Scrutable

Woodchopper wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:19 pm True though. If it were all just about the economics then Brexit wouldn’t have happened.

Misrepresentation of the economics was a big part of it though, £350M/week and all the rest of the lies.

bjn wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:55 am

Woodchopper wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:19 pm True though. If it were all just about the economics then Brexit wouldn’t have happened.

Misrepresentation of the economics was a big part of it though, £350M/week and all the rest of the lies.

Not only that but any suggestion that reclaiming sovereignty would come at an any economic cost was explicitly rejected out of hand by the Leave Campaign as being merely "Project Fear". I'm sure we can all quote off by heart the exact statements on this made by leading Brexiteers which have all aged dreadfully.

Now had Leave been upfront about the likely/certain economic cost and stood and won on a platform of "yes it will cost us but liberty, sovereignty and democracy* are worth a little sacrifice, Blitz spirit, Dunkirk and all that what what" then that argument would have more weight but the dishonest f.ckers never came close to that.

You can still find in the Leave press today panglossian Minfordian articles about the sunny uplands that no-deal will usher us into.


*though probably more along the lines of "bendy bananas, gollywogs-on-jam and being unpleasant to homosexuals"

As a slight aside, but useful example of Brexiteers' wishful thinking - John Redwood has lately been tweeting his branes a lot and today alighted upon the problems faced by the NHS and COVID - apparently it's all just doom-mongering and negative thinking:

the genius wrote:Why not open and staff all the Nightingale hospital capacity they need for CV 19 cases and get the rest of the NHS back to full capacity for everything else? No need to scare us with the idea the NHS will not cope.

And when, dear genius, we've opened staffed the Nightingale hospitals - what will the staffing levels look like in the normal hospitals? It's this kind of ridiculously broad-brush, "oh you just need to do X and it'll be fine", kind of mentality that is why we have Brexit in the first place. All the problems and down-sides were swept away with wishful thinking.

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:11 am December is tomorrow, and the last day of transition is December the 31st. At about the end of this week we run out of the time bought by the EU Parliament's willingness to have a special ratification session at the end of December. After that it would require provisional ratification of parts of a deal by the EU Council pending ratification later. But doing so would require a lot of goodwill. It would also get very complicated if a member state objected

On the positive side, it looks like neither side wants to be the ones who stop the negotiations.

Apparently Barnier's been told there's not much point continuing to turn up after tomorrow, as there'll be no time to get the deal passed and they need to focus on no-deal prep.

FlammableFlower wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:29 am As a slight aside, but useful example of Brexiteers' wishful thinking - John Redwood has lately been tweeting his branes a lot and today alighted upon the problems faced by the NHS and COVID - apparently it's all just doom-mongering and negative thinking:

the genius wrote:Why not open and staff all the Nightingale hospital capacity they need for CV 19 cases and get the rest of the NHS back to full capacity for everything else? No need to scare us with the idea the NHS will not cope.

And when, dear genius, we've opened staffed the Nightingale hospitals - what will the staffing levels look like in the normal hospitals? It's this kind of ridiculously broad-brush, "oh you just need to do X and it'll be fine", kind of mentality that is why we have Brexit in the first place. All the problems and down-sides were swept away with wishful thinking.

It also doesn't consider the sheer logistics required to transport the patients from their local hospital to the Nightingales. You'd be looking at a 5 hour round trip for an ambulance and crew for each patient from say Portsmouth or Southampton. Welfare for non intubated patients in the Nightingales would be 'interesting' too given the lighting and acoustic environment in them all. The catering and bathing/toilet facilities would need significant changes as well.

FlammableFlower wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:29 am As a slight aside, but useful example of Brexiteers' wishful thinking - John Redwood has lately been tweeting his branes a lot and today alighted upon the problems faced by the NHS and COVID - apparently it's all just doom-mongering and negative thinking:

the genius wrote:Why not open and staff all the Nightingale hospital capacity they need for CV 19 cases and get the rest of the NHS back to full capacity for everything else? No need to scare us with the idea the NHS will not cope.

And when, dear genius, we've opened staffed the Nightingale hospitals - what will the staffing levels look like in the normal hospitals? It's this kind of ridiculously broad-brush, "oh you just need to do X and it'll be fine", kind of mentality that is why we have Brexit in the first place. All the problems and down-sides were swept away with wishful thinking.

