brexit?!!?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Circumstances certainly affected one recital including Thalberg, as it now won't be given until next year, if at all.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

We do not yet know if that peak, even if it has passed, will not recur; we will know more about that from two principal information sources, the first being the impact on the disease's prevalence following relaxation of restrictions and the second whether or not those who test positive for it have thereby gained immunity from it.

Actually, we can reasonably infer that the peak has passed, as the graphs of infection and mortality rates for all countries providing reliable data follow broadly the same path. One of the things we now know is that there are two different groups of people, one who are barely susceptible at all to the effects of virus, and another who are at serious risk. Fortunately, the first of these two groups is the economically active one, so it would make a lot of sense to approach the two groups with different strategies and to segregate them as much as possible in the short term. We simply can't have society ceasing to function indefinitely, but it would be better, even as a short term compromise, to allow those who are not at risk to go about work as normal, and if necessary employ people to deliver household goods to vulnerable persons in order to minimise their risk. Shutting everything down is not the answer: if you could do it for a month and everything was fine at the end, we could get away with it, but for six months just isn't reasonable: it risks destroying the lives of the many. The virus isn't something lethal like Ebola: yes it really goes for the seriously infirm, but it's almost entirely irrelevant to the young and fit. I'm afraid it was always going to cause a significant number of deaths, but dogmatic approaches are not going to help.

[ahinton]

Actually, we can reasonably infer that the peak has passed, as the graphs of infection and mortality rates for all countries providing reliable data follow broadly the same path.

I wrote

"We do not yet know if that peak, even if it has passed, will not recur; we will know more about that from two principal information sources, the first being the impact on the disease's prevalence following relaxation of restrictions and the second whether or not those who test positive for it have thereby gained immunity from it."

I am therefore not suggesting that the peak has not passed, but that the extent to which it may have dones do can - at least so far - offer no absolute guarantee of non-recurrence and we won't know enough about that for some time.

One of the things we now know is that there are two different groups of people, one who are barely susceptible at all to the effects of virus, and another who are at serious risk. Fortunately, the first of these two groups is the economically active one, so it would make a lot of sense to approach the two groups with different strategies and to segregate them as much as possible in the short term.

Whilst that's broadly true, such segregation would be extremely difficult to implement in practice, especially if other relecant considerations such as population density and the apparent susceptibility of BAME people are also taken into consideration.

We simply can't have society ceasing to function indefinitely, but it would be better, even as a short term compromise, to allow those who are not at risk to go about work as normal, and if necessary employ people to deliver household goods to vulnerable persons in order to minimise their risk. Shutting everything down is not the answer: if you could do it for a month and everything was fine at the end, we could get away with it, but for six months just isn't reasonable: it risks destroying the lives of the many. The virus isn't something lethal like Ebola: yes it really goes for the seriously infirm, but it's almost entirely irrelevant to the young and fit. I'm afraid it was always going to cause a significant number of deaths, but dogmatic approaches are not going to help.

Whilst in principle I can broadly agree with what you write here, the problem lies in how a government could actually go about ensuring what you advocate.

How many workplaces are entirely free, for example, from people aged 60 or above, BAME people or people of any age with pre-existing medical conditions that might not preclude their ability to work but would nevertheless render them more vulnerable to contracting and, in some cases, dying of COVID-19?

To do this securely one would have to prevent all those who fall into the above categories from continuing to work and that alone would cause immense administrative headaches, potential lawsuits and economic problems for employers. What then about the self-employed which also includes people in those categories?

Likewise, if all public transport returns to full service (planes, trains, coaches, buses, &c.), how would the service operators guarantee the ability to refuse all passengers who fall into any of those categories?

It ain't so simple, methinks!

Best,

Alistair

[ranjit]

Actually, we can reasonably infer that the peak has passed, as the graphs of infection and mortality rates for all countries providing reliable data follow broadly the same path.

That is not exactly true. You can only be sure that the peak has passed if the existing measures are still in place. Otherwise, you can and will have exponential growth, and so you'll hit a new peak. "Herd immunity" only works after some 60-70% of the population is infected.

[ahinton]

Well, at least this is something - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52761052 - so let's hope it is also the first in a series of steps to renege on or rethink other unacceptable policies, not least those concerning free movement.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

That is not exactly true. You can only be sure that the peak has passed if the existing measures are still in place. Otherwise, you can and will have exponential growth, and so you'll hit a new peak. "Herd immunity" only works after some 60-70% of the population is infected.

