BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…15101511151315151516…2102

Comments

  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,916
    rick_chasey said:



    So this is the kind of thing i'm talking about. They're really big underneath.

    Those French ones are about three times the depth below as above. First time I chucked bottles in, not realising the depth, it was weird, as if gravity inside was less. (Where's manc33 when you need physics explained?)
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,553
    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    The separate taps is a legacy of worries over contamination of cold (drinking) water with stored hot water, which could harbour bacteria.

    I'm sure it is, but it's 2020, and the rest of the world has moved on.

    Same goes for bins outside the front of houses. What an eyesore.
    I work on a lot of new housing developments and they seem to now tend to provide bin stores either in individual plots or, where there are non-adoptable roads, collectively at the highway boundary. I'm not sure if bin stores are now a building regulation requirement or just something that developers are learning makes their houses more desirable to buyers. There are restrictions on how far residents and refuse collection operatives are expected to drag a bin though.

    The biggest issue around here is the sheer number of bins and containers you now have to put out. We have two boxes and a bag to go out every week along with a food waste caddy. We then have a small wheelie bin for non-recyclable waste and a larger wheelie bin for garden waste that are collected on alternate weeks. We're lucky to have a driveway and frontage area where they can be stored without causing an eyesore but in the areas of Victorian terracing, a lot of which is converted to multiple occupancy, in the nearby town centre everything gets left on the footway permanently which is an absolute pain for pedestrians as well as an eyesore.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,671
    Providing space for bins is a standard requirement in any planning application for new homes.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    Alternatively,
    STOP BUYING THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO THROW AWAY!
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    some days I do not know whether to laugh or cry. There is a grim fascination for me in watching the first country extricate itself from a large single market. A good article from The Times which suggests we will be fooked with a skinny deal and double fooked with no-deal. For those in from of the paywall here are some highlights
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/business-is-about-to-be-thrown-under-a-bus-by-ill-thought-out-brexit-deal-ct0mfxb9m

    Gove, long ago acknowledged that Britain would need 50,000 new border officials, Yet there is no sign of those 50,000 officials being recruited and trained in time; nor do there appear to be sufficient vets to supervise livestock and pet movements. Vital computer systems are not ready.

    Yesterday the Commons future EU relationship committee took evidence from representatives of the pharmaceutical, chemicals and aerospace industries. None could point to any upsides for their sectors from January 1. Britain’s decision not to introduce two new EU regulations that come into force on January 1 means UK and EU standards will diverge from day one. British chemicals risk being shut out of EU supply chains,

    In the spirit of balance they also mention an EY report which suggests that 7,500 FS jobs have moved out of London and that the pandemic is hindering plans to speed up the exodus as the fog over our future relationship becomes clearer.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Good to see Dublin has dropped its threatening No Deal talk. They now admit that all the border issues will be irrelevant with an FTA and are now talking about this being achievable.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,941
    What shite have you read in the Express now?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    The biggest problem any government faces going forwards to the no deal or skinny deal that was inevitable is the constant drip of negative business news from sectors that will see downsides to this policy. In politics bad news always drowns out good news. The reality is that people and therefore businesses are pretty creative and therefore the dramatic consequences are unlikely to be realised but much talked up as is the norm.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    It would be ironic that now Ireland are trying hard to get a deal, if the EU obstructions mean they get the knock on effects of an EU orchestrated no-deal.

    I'm sure Dublin are happy for the EU to plunder their fishing waters after they lose access to ours.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    john80 said:

    The biggest problem any government faces going forwards to the no deal or skinny deal that was inevitable is the constant drip of negative business news from sectors that will see downsides to this policy. In politics bad news always drowns out good news. The reality is that people and therefore businesses are pretty creative and therefore the dramatic consequences are unlikely to be realised but much talked up as is the norm.

    I really do not think you understand the difference between being in a SM/CU and not. Everything will be a bit more hassle and more expensive, this will not be the end of the world but will (IMO) see a 1% fall in GDP growth in the early years and settle down to 0.5% in future years. People can not visualise this in the same way they can a lorry queue in kent.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,702
    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    The biggest problem any government faces going forwards to the no deal or skinny deal that was inevitable is the constant drip of negative business news from sectors that will see downsides to this policy. In politics bad news always drowns out good news. The reality is that people and therefore businesses are pretty creative and therefore the dramatic consequences are unlikely to be realised but much talked up as is the norm.

    I really do not think you understand the difference between being in a SM/CU and not. Everything will be a bit more hassle and more expensive, this will not be the end of the world but will (IMO) see a 1% fall in GDP growth in the early years and settle down to 0.5% in future years. People can not visualise this in the same way they can a lorry queue in kent.
    It's like people who don't understand proportions as they relate to geopolitical leverage also don't understand compound growth.
    _
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,941






    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    tailwindhome said:







    At least 17.4m people are now laughing at the EU and their stupid announcement.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,941
    Nigel's commitment to being a PITA is unwavering


    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,702
    So presumably this development only ends well for the UK if it wins the this case, either by getting the EU to back down or going to court and winning?

