both models. Just as any variance in our standards will see manufacturers capable of producing multiple models.

    Manufacturers already do produce multiple models. What matters is whether consumer demand is there.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,182
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
    I'm actually curious, which parts of the post are incorrect?
    The general naivety. Ask anyone who has had anything to do with manufacturing of any level of regulated goods and they will tell you that alignment to EU regulations will be just as high after Brexit as before it. To suggest we will make a "GB Model" is fundamentally silly, unless it were a Ma and Pa firm, but we are not talking about such organisations. If we have a separate, non-aligned regulatory system, many companies will not bother to manufacture for our market. We might have a small divergence over areas such as labelling, but that already existed anyway. I would guess that the government has absolutely no intention of doing anything less than having complete regulatory alignment with the EU on manufactured goods, unless they are even more stupid than I thought.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,342
    Sean O'Grady is suffering from an extreme case of Boris Derangement Syndrome. Unless they are physically disabled, Prime Ministers with large majorities don't just decide to give up no matter how difficult the circumstances, especially this early in their terms.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,678
    nico67 said:

    MikeL said:

    nico67 said:

    Hospital admissions up by over 600 and 545 new deaths which means a large amount occurred in the care homes and in the home .

    Not to worry Hancock had a protective ring around care homes ! So protective that they shipped in patients with the virus to those care homes .

    TOTAL in hospital up 600 because no numbers reported for Northern Ireland yesterday.

    NEW admissions to hospital 639, down from 678 yesterday.
    Overall less have recovered hence the net increase in hospitalized . The NI figure wouldn’t be that much given its size so the 639 figure is mostly coming from the other nations , mostly England .

    Apart from the better news on new confirmed cases today’s update is dismal .
    No, NI does explain entire difference.

    Number in hospital in NI today = 651
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,097
    Meanwhile, in "couldn't find a strawberry in a PYO field" news:

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    These daily conference have become a waste of time

    2 or 3 times a week at max

    Dame McClean seems very bored of the questions as well!
  • TimTTimT Posts: 615
    RobD said:

    "Germany naturally had more testing capacity in their economy" says Cabinet minister.

    Naturally?

    The tests grow on trees?

    Their diagnostics industry was larger pre-crisis. I don't think that's a controversial statement.
    Not just their diagnostic companies, but also the companies making the reagents and kits.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 2,759
    Endillion said:

    eristdoof said:


    kjh said:

    Andrew said:

    A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.


    People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
    Presumably there will be a significant number of people who would have died in the near future who have died of Covid in the last couple of months thus bringing the death rate below the 5 year average for a number of future months when we are past the Covid impact.
    If someone is driving dangerously mounts the pavement and runs over one elderly person who "would have died in the near future" anyway, this is considered an outrageous tragedy.

    When 10,000 such people suffer a nasty death due to a pandemic, many people say 'it's sad but they would have died soon anyway'.

    I find this totally baffling.
    Posting this again, because Neil Ferguson's idiotic assertion that "up to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway" seems to have stuck:

    https://www.theactuary.com/features/2020/05/07/co-morbidity-question

    Plenty of people live for decades with serious pre-existing medical conditions (diabetes, in particular). Even obese male 80-year-old smokers with heart conditions can be expected to live, on average, another five to ten years. It is complete nonsense to assume that the people who have died to Covid-19 in the past few months will have a material downward impact on mortality for the rest of the year, just by no longer being in the population.
    That article is excellent. Please don't hold back from reposting the link anytime you see the arguement "they would have died soon anyway".

    One small quote
    ... a life expectancy below a couple of years can be found only by assuming acute cancers, or other serious but less critical conditions at ages above 90, or such conditions conjoined with adverse risk factors (eg smoking) from the mid-80s.

    For anything else, life expectancy is typically five years or more. For instance, ...
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,182
    RobD said:

    "Germany naturally had more testing capacity in their economy" says Cabinet minister.

    Naturally?

    The tests grow on trees?

    Their diagnostics industry was larger pre-crisis. I don't think that's a controversial statement.
    That is correct. Our diagnostics and pharma industry is similarly huge though. No excuses there for the government as the differential in testing does not reflect the relative advantage that the Germans have. It was a policy decision, rather than resource related.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    Frost's letter to Barnier:

    Overall, at this moment in negotiations, what is on offer is not a fair free trade relationship between close economic partners, but a relatively low-quality trade agreement coming with unprecedented EU oversight of our laws and institutions.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

    Very well written.