Indeed; if only 60-70% of UK's voting population would have had to vote for UK to remain in or leave EU, that might have "worked", too - at least considerably better than the present situation (I mention this because Brexit remains the thread topic)...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

That is not exactly true. You can only be sure that the peak has passed if the existing measures are still in place. Otherwise, you can and will have exponential growth, and so you'll hit a new peak. "Herd immunity" only works after some 60-70% of the population is infected.

Yes, I agree up to a point, but the current evidence in some European countries which are lifting restrictions (particularly the smaller ones) is that they aren't getting any signs of real growth. I don't like the term "exponential growth" tbh, because it implies something which isn't there in the long term: even if everyone died, you wouldn't get exponential growth after you passed a certain point in the spread of the virus.

Even with "normal" pandemics, they have tended to go through a brutal expansion phase and then slowly retreat. They attack the "low-hanging fruit" options first, and once they take out the unlucky and those with lowered resistance, cease to be as dangerous.

Also, the cold hard truth is that shutting down society once is bad enough, we can't afford to do it repeatedly every time there is another outbreak. At some point politicians may be forced into compromises which allow society to function albeit with an increased death rate.

There are no easy decisions here.

[ahinton]

There are no easy decisions here.

There most certainly are not!

Best,

Alistair

[ranjit]

I don't like the term "exponential growth" tbh, because it implies something which isn't there in the long term: even if everyone died, you wouldn't get exponential growth after you passed a certain point in the spread of the virus.

"Exponential growth" means that the virus grows at an exponential rate, a^k, until "herd immunity" takes over when there are enough people infected/recovered that a<1 (this is the precise meaning of "herd immunity"), and the virus doesn't get enough hosts and tapers off. Basically, the certain point in the spread of the virus you refer to after which you wouldn't get exponential growth is exactly that point where "herd immunity" takes over.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

That isn't really true though. When people talk about exponential growth, the most common popular image is probably the grains on the chessboard example. Thus people are led to believe in an ultimately hyperlethal expansion rate, whereas in reality the growth appears exponential until it hits a knee and then reduces (though of course cases continue to rise). The location of the knee is perhaps the most important factor of all. Some people will of course understand what is meant here by "exponential growth", even if isn't that in any strict sense, but others may well panic: we can see that readily in the "everyone is going to die" mentality of some people.

[ahinton]

That isn't really true though. When people talk about exponential growth, the most common popular image is probably the grains on the chessboard example. Thus people are led to believe in an ultimately hyperlethal expansion rate, whereas in reality the growth appears exponential until it hits a knee and then reduces (though of course cases continue to rise). The location of the knee is perhaps the most important factor of all. Some people will of course understand what is meant here by "exponential growth", even if isn't that in any strict sense, but others may well panic: we can see that readily in the "everyone is going to die" mentality of some people.

Be that as it may (and I don't hold with that "everyone is going to die" mentality), one issue is that a substantial proportion of those who contract the virus without realising that they've done so because they're asymptomatic are in what might be called the "fit" category, to the extent of being non-BAME under-60s with no pre-existing medical conditions and, of course, these people are more likely to pass it on to others unwittingly; moreover, looking it from the other end of the telescope, even those who are obese and/or suffer from dementia as well as over 60s, BAME people and others with pre-existing medical conditions (whether or not they are in care homes) can only contract COVID-19 by reason of close contact with someone who already has it with or without symptoms.

Add these factors into the mix with the insurmountable problems that would be associated with any attempts to segregate those deemed to be at higher risk from those deemed to be at lower risk and the difficulties of dealing with this until such time as viable and effective treatment is found become plainly obvious.

As to the thread topic, today's UK borrowing figures already demonstrate that it's in a very different economic position than it was at the time of the referendum and the same applies in greater or lesser measure to all the other 27 EU member states, so there's no getting away from the fact that a colossal spanner has been thrown into the works by the existence, spread and impacts of COVID-19 which, after all, affects almost every nation on earth.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Well, at least this is something - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52761052 - so let's hope it is also the first in a series of steps to renege on or rethink other unacceptable policies, not least those concerning free movement.

Indeed free movement is unacceptable. What is even more unacceptable are the hundred or so illegal immigrants being ferried out into British waters on a daily basis by the French authorities, that then need to be "rescued" by the British authorities.
You wont see that on the BBC.