    Otherwise it gives the EU even more leverage - either to exact more concessions to avoid going to court or once the the UK loses in court?

    From my perspective, it's hard to see how the UK wouldn't lose, not least as they said explicility, in parliament, that they intend to break the agreement.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,622
    rick_chasey said:

    So presumably this development only ends well for the UK if it wins the this case, either by getting the EU to back down or going to court and winning?

    Otherwise it gives the EU even more leverage - either to exact more concessions to avoid going to court or once the the UK loses in court?

    From my perspective, it's hard to see how the UK wouldn't lose, not least as they said explicility, in parliament, that they intend to break the agreement.

    It's the start of a letter writing campaign and happens all the time. It may one day go somewhere, but it hasn't yet.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    So presumably this development only ends well for the UK if it wins the this case, either by getting the EU to back down or going to court and winning?

    Otherwise it gives the EU even more leverage - either to exact more concessions to avoid going to court or once the the UK loses in court?

    From my perspective, it's hard to see how the UK wouldn't lose, not least as they said explicility, in parliament, that they intend to break the agreement.

    It's the start of a letter writing campaign and happens all the time. It may one day go somewhere, but it hasn't yet.
    A court can make any decision but it is pointless when it has no jurisdiction :smiley:

    They could make this all obsolete by agreeing an FTA but this demonstrates what their real intentions are
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    The biggest problem any government faces going forwards to the no deal or skinny deal that was inevitable is the constant drip of negative business news from sectors that will see downsides to this policy. In politics bad news always drowns out good news. The reality is that people and therefore businesses are pretty creative and therefore the dramatic consequences are unlikely to be realised but much talked up as is the norm.

    I really do not think you understand the difference between being in a SM/CU and not. Everything will be a bit more hassle and more expensive, this will not be the end of the world but will (IMO) see a 1% fall in GDP growth in the early years and settle down to 0.5% in future years. People can not visualise this in the same way they can a lorry queue in kent.
    It's like people who don't understand proportions as they relate to geopolitical leverage also don't understand compound growth.
    and chuck in people who think that all FTA's are equal.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    tailwindhome said:

    Nigel's commitment to being a PITA is unwavering


    in fairness if he had resisted the childish urge to write the line about "always acts in bad faith" that would have been a reasonable viewpoint.

    first line shows a good understanding of the EU and the rest shows a good understanding of the WA
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 2,917
    tailwindhome said:

    Nigel's commitment to being a PITA is unwavering


    I vaguely remember some chap who stood down a load of election candidates to try and shore up a tory victory...
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,254
    Jezyboy said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Nigel's commitment to being a PITA is unwavering


    I vaguely remember some chap who stood down a load of election candidates to try and shore up a tory victory...
    Mostly because all of them signed a pledge to support that deal.

    What was that guy's name again?
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,941
    She seems familiar

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,622
    tailwindhome said:

    She seems familiar

    Tedious.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,671
    coopster_the_1st said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    So presumably this development only ends well for the UK if it wins the this case, either by getting the EU to back down or going to court and winning?

    Otherwise it gives the EU even more leverage - either to exact more concessions to avoid going to court or once the the UK loses in court?

    From my perspective, it's hard to see how the UK wouldn't lose, not least as they said explicility, in parliament, that they intend to break the agreement.

    It's the start of a letter writing campaign and happens all the time. It may one day go somewhere, but it hasn't yet.
    A court can make any decision but it is pointless when it has no jurisdiction :smiley:

    They could make this all obsolete by agreeing an FTA but this demonstrates what their real intentions are
    It would go to independent arbitration, not CJEU. Thought you'd be aware of this.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,622
    rjsterry said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    So presumably this development only ends well for the UK if it wins the this case, either by getting the EU to back down or going to court and winning?

    Otherwise it gives the EU even more leverage - either to exact more concessions to avoid going to court or once the the UK loses in court?

    From my perspective, it's hard to see how the UK wouldn't lose, not least as they said explicility, in parliament, that they intend to break the agreement.

    It's the start of a letter writing campaign and happens all the time. It may one day go somewhere, but it hasn't yet.
    A court can make any decision but it is pointless when it has no jurisdiction :smiley:

    They could make this all obsolete by agreeing an FTA but this demonstrates what their real intentions are
    It would go to independent arbitration, not CJEU. Thought you'd be aware of this.
    That might not be true. Some people think there is a way it can go to the ECJ. I haven't seen any credible reporting setting out the legal position which is a shame.

    Meanwhile an FT journalist is reporting some general optimism for a deal.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,671
    edited October 2020
    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    So presumably this development only ends well for the UK if it wins the this case, either by getting the EU to back down or going to court and winning?

    Otherwise it gives the EU even more leverage - either to exact more concessions to avoid going to court or once the the UK loses in court?

    From my perspective, it's hard to see how the UK wouldn't lose, not least as they said explicility, in parliament, that they intend to break the agreement.

