Forum menu
THM and Jamba have very different views of what should, and what will, happen as regards the UK and rEU… and very different styles of posting about that… not hard to tell them apart.
It was more the unflappable love of all that is Tory
Got a spare €650,000?
If so, there's an easy way to keep your EU citizen status (even if you're keen to remove that status from everyday folk)…
https://amp.ft.com/content/110f57ee-02a3-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
The New Zealand-born billionaire behind Legatum, the London based think-tank that emerged as one of the most vocal advocates for Britain’s departure from the single market and the customs union, has obtained EU citizenship via Malta.
Actually, reading the details, it's not easy at all… takes a serious amount of planning… it's not just about handing over the cash.
There is a difference between lying as in stating the opposite of facts, making stuff up with no evidence and predictions failing to be 100% accurate.
Just read the minutes from a December Q&A between various representatives of Pharma industry associations and the European Medicines Agency. The outcome is still that the preparations should be for a Hard Brexit. Therefore, due to the long lead-times involved, Pharma are continuing to commit lots of time and money to preparing for no-deal. It would simply be too late to wait it out with fingers crossed.
Will it ever be possible to count the financial cost of the vote to Leave? In just this one sector, the cost will be counted in hundreds, if not thousands, of millions.
We will all pay teh price in increased drugs costs, its OK the NHS is in a peachy state and can easily afford many millions more
Fortunately, at least in the UK, manufacturers cannot simply raise the price of a medication. So, the short term impact is most likely one of profit but the potential exists for a longer-term price impact for new medicines.
One way it certainly could raise NHS costs is by preventing parallel importation from cheaper EU markets.
Of course it's important to realise that the rather abstract concept of "price impact" for the NHS actually means less medicine for the actual patients.
It might also explain why certain tabloids are printing allegations about doctors at a conference in Switzerland having the temerity to enjoy themselves when not at the conference venue.
It might also explain why certain tabloids are printing allegations about doctors at a conference in Switzerland having the temerity to enjoy themselves when not at the conference venue.
OK, I'll bite. Why am I paying for doctors to go on a jolly to Switzerland?
I take it someones posted this. The EU position on a transition. less tan a year for May to bluster then agree to everything
In their guidelines, the EU say:
All EU rules and regulations - as well as EU rule changes adopted after March 2019 - should apply in the UK during the transition phaseThere can be no "cherry picking" on the single market - so free movement into the UK should continue
The UK will not be involved in the decision-making of EU bodies
It cannot implement its own international agreements unless the EU agrees
Work should continue on finding a solution to the Northern Ireland border question, one of the main sticking points in the first round of negotiations
Speaking at a press conference after EU ministers agreed the negotiating guidelines, chief negotiator Michel Barnier said the UK would be allowed to attend decision-making meetings on a "limited, exceptional, case by case basis."
It would be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries but the deals could not come into force until the transition period was over, he added.
FFS
You aren't 5th elephant,
Doctors can be eligible up to £440 a year towards conferences from the NHS, it's was a 3 day event but only 16 hrs of talks, but longer workshops (not mentioned in the tabloids) but up to 6 hrs a day were left free for skiing, which is nice.
But they have to attend a certain number of hours a year on educational courses to keep their licence, so that £440 wouldve gone to a Travelodge in slough/Liverpool or birmigham or towards a ski trip in the alps.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">The majority of the fees wouldve been paid by drug companies, fellowships and the doctors themselves.</span>
But still keeping the plebs frothing about doctors having jolies is better than talking about the real issues facing the NHS.
Doctors can be eligible up to £440 a year towards conferences from the NHS
Phew... I thought that was my money being wasted. Turns out it was the NHS's!
Hang on a minute....
Dammit kimbers - stop spoiling it with boring facts. You're not playing the game.
Hmmmmmm - I'm also wondering how £440 counts as money wasted if it adds to the sum of knowledge of the medics concerned?
May “may” be incompetent, she “may” have a dismal track record, she “may” be leading a split party, she “may” have nutters in key places (fortunately surrounded by grown ups who clear up the mess) but
1. She has progressed deals through Parliament
2. Negotiated past the EUs delaying tactics despite claims that this would never happen
3. Is now going to be embarking on trade talks including on financial services which will also confound the naysayers
she just “may” pull it off which explains the vitriole and the absurd exaggerations of the remoaners who lived under the false assumption that Brexit couldn’t happen
extraordinary ...
not bad for an incompetent remainer 😉
aye its not bad but you have done better trolls than that 😉
Not only that, but the other lot, are ruling out a second referendum and pledging to do pretty much the same as the incompetent one
ok, there’s will be the “jobs first” version but hey....