[thalbergmad]

There are many definable reasons behind most deaths from COVID-19, including but not limited to those two that you singled out; I write "most" because there are also, as you recognise, a relatively small number of people who have contracted the virus and a smaller number who have died from it who do not fit into the kinds of category concerned - i.e. those who are not old, living in densely populated areas or with pre-existing medical conditions - as well as some more who might have contracted it but been asymptomatic and more again who, whatever they thought it might have been, were not actually diagnosed with it so, as you rightly state, are excluded from statistics.

The statistics that will become ever more important as time goes on are those that have died from other conditions without COVID-19 because they were unable to access treatment. Cancer treatment, heart bypasses, chemo, the list is endless as is the list of cancelled operations as the NHS is crippled by a flu virus.

You mentioned earlier a vaccine, but that is not the golden bullet for a virus that can render a vaccine useless when it changes its genetic code.
We have a flu vaccine at the moment, but it doesn't stop people from getting it, nor does it stop the small amount of deaths.
I am not in favour of a lockdown and believe (as does Dr Starkey and Peter Hitchens) that it is a gross overreaction.
COVID-19 will run its course and there is not a lot we can do about it. Shutting down the economy which our Grandchildren will still be paying for, is not a price worth paying.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

It is interesting that the media seems now to report deaths as "Covid-19 listed as a cause" wihich is more accurate.
Lockdown in my area all but vanished about 3 weeks ago. The Prom is full of people, the town is more busy, the Country parks are full of people sunbathing and playing football and kids are running all over the place. The Police gave up ages ago.
The local NHS Trust reported 0 related deaths yesterday.
Washing hands is sensible, social distancing is sensible, but keeping people in their homes is as unenforceable as it is stupid.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The statistics that will become ever more important as time goes on are those that have died from other conditions without COVID-19 because they were unable to access treatment. Cancer treatment, heart bypasses, chemo, the list is endless as is the list of cancelled operations as the NHS is crippled by a flu virus.

You mentioned earlier a vaccine, but that is not the golden bullet for a virus that can render a vaccine useless when it changes its genetic code.
We have a flu vaccine at the moment, but it doesn't stop people from getting it, nor does it stop the small amount of deaths.
I am not in favour of a lockdown and believe (as does Dr Starkey and Peter Hitchens) that it is a gross overreaction.
COVID-19 will run its course and there is not a lot we can do about it. Shutting down the economy which our Grandchildren will still be paying for, is not a price worth paying.

Thal

Yes, I agree with this. All of it. One of the most tiresome aspects of debate regarding this is that anyone proposing this view is accused of "not caring about people", "money before lives", and, in extreme cases "normalising genocide". The problem is that tunnel vision descended on many people, including the authorities, a long time ago, and they appear unable to look past one facet of the problem, ie the direct covid-19 toll. They've even mismanaged that facet, the one they state is of overriding importance.

The economy and lives are not disparate entities: if you make millions of people unemployed, you destroy lives and futures. There will be a lot of people who won't recover from this.

And, to return this thread to its original context, Brexit. As I've stated, I am not in favour of Brexit, but the arguments that we can't do it due to the economic implications look positively absurd now that we've accepted an economic armageddon far far worse than anything Brexit might bring.

[ahinton]

Indeed free movement is unacceptable. What is even more unacceptable are the hundred or so illegal immigrants being ferried out into British waters on a daily basis by the French authorities, that then need to be "rescued" by the British authorities.
You wont see that on the BBC.

Unrestricted free movement is indeed unacceptable but so is the placing of too many restrictions on it where medical staff, musicians, fruit pickers and many other vital workers are concerned and, if implemented in full, UK will suffer as a consequence; that a minimum salary is being suggested as a qualifying factor is a nonsense in that is would unfairly discriminate against underpaid people whose services are nevertheless needed.

As to the illegal immigrants whom you mention, you know that we agree about that subject except to the extent that those who come over from France seeking asylum can either be given it or refused it by the UK authorities and turned back; I suspect that you may find, however, that they are not being "ferried out into British waters on a daily basis by the French authorities" so much as having blind eyes and deaf ears turned to them on the part of those authorities.

As to BBC, I did indeed hear this very subject discussed on this morning's edition of Today on Radio 4.