    Barnier must be finding it difficult dealing with negotiators who stand up for the UK after the nonsense of May's years.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    eek said:

    No. Factories can manufacture to more than just one spec and do all the time. That's how Asian manufacturers can export across the whole globe, they understand the spec and manufacture to that. One factory can produce more than one spec of product.

    Yes, and the products made for sale in the EU have to adhere to the legal trading standards set by the EU. Brexiteers insist that won't apply to Britain after we leave. Its bollocks and they know it.

    Not that we plan on downgrading EU standards of course. So they insist. So adhering to said EU standards which we choose to have as UK standards would be a good plan. Which would mean easy access to the EEA, no border down the Irish Sea etc etc. But can't have that because wazzocks.

    If we want to vary our standards we will be able to do so. Companies already make a plethora of models of products, if they want to manufacture a GB model of a product to be sold in GB then there is no reason they can't do that while still also manufacturing EU models to be sold in the EU.
    Ever heard of benefits of scale (you may remember it from such things as the pin manufacturing in Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations). Unless you think Britain should have poorer quality goods how do you think savings would be made?
    Manufacturers can do scale by using common components in both where possible while using other components where it isn't possible. As they already do!

    Its remarkable how car companies for instance can manufacture Vauxhall specification cars for the UK and manufacture Opel specification cars for the EU. And they did even when we were in the EU because the Vauxhall brand suited the UK.
    If you ask Vauxhall could they build their cars cheaper if they didnt have to do LHD and RHD models, what would their answer be?
    Does it matter?

    They are capable of doing both models. Just as any variance in our standards will see manufacturers capable of producing multiple models.

    Manufacturers already do produce multiple models. What matters is whether consumer demand is there.
    Yes not all of us have unlimited money so prefer things cheaper when there is no particular benefit to lots of separate standards, it is the consumer who loses.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 733
    I don’t understand why posters get exasperated by @Philip_Thompson ... he has been consistent in the arguments he makes and they are underpinned by what he sees as the fundamental principle: that nothing should be imposed without the consent of the demos. So, an individual or business can, post Brexit, choose what standards they adopt for a product.. the fact that the chosen standard is one published by the EU is neither here nor there, the point is that the business is not compelled to do so by the EU, the business can choose not to sell in the EU... the same business must adopt a U.K. standard because that mandate is based directly or indirectly on an act of the U.K. parliament elected by the U.K. demos. Further, he holds that a demos is necessarily bound by the nation state and that EU representatives in a EU parliament can never, therefore, be democratic.

    By all means, debate with @Philip_Thompson on the principle of democratic assent and whether it can transcend the nation state, anything else is just detail and won’t reach a consensus.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,307

    Frost's letter to Barnier:

    Overall, at this moment in negotiations, what is on offer is not a fair free trade relationship between close economic partners, but a relatively low-quality trade agreement coming with unprecedented EU oversight of our laws and institutions.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

    Both sides look like they are just going through the motions right now.
    It's a good job we hold all the cards.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 46,465

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
    I'm actually curious, which parts of the post are incorrect?
    The general naivety. Ask anyone who has had anything to do with manufacturing of any level of regulated goods and they will tell you that alignment to EU regulations will be just as high after Brexit as before it. To suggest we will make a "GB Model" is fundamentally silly, unless it were a Ma and Pa firm, but we are not talking about such organisations. If we have a separate, non-aligned regulatory system, many companies will not bother to manufacture for our market. We might have a small divergence over areas such as labelling, but that already existed anyway. I would guess that the government has absolutely no intention of doing anything less than having complete regulatory alignment with the EU on manufactured goods, unless they are even more stupid than I thought.
    The general naivety? Yet there are examples of businesses doing just that from around the world.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969
    nico67 said:

    MikeL said:

    nico67 said:

    Hospital admissions up by over 600 and 545 new deaths which means a large amount occurred in the care homes and in the home .

    Not to worry Hancock had a protective ring around care homes ! So protective that they shipped in patients with the virus to those care homes .

    TOTAL in hospital up 600 because no numbers reported for Northern Ireland yesterday.

    NEW admissions to hospital 639, down from 678 yesterday.
    Overall less have recovered hence the net increase in hospitalized . The NI figure wouldn’t be that much given its size so the 639 figure is mostly coming from the other nations , mostly England .

    Apart from the better news on new confirmed cases today’s update is dismal .