£440 on conferences - who do they think they are, educated professionals trying to keep up with developments in their field? It's disgraceful. That's almost 0.5% of their salary costs!
Some very amusing frothing of brexies on Twitter after barnier explains what transition means for us.
http://www.itv.com/news/2018-01-29/johnson-and-gove-outflanked-by-government-economists/
. <span style="color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Reem, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The analysis is led by the economics section of the arch-Brexiteer David Davis’s Dexeu - and not by that last bastion of the Remoaners, which cried Armageddon during the EU referendum campaign, the Treasury.</span>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.55em; font-size: 16px; color: #4a4a4a; margin: 0.5em 0px; font-family: Reem, arial, sans-serif;">The work was done and is owned by the cross departmental Government Economic Service.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.55em; font-size: 16px; color: #4a4a4a; margin: 0.5em 0px; font-family: Reem, arial, sans-serif;">With this device, the Treasury and the Chancellor Philip Hammond are trying to protect themselves from the inevitable charge that they are mugging the heroes of the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.55em; font-size: 16px; color: #4a4a4a; margin: 0.5em 0px; font-family: Reem, arial, sans-serif;">In practice, of course, Johnson and Gove are being well and truly duffed up.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.55em; font-size: 16px; color: #4a4a4a; margin: 0.5em 0px; font-family: Reem, arial, sans-serif;">The point is that the analysis shows UK growth and prosperity would be significantly greater if UK rules and regulations for business were closely aligned to those of the EU, and never diverged to any significant extent - because this would be expected to deliver cheaper and less cumbersome access for UK goods and services to the EU's giant Single Market.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.55em; font-size: 16px; color: #4a4a4a; margin: 0.5em 0px; font-family: Reem, arial, sans-serif;">In other words, the civil service economists are underwriting the political position of Hammond, Amber Rudd and Greg Clark that it is worth sacrificing a degree of national control over rules and regs for the sake of becoming a bit less poor or a bit more rich (depending on what else is transpiring in an economic sense).</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.55em; font-size: 16px; color: #4a4a4a; margin: 0.5em 0px; font-family: Reem, arial, sans-serif;">Or to put it another way, the Whitehall "experts" - so derided by Gove in the run-up to the referendum - are getting their own back on Gove and Johnson by providing supposed empirical proof that the Leavers' passion to take back total control over making laws that affect business and commerce would be to throw mountains of £50 notes on to a religious fire.</p>
<span style="color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Reem, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The government economists' case for remaining "converged" with the EU is so clear and overwhelming, I am informed, that ministers tell me they are utterly bemused by how Johnson and Gove will dismiss it - as they surely will.</span>
EU’s position not surprising. They need Freedom of Movement into the UK to keep pressure off (well delay) other countries like France and Germany who’ll have to take up the slack once it’s shut down. Our compromise, everyone is registered and those coing after 2019 will have no right to stay post 2020. As for the new EU laws having proposed a “transition” it’s hard to see how May could not agree this.
Newsnight piece quite balanced, points out that EU unity looks likely to be exposed as a bluff
Anyway good news is it looks increasingly likely May will be replaced by a true Brexiteer shortly
Ending FoM earlier is just the UK smacking itself in the face with a plank.
Oooops even Davis' own analysis says that hard or soft Brexit will hurt UKs economy.
No matter how swivel eyed the brexie that replaces May
Facts prove to be the enemy of Brexit
"We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this ongoing internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.”
No one still believes this, do they? That we need to keep "our cards close to our chest" because… "negotiations?" !?!!? The government can not decide which damaging version of Brexit to persue, and the clock is ticking… the secrecy is about covering up a lack of direction and capability, not about hiding a strong negotiating hand.
We've been very clear that we don't want to look incompetent.
With the vacuume of a follow up statement of substance, it's all perfectly clear.
Just want to report that there has been some comedy gold on the BBC have your say forum tonight.
As you can guess, it was on the take it or leave it deal we have been offered. Which we will take... after "hard negotiation" as usual. Lol
I just want to say that there is nothing sweeter that the taste of angry Brexiter tears. Each a precious little unicorn made of xenophobia and ignorance. 😀
Oh, they doned seem to take it in a nice way when you offer them a hug...
Just an fyi on that last one.
Needed a Brexit vent and that went down nicely tonight. 🙂
Peace be to all.
(Not the Tory party obvs.)
Moggy looked utterly deflated when maitliss confronted him
Pesky facts making Brexiters look stupid, at some point they will have to be honest with the public, maybe.
^^ Was this on news night?
Will go off and watch on catchup if so.
I selfishly loath that "man" moggy mcmoggurus.