Moreover, if Brexit matters ramp up acrimony and disagreement between UK and France, more of this might be expected and UK will no longer have EU at its beck and call to seek help with this; in its "transition period", UK is already having to continue to pay EU what it always has done despite no longer having any say in EU affairs.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The statistics that will become ever more important as time goes on are those that have died from other conditions without COVID-19 because they were unable to access treatment. Cancer treatment, heart bypasses, chemo, the list is endless as is the list of cancelled operations as the NHS is crippled by a flu virus.

That is absolutely correct, but what can hospitals be expected to do about it? Those requiring treatment for COVID-19 have as much right as those who are having those operations &c. for other issues cancelled because of it. NHS is indeed crippled by this virus, but how can that be stopped? It's hardly NHS's fault!

You mentioned earlier a vaccine, but that is not the golden bullet for a virus that can render a vaccine useless when it changes its genetic code.

No, it isn't and can't be but that's not discouraging various organisations from researching to find one; vast sums are rightly and necessarily being invested in this.

The genetic code issue is surely something that researchers will bear in mind, just as they will the anticipated useful life of any vaccine that's produced.

Moreover, whilst https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52754280 might not be a golden bullet either, it's an interesting side development that might well end up helping with other conditions affecting the immune system besides just COVID-19.

We have a flu vaccine at the moment, but it doesn't stop people from getting it, nor does it stop the small amount of deaths.

It reduces both cases and deaths from it but no one's pretending that it's a catch-all.

I am not in favour of a lockdown and believe (as does Dr Starkey and Peter Hitchens) that it is a gross overreaction.

I suspected as much.

I am not arguing with this because I do not know; only time may tell once we'll have been able to observe and assess the outcome of full lockdown removal over a few months. That said, describing as a "gross overreaction" something that's not yet amenable to such a claim is at best spurious and at worst specious.

One problem here is that there's far more dogmatic reaction on both sides than there is bona fide research in support of either.

COVID-19 will run its course and there is not a lot we can do about it.

Well, we all hope that it will, of course but to say that we can't do much about it is as dangerous as it is defeatist; we do not know if it will run its course, how long it might take to do so or how many cases and casualties it might leave in its wake if and when it does; nor can we know whether it might recur later.

One further problem is that those who suffered very badly before recovering from it are likely to be left with respiratory and other problems that will require continued treatment and monitoring and might well affect their ability to work.

Shutting down the economy which our Grandchildren will still be paying for, is not a price worth paying.

Given the figures that we now know, I rather fear that it's a little late for that now; the effects not only on the UK economy but on all the world's other economies which themselves impact on UK's are already so devastating that, were a cure to be found next week, it will still take years before recovery from what's already happened to those economies will be complete.

There has, for example, been (premature) talk of tax hikes in UK, albeit not yet, but the chances of those contributing more than a pittance towards reducing  UK's indebtedness are very slim.

An 11-figure depletion of VAT receipts alone occurred just last month due to vast reductions in spending on VATable goods and services.

Trying to ramp up taxes on earned income and profits will generate little when employers have gone bust or had to reduce their workforces and quite a few SMEs will likewise have gone to the wall (to which you rightly drew attention recently).

Air passenger duty has plummeted and the effects on airlines, airports and suppliers to both industries will consequently result in reduced tax liability for them which is unlikelyt to change in the foreseeable future.

That leaves CGT and IHT but, as they're taxes on assets, these, too, will generate considerably smaller sums as the values of so many assets deplete.

Mr Sunak will therefore find himself vastly more dependent upon borrowings (assuming that he can secure them) than on extra tax receipts; it's not his fault, of course, but his hands will inevitably be tied by these considerations.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I suspect that you may find, however, that they are not being "ferried out into British waters on a daily basis by the French authorities" so much as having blind eyes and deaf ears turned to them on the part of those authorities.

They have been filmed doing it.

[ahinton]

They have been filmed doing it.

In that case, which particular "authorities" are they?

In any event, there's not much that can be done to prevent this and less because of Brexit should it complete.

That said, were the boot on the other foot, so to speak and groups of illegal immigrants / asylum seekers / refugees / call-them-what-you-will were in SE England aiming to travel ultimately to France, what would you advocate that the equivalent English authorities do about them? (and not on some kind of tit-for-tat basis just because the French ones are acting as now they appear to be doing).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

In that case, which particular "authorities" are they?

The French Navy and the British Border Force was filmed conducting a "handover" mid Channel.