    Your posts give the impression you are willing us to fail
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 40,166

    Frost's letter to Barnier:

    Overall, at this moment in negotiations, what is on offer is not a fair free trade relationship between close economic partners, but a relatively low-quality trade agreement coming with unprecedented EU oversight of our laws and institutions.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

    Both sides look like they are just going through the motions right now.
    Barnier has hinted that he thinks the EU's fishing ask is OTT - he described it as "maximalist" - I suspect Frost & Barnier need the politicians involved and have got as far as they can go.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 2,327

    One factor that is keeping him safe is that there's no Churchill figure, who had been warning of virus dangers, to replace him with.

    Jeremy Hunt, possibly.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,640

    Frost's letter to Barnier:

    Overall, at this moment in negotiations, what is on offer is not a fair free trade relationship between close economic partners, but a relatively low-quality trade agreement coming with unprecedented EU oversight of our laws and institutions.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

    Very well written.

    Barnier must be finding it difficult dealing with negotiators who stand up for the UK after the nonsense of May's years.
    Frost is the negotiator who capitulated on the Irish sea border.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969

    Sean O'Grady is suffering from an extreme case of Boris Derangement Syndrome. Unless they are physically disabled, Prime Ministers with large majorities don't just decide to give up no matter how difficult the circumstances, especially this early in their terms.

    I expressed concern about Boris this morning and he needs to up his game

    I am not sure if his absence from the media reflects his attitude or is health related

    He will only go over his health
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
    I'm actually curious, which parts of the post are incorrect?
    The general naivety. Ask anyone who has had anything to do with manufacturing of any level of regulated goods and they will tell you that alignment to EU regulations will be just as high after Brexit as before it. To suggest we will make a "GB Model" is fundamentally silly, unless it were a Ma and Pa firm, but we are not talking about such organisations. If we have a separate, non-aligned regulatory system, many companies will not bother to manufacture for our market. We might have a small divergence over areas such as labelling, but that already existed anyway. I would guess that the government has absolutely no intention of doing anything less than having complete regulatory alignment with the EU on manufactured goods, unless they are even more stupid than I thought.
    We already have GB models for cars. If it suits us and there's public demand for it we can get GB models for whatever we want, whether that be as simple as sticking a union flag on it, or more complicating like left Vs right hand drive.

    What matters is what we choose. Freely as consumers and voters.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,097

    Frost's letter to Barnier:

    Overall, at this moment in negotiations, what is on offer is not a fair free trade relationship between close economic partners, but a relatively low-quality trade agreement coming with unprecedented EU oversight of our laws and institutions.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

    Both sides look like they are just going through the motions right now.
    Barnier has hinted that he thinks the EU's fishing ask is OTT - he described it as "maximalist" - I suspect Frost & Barnier need the politicians involved and have got as far as they can go.
    Good luck getting the EU politicians paying much attention just now. They're a little tied up with other more pressing matters.

    In a sane world, so would the British ministers be, but rain nor snow nor raging pandemic will not stay their insatiable Europhobia.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144
    edited May 19
    The only people who can get rid of Boris are tory MPs and I haven;t seen much evidence they are unhappy about the care home crisis.

    What they are unhappy about is the economy and the snail's pace emergence from lockdown.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 40,166
    It's RT I know - but it is an interesting question:

  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 766
    Mango said:

    To be fair, he's made a specific prediction within a specific timeline. So if it does, or doesn't, happen, then we have evidence on whether, or not, to take the author seriously in the future.

    That is really not how the UK works...
    ok,

    it's absolute nonsense.

    but somehow printed and then reproduced here. bet it is all over twitter!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 46,465
    Scott_xP said:
    Well they certainly didn't give up on it because they were bored of it. It was obvious this was the reason that it wasn't continued.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,182

    Frost's letter to Barnier:

    Overall, at this moment in negotiations, what is on offer is not a fair free trade relationship between close economic partners, but a relatively low-quality trade agreement coming with unprecedented EU oversight of our laws and institutions.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

    Very well written.