    It's the start of a letter writing campaign and happens all the time. It may one day go somewhere, but it hasn't yet.
    A court can make any decision but it is pointless when it has no jurisdiction :smiley:

    They could make this all obsolete by agreeing an FTA but this demonstrates what their real intentions are
    It would go to independent arbitration, not CJEU. Thought you'd be aware of this.
    That might not be true. Some people think there is a way it can go to the ECJ. I haven't seen any credible reporting setting out the legal position which is a shame.

    Meanwhile an FT journalist is reporting some general optimism for a deal.
    I did read that that was one possible route, but I think the EU are smart enough to see that arbitration would look better.

    The cynical view of the positive noises is that no further movement has been made and it's just a set up to point blame at the EU for turning something down when it was never offered in the first place.
    It would be lovely to be proved wrong but I've learnt to manage my expectations.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    So presumably this development only ends well for the UK if it wins the this case, either by getting the EU to back down or going to court and winning?

    Otherwise it gives the EU even more leverage - either to exact more concessions to avoid going to court or once the the UK loses in court?

    From my perspective, it's hard to see how the UK wouldn't lose, not least as they said explicility, in parliament, that they intend to break the agreement.

    It's the start of a letter writing campaign and happens all the time. It may one day go somewhere, but it hasn't yet.
    A court can make any decision but it is pointless when it has no jurisdiction :smiley:

    They could make this all obsolete by agreeing an FTA but this demonstrates what their real intentions are
    It would go to independent arbitration, not CJEU. Thought you'd be aware of this.
    That might not be true. Some people think there is a way it can go to the ECJ. I haven't seen any credible reporting setting out the legal position which is a shame.

    Meanwhile an FT journalist is reporting some general optimism for a deal.
    I did read that that was one possible route, but I think the EU are smart enough to see that arbitration would look better.

    The cynical view of the positive noises is that no further movement has been made and it's just a set up to point blame at the EU for turning something down when it was never offered in the first place.
    It would be lovely to be proved wrong but I've learnt to manage my expectations.
    or to get us really excited about what 2 years ago would have been roundly dismissed as a totally sh1t deal
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    The biggest problem any government faces going forwards to the no deal or skinny deal that was inevitable is the constant drip of negative business news from sectors that will see downsides to this policy. In politics bad news always drowns out good news. The reality is that people and therefore businesses are pretty creative and therefore the dramatic consequences are unlikely to be realised but much talked up as is the norm.

    I really do not think you understand the difference between being in a SM/CU and not. Everything will be a bit more hassle and more expensive, this will not be the end of the world but will (IMO) see a 1% fall in GDP growth in the early years and settle down to 0.5% in future years. People can not visualise this in the same way they can a lorry queue in kent.
    It's like people who don't understand proportions as they relate to geopolitical leverage also don't understand compound growth.
    I have to take issue with the first part of this comment as we’ve discussed it before.

    And for clarification beforehand, I am not defending the insanity of Brexit.

    Leverage is not linearly relative to size. Size is the easiest type of leverage to measure as it is quantitative but leverage comes in many other forms.

    Here’s some recent examples of disproportionate leverage. A concept that you simply can’t get your head round.

    The DUP’s confidence and supply agreement.
    Nicola Sturgeon.
    The Irish border.
    Chlorinated chicken.
    And last but not least, fishing rights.

    And the EU requirement for consent is again a perfect example of disproportionate leverage as was the UK veto.

    Deals hinge on tiny details that have disproportionate significance. This significance is not infinite and nobody argues it is, but it is disproportionate. A clue is in the description.

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    morstar said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    The biggest problem any government faces going forwards to the no deal or skinny deal that was inevitable is the constant drip of negative business news from sectors that will see downsides to this policy. In politics bad news always drowns out good news. The reality is that people and therefore businesses are pretty creative and therefore the dramatic consequences are unlikely to be realised but much talked up as is the norm.

    I really do not think you understand the difference between being in a SM/CU and not. Everything will be a bit more hassle and more expensive, this will not be the end of the world but will (IMO) see a 1% fall in GDP growth in the early years and settle down to 0.5% in future years. People can not visualise this in the same way they can a lorry queue in kent.
    It's like people who don't understand proportions as they relate to geopolitical leverage also don't understand compound growth.
    I have to take issue with the first part of this comment as we’ve discussed it before.

    And for clarification beforehand, I am not defending the insanity of Brexit.

    Leverage is not linearly relative to size. Size is the easiest type of leverage to measure as it is quantitative but leverage comes in many other forms.

    Here’s some recent examples of disproportionate leverage. A concept that you simply can’t get your head round.

    The DUP’s confidence and supply agreement.
    Nicola Sturgeon.
    The Irish border.
    Chlorinated chicken.
    And last but not least, fishing rights.

    And the EU requirement for consent is again a perfect example of disproportionate leverage as was the UK veto.

    Deals hinge on tiny details that have disproportionate significance. This significance is not infinite and nobody argues it is, but it is disproportionate. A clue is in the description.

    But those details only matter if one side has a disproportionate potential gain.

    Say we were part of a SM/CU with the rest of the world, we would have the leverage to sort out the Irish border and fishing rights.
  • spatt77
    spatt77 Posts: 324
    tailwindhome said:

    What shite have you read in the Express now?

    same shite you read in the Guardian!

Categories