In any event, there's not much that can be done to prevent this and less because of Brexit should it complete.

We are paying the French to assist in stopping illegals embarking in the first place

That said, were the boot on the other foot, so to speak and groups of illegal immigrants / asylum seekers / refugees / call-them-what-you-will were in SE England aiming to travel ultimately to France, what would you advocate that the equivalent English authorities do about them? (and not on some kind of tit-for-tat basis just because the French ones are acting as now they appear to be doing) [/quote]

They should be returned from the Country that they came from should it be considered safe. There is no doubt that France is. All illegals should be sent back to France if that is where they came from. It should not be difficult.

[thalbergmad]

I read in the local rag that a farm in Sevenoaks has had 700 applications from British nationals for fruit picking jobs. There were only 70 vacancies.
Sort of destroys "we need the immigrants to do the jobs the Brits are too lazy to do" nonsense that is spun regularly by the left.

[ahinton]

I read in the local rag that a farm in Sevenoaks has had 700 applications from British nationals for fruit picking jobs. There were only 70 vacancies.
Sort of destroys "we need the immigrants to do the jobs the Brits are too lazy to do" nonsense that is spun regularly by the left.

So did they offer those 70 jobs to British fruit pickers? Perhaps they were offering higher rates than some of their "competitors" who continue to complain that they are unable to secure the amount of this kind of labour that they need. Unless you believe that those fruit farmers are all "leftie" organisations because they complain about this, there would appear to remain a question to be answered...

Speaking of which, you have so far omitted to answer mine about what you'd advocate UK "authorities" to do about people who have entered UK from outside EU aiming ultimately to go on to France...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

So did they offer those 70 jobs to British fruit pickers? Perhaps they were offering higher rates than some of their "competitors" who continue to complain that they are unable to secure the amount of this kind of labour that they need. Unless you believe that those fruit farmers are all "leftie" organisations because they complain about this, there would appear to remain a question to be answered...

There were many instances of British workers being turned down, possibly because farmers would actually have to pay them the minimum wage. Secondly, they wouldnt be able to steal money off them for atrocious lodgings since they would go home every night.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the same reasons are behind why some regions have insufficient pickers. Farmers have been enjoying a glut on cheap foreign labor  as have many industries and it needs to end. The British people are willing, but some farmers are still hoping that they will get sufficient Eastern Europeans that they can exploit.
When desperation occurs, they may have to change their ways.

[thalbergmad]

Speaking of which, you have so far omitted to answer mine about what you'd advocate UK "authorities" to do about people who have entered UK from outside EU aiming ultimately to go on to France...

The majoritiy of illegals that arrive on our shores come from France and should be returned to France.
If they came from elsewhere, that is where they should be returned to.
Why would illegals want to make it to France?. Would they give them a roof over their head, 3 meals a day, free healthcare and £35 a week?. I doubt it.
Have a nice day in your Lefty La La Land.

Thal

[ahinton]

The majoritiy of illegals that arrive on our shores come from France and should be returned to France.

I know that's where they come from but that doesn't answer the question.

If they came from elsewhere, that is where they should be returned to.
Why would illegals want to make it to France?. Would they give them a roof over their head, 3 meals a day, free healthcare and £35 a week?. I doubt it.

Well, the Germans did rather more than that and on a much larger scale, as you have often roundly criticised them for doing in the past.

Anyway, what you or anyone might think that the French authorities ought to do, UK has no jurisdiction over them or it and therefore cannot control or influence either - and that will become more the case after Brexit should it happen.

Anyway, it would seem that Mr Johnson has other immediate pressing concerns right now, not least some Cummings and, hopefully, also goings...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Indeed the pathetic media witch hunt continues against a fine fine who was protecting his family.
When Kinnock MP drove the the birthday party of Kinnock Ex MP, the media were almost silent.
I love Cummins. He was the driving force behind the leave win, the Boris win and the Tory win.

Have a nice lefty day.

[ahinton]

Indeed the pathetic media witch hunt continues against a fine fine who was protecting his family.

"A fine fine"? I don't believe that he was fined. The fact remains that some of what he did is questionable in its adherence to the law and to rules set by the government that he advises and one can well understand the responses of people who have been considerably more diligent in that regard.

Witch hunts are for witches.

When Kinnock MP drove the the birthday party of Kinnock Ex MP, the media were almost silent.