    Barnier must be finding it difficult dealing with negotiators who stand up for the UK after the nonsense of May's years.
    I think he will find it very difficult. It is difficult for me to recall a government so devoid of intellect and talent. Barnier will find them difficult as he is fundamentally a diplomat, but he is a professional and they are amateurs, so the outcome will not be good for UK.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,678
    Looks as if Angela McLean has had enough of giving political / tactful answers - just saying what she actually thinks.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069
    Scott_xP said:
    Pretty sure this was said in one of the first daily briefings. Not exactly some big scoop or admission.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,097

    It's RT I know - but it is an interesting question:

    I'd understood that the value of Tesla was in the battery technology, not the cars themselves. Is that wrong?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,182
    Rexel56 said:

    I don’t understand why posters get exasperated by @Philip_Thompson ... he has been consistent in the arguments he makes and they are underpinned by what he sees as the fundamental principle: that nothing should be imposed without the consent of the demos. So, an individual or business can, post Brexit, choose what standards they adopt for a product.. the fact that the chosen standard is one published by the EU is neither here nor there, the point is that the business is not compelled to do so by the EU, the business can choose not to sell in the EU... the same business must adopt a U.K. standard because that mandate is based directly or indirectly on an act of the U.K. parliament elected by the U.K. demos. Further, he holds that a demos is necessarily bound by the nation state and that EU representatives in a EU parliament can never, therefore, be democratic.

    By all means, debate with @Philip_Thompson on the principle of democratic assent and whether it can transcend the nation state, anything else is just detail and won’t reach a consensus.

    Nope, sorry to be harsh, but he is on here so much that he ends up arguing on things that he clearly has limited knowledge and probably zero personal experience. That is exasperating perhaps, but it does not mean it should not be challenged.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 615
    Scott_xP said:
    Why is this news, and why is it an admission? It was obvious that was the basis for the decision at the time. You always go to war with the army you have, not the army you need.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 766
    TimT said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Why is this news, and why is it an admission? It was obvious that was the basis for the decision at the time. You always go to war with the army you have, not the army you need.
    I thought they even said it at the time - it would not be effective as there were too many cases coming through.

    It feels like a red herring this.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 40,166
    MikeL said:

    Looks as if Angela McLean has had enough of giving political / tactful answers - just saying what she actually thinks.

    That was a good answer! "Testing capacity is an operational issue. So as a scientific advisor I'd advise having robust and reliable testing capability" (or words to that effect).
  • TimTTimT Posts: 615

    It's RT I know - but it is an interesting question:

    I'd understood that the value of Tesla was in the battery technology, not the cars themselves. Is that wrong?
    That was also my understanding.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,182

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
    I'm actually curious, which parts of the post are incorrect?
    The general naivety. Ask anyone who has had anything to do with manufacturing of any level of regulated goods and they will tell you that alignment to EU regulations will be just as high after Brexit as before it. To suggest we will make a "GB Model" is fundamentally silly, unless it were a Ma and Pa firm, but we are not talking about such organisations. If we have a separate, non-aligned regulatory system, many companies will not bother to manufacture for our market. We might have a small divergence over areas such as labelling, but that already existed anyway. I would guess that the government has absolutely no intention of doing anything less than having complete regulatory alignment with the EU on manufactured goods, unless they are even more stupid than I thought.
    We already have GB models for cars. If it suits us and there's public demand for it we can get GB models for whatever we want, whether that be as simple as sticking a union flag on it, or more complicating like left Vs right hand drive.

    What matters is what we choose. Freely as consumers and voters.
    Oh dear. The cars are still completely in regulatory alignment, as are all the components.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969

    The only people who can get rid of Boris are tory MPs and I haven;t seen much evidence they are unhappy about the care home crisis.

    What they are unhappy about is the economy and the snail's pace emergence from lockdown.

    Nicola was having a hard time on the Nike conference in Edinburgh and nursing homes today.

    She has as many questions as does Boris and Hancock but her conferences do not get UK wide coverage
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,669
    nico67 said:

    MikeL said:

    nico67 said:

    Hospital admissions up by over 600 and 545 new deaths which means a large amount occurred in the care homes and in the home .

    Not to worry Hancock had a protective ring around care homes ! So protective that they shipped in patients with the virus to those care homes .

    TOTAL in hospital up 600 because no numbers reported for Northern Ireland yesterday.

    NEW admissions to hospital 639, down from 678 yesterday.
    Overall less have recovered hence the net increase in hospitalized . The NI figure wouldn’t be that much given its size so the 639 figure is mostly coming from the other nations , mostly England .

    Apart from the better news on new confirmed cases today’s update is dismal .
    I think the apparent jump today may be some sort of bizarre weekend catch-up effect, like we see with the death stats dropping off a cliff on Sunday and Monday and then rocketing back up on Tuesday. It seems to have happened last week as well.

    I went and had a look at the slides for today and for yesterday:

    Monday 18th: 9408 cases, down from 10762 the previous week
    Tuesday 19th: 10025 cases, down from 11716 the previous week

    This implies that reported hospitalisations also jumped between Monday and Tuesday of last week, by about 1,000.