Pshaw! What staffing crisis?

A decade of austerity has left the NHS short of 84000 FTE staff, a further 30,000 are off because of the Tories shanking of the COVID response and most excitingly of all, due to Brexiteer f.ck-knuckles like Redwood,come January we can send back the 67000 EU27 NHS workers who apparently we have collectively decided are all worthless scroungers we are better off without, giving us a potential grand shortfall of 181,000 staff.

My back of the fag packet calculation (on the basis the 4000 bed London Nightingale hospital needs 16000 staff) is that the total of 20,000 capacity Nightingales will require a mere additional 80,000 staff.

So we are only a quarter of a million short, come come people where's that bulldog spirit? John Redwood reckons we can do it and he should know as he has extensive experience running ... *quickly checks wikipedia* ... not so much as a whelk store, ever.

f.ck yeah, I've always wanted a crack at being an anaesthetist, how hard can it be? Bit of gas and a couple of injections, piece of piss. Can't take more than a couple of weeks to learn all the fiddly bits.

Sign me up

veravista wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:46 pm f.ck yeah, I've always wanted a crack at being an anaesthetist, how hard can it be? Bit of gas and a couple of injections, piece of piss. Can't take more than a couple of weeks to learn all the fiddly bits.

Sign me up

Online training available here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4fNaIurb04

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:35 am

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:11 am December is tomorrow, and the last day of transition is December the 31st. At about the end of this week we run out of the time bought by the EU Parliament's willingness to have a special ratification session at the end of December. After that it would require provisional ratification of parts of a deal by the EU Council pending ratification later. But doing so would require a lot of goodwill. It would also get very complicated if a member state objected

On the positive side, it looks like neither side wants to be the ones who stop the negotiations.

Apparently Barnier's been told there's not much point continuing to turn up after tomorrow, as there'll be no time to get the deal passed and they need to focus on no-deal prep.

I think that they'll keep talking. But it would be to keep up the appearance that its not their fault. By the end of this week everyone has to focus upon no-deal preparations.

According to the usually excellent Tony Connelly last minute mini-deals will be limited to aviation, road haulage and railways. So they'll keep goods moving (albeit with long delays) but that's about it https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status ... 5949713408

Over the weekend there have been several articles in the UK press about the issue of UK holiday home owners and others who want to spend an extended period in the Schengen area being unable to.

Today was the Mail's turn (warning, direct Daily Mail link, I can't remember the site that makes them "safe").

Interestingly, and somewhat to my surprise, the top-rated comments are along the lines of "Yes, this is what you voted for, why do you think you should be exempt from the rules?", while the comments like "This is the EU being vindictive" are the ones getting voted down. Is it possible? Could the Mail's readership finally be getting a clue?

It was always the case that EU rules allowed member states to ask that anyone from another EU member state who wanted to stay for an extended period would need to make themselves known to the authorities, and possibly demonstrate some source of income and health coverage.

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:52 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:35 am
Apparently Barnier's been told there's not much point continuing to turn up after tomorrow, as there'll be no time to get the deal passed and they need to focus on no-deal prep.

I think that they'll keep talking. But it would be to keep up the appearance that its not their fault. By the end of this week everyone has to focus upon no-deal preparations.

According to the usually excellent Tony Connelly last minute mini-deals will be limited to aviation, road haulage and railways. So they'll keep goods moving (albeit with long delays) but that's about it https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status ... 5949713408

No deal isn't actually the end state, and we will still need a deal eventually. But there comes a point (more or less now) where it makes more sense for the EU to say let's pick this up again next year, when there's less time pressure to ratify in emergency recalls of parliaments, and when the downsides of no deal have been made more obvious to the headbangers in control of the UK government.

shpalman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:34 pm It was always the case that EU rules allowed member states to ask that anyone from another EU member state who wanted to stay for an extended period would need to make themselves known to the authorities, and possibly demonstrate some source of income and health coverage.