A face I would just love to punch.
It would being bring me much joy.
The Mogg-meister was on top form, where we watching the same programme kimbers ?
Mogg The Week - he has his own dedicated Youtube channel 🙂
Anyway good news is it looks increasingly likely May will be replaced by a true Brexiteer shortly
Oh jesus. What's the Latin word for jesus again?
What where he said that these studies must be wrong because they might be using the gravity model of trade that got predictions wrong last time ( despite the predicted downturn being due to consumer & investor confidence crashing as it did after 2008 & nothing to do with gravity models)
It was a brilliant demonstration of him trying to condescend but only exposing how clueless he is.
This was a report from DExU the ministry jambs assured us was being staffed by a flood of patriotic Brexiters.
That Mogg is so popular with a tiny clique of hard core brexies is a great sign of how distant they are from the rest of the country !
Famed of if can find mogg doing anything but lecturing, no other party involved.
What date is the video concerned ? I assumed it was last could of days ?
Anyway good news is it looks increasingly likely May will be replaced by a true Brexiteer shortly
You know, I think that might be an excellent idea. It would kill Brexit for good if Mogg was PM. It would unite Labour properly against it and properly divide the Tories and ultimately lead to us rescinding our A50 letter (open doors and open hearts in Europe you know), prevent that pesky 8% lost growth, help protect jobs in the English Northeast and Midlands.
Best idea you’ve had in ages Jamba. Chapeau.
Incidentally THM, I note that Corbyn has ruled out another referendum, but I think has not ruled out staying in the EU. He’s been very careful with his language here.
Now I tend to agree with no second (third really) referendum. Binary referendums are essentially incompatible with how UK democracy works If the last couple of years doesn’t tell you that, the next few (10?) will as we try to heal the rifts caused by the Brexit campaign and fall out since the vote.
So yes, the way forward to remaining in the EU without a referendum has been left clear. It’s a rocky passage but not unnavigable and (even ignoring the economic and jobs benefits of not leaving for a second) because it would have to rely on consensus building, better for society too.
Another man with good ideas. Jamba and Corbyn in the same basket this morning. Well I never.
The funniest thing about Moggy whinging that a transition turns us into a 'vassal state' is that it was the Brexiters that triggered A50 too soon, with no plan, high on their own genius.
Now the government needs to buy time to polish the turd that is Brexit, in the hopes that it's only a 2% hit not 5 or 8% of our economy we tank.
on R4 this morning, i paraphrase - 'report says brexit will cost the economy' 'government says it won't'
sigh.
'They need Freedom of Movement into the UK to keep pressure off (well delay) other countries like France and Germany who’ll have to take up the slack once it’s shut down.'
I'm sorry, what 'slack' is this?
“In” IGM??? “In”.....
How many times ..... 😉
There’s days THM, when I get the feeling you’re taking the piss, but either I’m too dim or you’re too vague (maybe both) for me to get it.
Today is one of those days.
Stepping away from that, is your reading of Corbyn’s espoused position roughly in line with mine. If not, where has he said otherwise.
Lots about respecting the electorate, but you can change their views.
The Mogg-meister was on top form, where we watching the same programme kimbers ?
A classic response to cognitive dissonance: where evidence contradicts your beliefs, ignore the evidence.
That's you and Mogg, by the way.
IGM - talk of remaining “in” the EU/CU/SM is nebulous. Probably why Jezza uses it - if he did
but it means nothing at all - de nada, rien
as I may have mentioned before, the issues are membership of (voted no) versus across to (what we are negotiating now) - that is all
jezza should be precise. We are not having another ref on membership of the EU. We may have one (?) on the terms of our future access to the SM/CU. Or it may simply be a parliamentary vote.
IGM - talk of remaining “in” the EU/CU/SM is nebulous. Probably why Jezza uses it - if he did
but it means nothing at all - de nada, rien
as I may have mentioned before, the issues are membership of (voted no) versus across to (what we are negotiating now) - that is all
jezza should be precise. We are not having another ref on membership of the EU. We may have one (?) on the terms of our future access to the SM/CU. Or it may simply be a parliamentary vote.
Corbyn is I think explicitly not ruling anything out except a second referendum.
So retaining membership is still on his options list. That is what I meant by “in”.
I trust the rest of the post is understandable now, though you are of course and as always welcome to disagree. (Even though I’m right 😉)
as I may have mentioned before, the issues are membership of (voted no) versus across to (what we are negotiating now) – that is all
I respectfully disagree.
“talk of remaining “in” the EU/CU/SM is nebulous.”
Only if you’re deliberately obtuse and choose to remove context from the statement when it was made.