    There's no reason to suppose that a sudden massive increase in serious cases has occurred. The figures for new hospitalisations in England and ventilator bed occupancy in the UK are both down week-on-week. I'd pay more attention to those.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069
    MikeL said:

    Looks as if Angela McLean has had enough of giving political / tactful answers - just saying what she actually thinks.

    Does another briefing by end of May 2/1
    Doesnt do another briefing by end of May 4/7
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 2,759

    kinabalu said:

    "The emotional maturity of a toddler" -

    I think this bang on for Trump but rather harsh for Johnson. He clearly is immature but he's not down at toddler level. More teenager.

    As for him going this year - IMO only health or a sleaze scandal of huge proportions would cause that.

    Yeah more like a teenager. The sexual incontinence would be weird in a toddler.
    With respect to the question - seems a stretch, but it wouldn't be without precedent. In the modern era (which I define as my lifetime because I am a self centred bastard) five PMs have been defenestrated mid-term in favour of a successor from their own party - May, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher and Wilson. That's one more than the number who went after losing an election (Wilson has a foot in both camps but his 1970 election defeat is outside my sample period).
    Of those five, you could argue that only Blair and May seemed obviously for the chop seven months before they went. Thatcher was unpopular in February 1990 I think (she was always unpopular in our house, obvs) but I don't remember it being obvious she would be replaced at that point. Cameron wasn't expected to lose the EU referendum, and Wilson's resignation on health grounds was a shock. So like I say, seems unlikely but wouldn't rule it out. 25% probability?
    Thatcher had a stalking horse attempt to topple her in 1989. Back then the Tory party leader had to be approved on a yearly basis, but most of the time noone stood against and so was just a rubber stamp job. But in 1989 Anthony Meyer stood against Mrs Thatcher in the hope that Hessletine would also stand. 33 Conservative MPs voted for him. Then in March 1990 came the poll tax riots. So it was not "obvious" she would be relpaced by the end of 1990, but it was also no bolt out of the blue.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,907
    edited May 19

    Scott_xP said:
    Pretty sure this was said in one of the first daily briefings. Not exactly some big scoop or admission.
    Yes, but these are the people who it was a total revelation to that ONS published detailed death stats for the past 100+ years.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 5,528
    "Coronavirus will 'settle into human population and become normal', expert says

    Professor David Robertson believes the highly infectious respiratory infection is "almost uncontrollable"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-is-so-successful-it-will-never-be-eradicated-expert-claims-11991024
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,966
    eristdoof said:

    Endillion said:

    eristdoof said:


    kjh said:

    Andrew said:

    A curiousity going forward here is that excess mortality is about to dip back to normal levels - although we'll still have deaths registered as caused by covid, the net pandemic effect will be zero. It'll be interesting to see how the media and public understand and/or react to that (not insignificant) difference, and how it then leads govt policy.


    People are dying with covid on their certificate who would have died anyway from complex array of problems?
    Presumably there will be a significant number of people who would have died in the near future who have died of Covid in the last couple of months thus bringing the death rate below the 5 year average for a number of future months when we are past the Covid impact.
    If someone is driving dangerously mounts the pavement and runs over one elderly person who "would have died in the near future" anyway, this is considered an outrageous tragedy.

    When 10,000 such people suffer a nasty death due to a pandemic, many people say 'it's sad but they would have died soon anyway'.

    I find this totally baffling.
    Posting this again, because Neil Ferguson's idiotic assertion that "up to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway" seems to have stuck:

    https://www.theactuary.com/features/2020/05/07/co-morbidity-question

    Plenty of people live for decades with serious pre-existing medical conditions (diabetes, in particular). Even obese male 80-year-old smokers with heart conditions can be expected to live, on average, another five to ten years. It is complete nonsense to assume that the people who have died to Covid-19 in the past few months will have a material downward impact on mortality for the rest of the year, just by no longer being in the population.
    That article is excellent. Please don't hold back from reposting the link anytime you see the arguement "they would have died soon anyway".

    One small quote
    ... a life expectancy below a couple of years can be found only by assuming acute cancers, or other serious but less critical conditions at ages above 90, or such conditions conjoined with adverse risk factors (eg smoking) from the mid-80s.

    For anything else, life expectancy is typically five years or more. For instance, ...
    All very well, but we are left with what looks like an approaching anomaly where people are still dying of covid and yet the death rate is back to five year average.