Two wrongs don't make a right and there's no excuse for that either, but let's not forget that the Kinnocks did not make the relevant rules.

I love Cummins.

Then at least do him the courtesy of spelling his name correctly!

Someone has to love him, one may suppose.

He was the driving force behind the leave win, the Boris win and the Tory win.

Not so; he's only been the PM's adviser since last year - and that's hardly a commendation in any case when that "driving force" (assuming that his eyesight is insufficiently impaired by COVID-19 to affect his driving ability) was supposed to be the electorate, not some unelected adviser.

Have a nice lefty day.

For the forty-eleventh time, I am not of the left and, for the record, have never voted Labour in my life and I;m not about to start despite the party possibly having itgs best leader in years.

You have a nice COVID-19-free day yourself.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Two wrongs don't make a right and there's no excuse for that either, but let's not forget that the Kinnocks did not make the relevant rules.

Cummings didn't make the rules either. It is just an example of the biased lefty BBC.
Kinnock drove to a birthday party, not to help his children.
No doubt Boris knew of this, but he is not the kind of man to start pathetic political point scoring like that moron now in charge of the Labour idiots.

[ahinton]

Cummings didn't make the rules either. It is just an example of the biased lefty BBC.

For one thing, BBC is by no means the only information source here; for another, the government whose PM he is contracted to advise did make the rules, for they did not make themselves, nor were they made by any opposition party. Who do you believe made them, then?

Kinnock drove to a birthday party, not to help his children.

As I wrote, two wrongs don't make a right and there was no excuse for this; Kinnock should have been shown up for his irresponsible actions and made to answer for them.

That said, it seems inconceivable that Cummings could not have found help to deal with his son and, as he admitted, he did not even tell Boris what he was doing, as he should have done.

No doubt Boris knew of this, but he is not the kind of man to start pathetic political point scoring like that moron now in charge of the Labour idiots.

Labour's new leader is probably the party's best chance of survival; at least the man is a lawyer, not a moron and doesn't look as though he'll stand for any nonsense, although it's early days yet.

In any event, the discontent surrounding Cummings is coming in part from the party of government, one example being https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52806086 which, for all your contempt for BBC, is a fact and not a BBC invention.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-depends-on-dominic-cummings-politically-and-psychologically-z52xwcwnb is admittedly behind a paywall but you get the drift - and I don't believe that The Times can reasonably be accused of being a "lefty" paper...

If https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52808059 is based solely on a pack of lies invented by BBC or anyone else, perhaps proof of that can be found...

But maybe I'm missing something here; indeed, https://www.facebook.com/HaveIGotNewsForYou/photos/a.480809768770138/1456734221177683/?type=3&theater appears to suggest that this is indeed the case!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

As I wrote, two wrongs don't make a right and there was no excuse for this; Kinnock should have been shown up for his irresponsible actions and made to answer for them.

There was never any call for him to be sacked by the Media, that is they could be bothered to report it in the first place. He also wasnt hounded by hoardes of press outside his house.
That is the crucial difference here.

[ahinton]

There was never any call for him to be sacked by the Media, that is they could be bothered to report it in the first place. He also wasnt hounded by hoardes of press outside his house.
That is the crucial difference here.

But don't you think that such calls, not only from media but also from MPs, should have been made? A breach is a breach whoever commits it but, when MPs or Lords (whom the electorate charges to make laws), it's especially serious.

Kinnock should have been treated as Cummings is now, with the exception that hounding people and their families outside their homes is reprehensible whoever does it to whom and regardless of circumstance; however, had Boris taken the first opportunity to sack his adviser (who didn't even keep him in the loop as to what he was doing) instead of lending him his support, such unwarranted behaviour might not have arisen in any case.

Anyway, the issue of Cummings' conduct shows no signs of going away, with concerns having been raised by MPs including Tories, so we'll just have to wait and see; in the meantime, Boris has done himself no favours by supporting Cummings.

By the way, STAY ALERT : CONTROL THE VIRUS : SAVE LIVES

is an anagram of

EASILY SURVIVES TRAVEL NORTH TO CASTLE

Ahem...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Kinnock should have been treated as Cummings is now,

Yes, but he wasnn't. You didnt see the media coverage and you didnt get cries from Tories or Boris to get him sacked.
That is the difference.

On another note:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1286480/Priti-Patel-change-France-migrants-boats-channel

Send them all back and about time.