Yes, since 2004/38/EC - brought in at the insistence of the UK and France to keep Polish Plumbers at bay, then mostly ignored by both of those countries. But compare before and after in, say, Spain (this will be different for each country because of course with respect to TCNs all EU countries have sovrintee):

Before (EU): Income of 1x IPREM (a Spanish measure of minimum survivable income, about 550 Euros) per person per month, or 10K Euros in the bank, checked only on the day you apply. Basically almost any couple with a UK state pension and a few grand in life savings, or a modest occupational pension and no life savings, can meet this. A surprising number of Brits in Spain are managing on really quite modest incomes.
After (TCN): Income of 4x IPREM for first person and another 1x for everyone else in the house. Must be net cash flow into your account. This works out at 32k Euros annually for a couple. That's a serious pension. (This is just for a residency visa. If you want to work, you'll need another visa, including a statement from your future employer that they can't find a qualified EU citizen to do the job. Self-employment is allowed, but they will want to see a concrete business plan that looks like it will bring in €32K with a decent margin.)

Before: Health cover via S1 certificate, or local health card if you have any job (even self-employed), or private insurance with no deductible from any EU-based company. Again, for a retired person, this is no problem: The NHS will give you an S1 and even an EHIC to use in the rest of the EU.
After: Private insurance with no deductible, from an approved list of policies with Spanish companies. This will be a killer for many older people, as a bad pre-existing condition will mean huge premiums. You can't say "Oh, well cover me for everything apart from a recurrence of my cancer, if that happens I'll throw myself on the mercy of the Spanish national system".

Before: Rock up in Spain, look around, decide you like it, rent a furnished place, find a place to buy or long-term rent, apply for residency. In theory you have to do this within 90 days of your arrival, but there are no fines if you don't get around to it for a bit longer. The presumption is that the answer will be "Yes" unless you are an obvious drain on society.
After: Before leaving UK, apply at Spanish consulate for a residency visa, which involves an in-person interview. Take along proof that you will be able to meet the income requirement and costs of health insurance. If you get the visa, which can be refused for any reason, move to Spain. Get settled in. Go to immigration police and hope that they agree with the visa people, especially if you have just put down a deposit to buy a flat or house. Probably safest to rent while getting your residence card, then move again when you can buy somewhere. Only a little bit of extra hassle, eh?

Before: After 5 years of continuous residence, you get upgraded to permanent resident status, no questions asked.
After: You have to prove you are continuing to meet the income and insurance requirements twice more during the 5 years.

AMS wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:03 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:52 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:35 am
Apparently Barnier's been told there's not much point continuing to turn up after tomorrow, as there'll be no time to get the deal passed and they need to focus on no-deal prep.

I think that they'll keep talking. But it would be to keep up the appearance that its not their fault. By the end of this week everyone has to focus upon no-deal preparations.

According to the usually excellent Tony Connelly last minute mini-deals will be limited to aviation, road haulage and railways. So they'll keep goods moving (albeit with long delays) but that's about it https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status ... 5949713408

No deal isn't actually the end state, and we will still need a deal eventually. But there comes a point (more or less now) where it makes more sense for the EU to say let's pick this up again next year, when there's less time pressure to ratify in emergency recalls of parliaments, and when the downsides of no deal have been made more obvious to the headbangers in control of the UK government.

Certainly, Brexit negotiations are never going to end. I agree that unless something happens within the week they’ll probably go on the back burner.

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:04 pmInterestingly, and somewhat to my surprise, the top-rated comments are along the lines of "Yes, this is what you voted for, why do you think you should be exempt from the rules?", while the comments like "This is the EU being vindictive" are the ones getting voted down. Is it possible? Could the Mail's readership finally be getting a clue?

Only a minority of people voted for that either in 2016 or 2019. In 2016, most people wanted remain or soft Brexit. In 2019, less than half the electorate voted for the rabid Tory/Brexit parties (f.ck knows what Labour's policy was in 2019 but it didn't seem to be hard Brexit), even if you count that election as a repeat referendum rather than a general election.

Sciolus wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:47 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:04 pmInterestingly, and somewhat to my surprise, the top-rated comments are along the lines of "Yes, this is what you voted for, why do you think you should be exempt from the rules?", while the comments like "This is the EU being vindictive" are the ones getting voted down. Is it possible? Could the Mail's readership finally be getting a clue?

Only a minority of people voted for that either in 2016 or 2019. In 2016, most people wanted remain or soft Brexit. In 2019, less than half the electorate voted for the rabid Tory/Brexit parties (f.ck knows what Labour's policy was in 2019 but it didn't seem to be hard Brexit), even if you count that election as a repeat referendum rather than a general election.