    Of course this is an average, so it may be that actually this year would have been a lower overall death rate than recent years so some unknown quirk of life and nature.

    I was only putting forward one possible suggestion.

  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 766
    In other news, listened to an interesting documentary about other times the US was in a crisis or effectively locked down - mostly pandemic or environmentally related.


    1775-82, smallpox epidemic
    1816, the year without summer
    1893, the panic of 1893
    1918-19 spanish flu
    1931-36 dustbowl (on top of depression)
    1942-3ish, east coast dim outs


  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    Scott_xP said:
    Pretty sure this was said in one of the first daily briefings. Not exactly some big scoop or admission.
    Indeed and it's been repeated almost every single week since and the media acts shocked every time.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,226

    It's RT I know - but it is an interesting question:

    Is it? Who is the genius, the guy who made SpaceX happen or one who designed a marginally better sort of Hoover?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Every trade deal references the other side. What we aren't ok with is dynamic alignment so that if the EU changes their law their ours changes too.
    Our law will change with theirs because otherwise our companies will not be able to sell their stuff. Most "EU law" is about regulations. If you want to export to EU you have to comply. If you want to sell to US you have to comply with theirs. It is very simple really, just not simple enough for Brexiteers to understand.
    We will always remain under the rules of the EU if we want to sell things in the EU. As we are already under the rules of the US when Range Rovers have to have US spec lights and other mods to be sold into that market. Or Japan. Or anywhere.

    To listen to the stupid wing of the Brexit wing you'd think that once we Take Back Control we won't have to follow anyone else's rules and will simply Do What We Want and they will take it because we're EnglandBritain and we rule the waves. Not that there are racist overtones, definitely not.
    No the idea is that for people who want to do their own thing in their own country then our own laws will apply as we elect. Not Europe's.

    No harm in exporters meeting EU standards exporters around the world find ways to do that without applying every single EU law domestically. To listen to some people it would be impossibly to export to the EU from China.
    How does a factory simultaneously make parts to two different standards? Wouldn’t the largest market and highest standards win? Which market and which standards do you foresee in that guise?
    Standards are pretty globalised and not the real issue. My laptop which I'm pretty sure was manufactured in Asia is stamped with both a CE mark and an FCC mark. Do we need to be in the USA or applying US laws just because a product meets FCC rules?
    Then you're advocating a kind of geopolitical freeloading. We should just sit back and benefit from the stability provided by Pax Americana/Pax Europaea without pulling our weight. Given that the world is most likely facing a period of instability, it's not a very responsible position.
    Are Asian countries freeloading when they meet CE standards for exports while having their own standards domestically?

    It's an entirely reasonable position and we can vary our standards wherever it suits us.

    Some people here are acting as if it's possible to only manufacture to one specification and that's it. It's not the case. In fact manufacturers are used to meeting many specifications of products. Go shopping for a TV and there are countless model numbers each different somehow yet they're all capable of being manufactured. Funny that!

    It may suit us to be aligned in some areas and varied in others. If we vary manufacturers will be more than capable of making a GB Model to suit us if there's demand while still manufacturing EU models if there's demand. That's what manufacturers do, they meet customer demand.
    Give it a rest mate, you are talking out of your arse
    I'm actually curious, which parts of the post are incorrect?
    The general naivety. Ask anyone who has had anything to do with manufacturing of any level of regulated goods and they will tell you that alignment to EU regulations will be just as high after Brexit as before it. To suggest we will make a "GB Model" is fundamentally silly, unless it were a Ma and Pa firm, but we are not talking about such organisations. If we have a separate, non-aligned regulatory system, many companies will not bother to manufacture for our market. We might have a small divergence over areas such as labelling, but that already existed anyway. I would guess that the government has absolutely no intention of doing anything less than having complete regulatory alignment with the EU on manufactured goods, unless they are even more stupid than I thought.
    We already have GB models for cars. If it suits us and there's public demand for it we can get GB models for whatever we want, whether that be as simple as sticking a union flag on it, or more complicating like left Vs right hand drive.

    What matters is what we choose. Freely as consumers and voters.
    Oh dear. The cars are still completely in regulatory alignment, as are all the components.
    But they're different models. You claimed "GB Model" was infeasible just one post ago.

    You were wrong. There's no reason why GB models are infeasible.

    We may wish to be aligned sometimes, even most of the time, but if we decide to vary standards we can. Our choice.
Sign In or Register to comment.