Of course, but these are people who read, and presumably (in order to comment) have created an account on, the Daily Mail website. The comments on the equivalent Telegraph article are far more rabid.

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:55 pm

Sciolus wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:47 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:04 pmInterestingly, and somewhat to my surprise, the top-rated comments are along the lines of "Yes, this is what you voted for, why do you think you should be exempt from the rules?", while the comments like "This is the EU being vindictive" are the ones getting voted down. Is it possible? Could the Mail's readership finally be getting a clue?

Only a minority of people voted for that either in 2016 or 2019. In 2016, most people wanted remain or soft Brexit. In 2019, less than half the electorate voted for the rabid Tory/Brexit parties (f.ck knows what Labour's policy was in 2019 but it didn't seem to be hard Brexit), even if you count that election as a repeat referendum rather than a general election.

Of course, but these are people who read, and presumably (in order to comment) have created an account on, the Daily Mail website. The comments on the equivalent Telegraph article are far more rabid.

The article is bouncing round Twitter. Possible that thousands of votes are coming from people who don’t normally read the Mail.

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:04 pm Today was the Mail's turn (warning, direct Daily Mail link, I can't remember the site that makes them "safe").

Of course I don't want to click on it but why does it specifically say British Expats can't spend time in their holiday homes?

If you're an Expat, you're resident there already.

The people who can't spend arbitrary amounts of time in second homes in the EU are British Pats.

If you're resident there already, you're an immigrant.

shpalman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:18 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:04 pm Today was the Mail's turn (warning, direct Daily Mail link, I can't remember the site that makes them "safe").

Of course I don't want to click on it but why does it specifically say British Expats can't spend time in their holiday homes?

If you're an Expat, you're resident there already.

The people who can't spend arbitrary amounts of time in second homes in the EU are British Pats.

#BonfireOfTheSubs

Equally, though, there is a lot of undisguised and misplaced glee from Remainers, who all seem to imagine that every UK citizen who lives in France or owns a holiday home there voted for Brexit. Of course those people deserve everything they get, but they are the minority. It's just that their TV interviews are seared into the collective memory.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:30 pm If you're resident there already, you're an immigrant.

I actually don't mind the term "expat", if used by the person themselves. Go on any web site that caters to Indians living abroad and everyone is referring to themselves as expats. I think it's fine to have one word from your own point of view, and another from the point of view of the host country. If I'm in the UK and someone asks where I'm from, I might say I'm a long-term "expat"; I'm not going to say "I'm an immigrant to multiple EU countries, currently Spain". That is, to me anyway, "immigrant" implies "in" to the country where you currently are. YMMV.

Of course, if there were people who actually said (as opposed to being caricatured as saying) "Foreigners living in England [sic] are immigrants, whereas we are expats, that's quite different", and who got upset when their local border police asked them for their "immigration" forms, then that would be annoying. But I don't think many people actually talk, or indeed reason, like that. Even the most pig-headed Brits I've met outside the UK will acknowledge, after a moment or two, that they are immigrants, although sometimes you can see a little light bulb fizzing into life. The problems start when they then don't understand why the country they've moved to should give them any better a deal than the UK does to its own immigrants, but since the pig-headed ones (including many members of staunchly pro-Remain Facebook groups) seem to think that anyone arriving in the UK gets their own 5-star hotel and a Bentley, there's not much hope there. (The narrative that "other people are scrounging off me" seems to be one of the most powerful in the British psyche, whether those other people are furriners or layabouts.)

List of things that need to be agreed regarding Northern Ireland.
https://twitter.com/jp_biz/status/13336 ... 39042?s=21

Only 21 working days left, and the lack of a broader UK EU trade agreement would make everything much more complicated.

Good thread on how we and most people are assessing Johnson's decision the wrong way. Its not about a sophisticated cost benefit analysis, but about Johnson's gut instinct as to whether its something he wants or not.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1334 ... 30912?s=20

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:04 pm Today was the Mail's turn (warning, direct Daily Mail link, I can't remember the site that makes them "safe").

The website you want is Do Not Link: http://donotlinkfb.com/

CF

Cardinal Fang wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:30 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:04 pm Today was the Mail's turn (warning, direct Daily Mail link, I can't remember the site that makes them "safe").

The website you want is Do Not Link: http://donotlinkfb.com/

CF

That was the site I had half-remembered but couldn't think of, thanks