[ahinton]

Yes, but he wasnn't. You didnt see the media coverage and you didnt get cries from Tories or Boris to get him sacked.
That is the difference.

I agree, which is why I wrote that he should have been treated in the same way as Cummings.

Although Cummings remains in post for the time being, the incident has given rise to so much disagreement and indignation on all sides that both he and Mr Johnson have had their respective credibility severaly dented; it is also being widely feared that many people are now ignoring lockdown requirements as a direct conseuences and, if my grocery shopping trip this morning was anything by which to go, that does indeed seem to tbe the case as traffic levels were back almost to normal.

On another note:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1286480/Priti-Patel-change-France-migrants-boats-channel

Send them all back and about time.

Patel has no jurisdiction over the French border authorities. She can try to implement whatever law she likes but, even if successful in having such legislation passed (of which of course there can be no guarantee), there's no likelihood that it will make a scrap of difference in practice.

I am not referring here to the rights or otherwise of such potential migrants or to the legality or otherwise of their attempts to get to UK but solely to the practicalities; in other words, whatever Patel tries to see through might not pass unamanded in the first place but UK has no authority over French or other foreign border forces in any case. How might you propose to overcome the latter problem?

Moreover, anyone sent back to France from UK will be sent at UK's expense - and border forces do not come cheap; the numbers right now are tiny, but just imagine the insurmountable problems that a Brexited UK might face in future were such migrants to be despatched to it in their tens or even hundreds of thousands not only from France but from anywhere else within EU - UK border forces would not be able even to begin to cope.

By the way, you describe me (incorrectly) as a "Guardian reader" yet here you are quoting from that ghastly rag the Daily Express!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

We are already paying the French £60,000,000 a year to stop illegals leaving their shores. They are not sticking to their part of the deal, so hopefully it will be stopped.
We may not have jurisdiction over the French, but we do have the right to protect our own borders, so we shall have to see if the law covers sending back the boats that have sneaked in.
I certainly hope so and well done to Nigel Farage for exposing the French compliance in assisting this horrid trade.
Nothing wrong with the Express. It is a working mans paper for patriotic Englishmen.
The Guardian is just a wierdos left wing sh*t rag read by anti monarchist, pro immigration, transgenders and poofs.

Thal

[ahinton]

We are already paying the French £60,000,000 a year to stop illegals leaving their shores. They are not sticking to their part of the deal, so hopefully it will be stopped.

That would require court cases, "silly" or otherwise, that could drag on for decades.

We may not have jurisdiction over the French, but we do have the right to protect our own borders, so we shall have to see if the law covers sending back the boats that have sneaked in.

Yes, we do indeed have as much right as any other nation to protect our borders but we all have to do it legally; even if sending such boats back might itself be legal (although, as I wrote, it would still have to be done at UK's expense until and unless a court order be obtained to place such cost liability firmly upon the nation sending the boats concerned), that would cover the boats only and not those whom they are carrying.

If the French can be proved in an international court of law to have reneged on any part or parts of a contract with UK for which UK is paying, that's one matter; if not, then not.

The problem here is that, as we know, not all trying to come to UK do so legally but, until and unless all such people are questioned by UK's border authorities upon landing, their rights as refugees, if any, cannot be ascertained and this also comes at considerable expense to UK.

Unless you believe that everyone trying to enter UK must be doing so illegally, there remains an expensive problem; I could be wrong (and, if so, please say so), but I suspect that you consider anyone describing him/herself as a refugee is a liar by reason of so doing but, if not, you should accept that each one has a right to prove it to the authorities of the country that they aim to enter.

I certainly hope so and well done to Nigel Farage for exposing the French compliance in assisting this horrid trade.

Nigel Farage - who has never done anything well, to my knowledge - can do nothing about this; he is not even in government and has no jurisdiction over it!

I is also unclear what this issue has to do with the topic, since it is clearly a matter for which concern would be more or less the same whether UK
a) had voted to remain an EU member state or
b) is in a transition stage of indeterminate length or
c) has completed negotions and fully left EU.

Nothing wrong with the Express. It is a working mans paper for patriotic Englishmen.

Nothing wrong with it as long as you're an English "working man" and like cheap right-wing journalism. If it's as you describe it, however, then it's not for Scots, Welsh or Northern Ireland people or for any women anywhere in UK or for retired or unemployed people or does not accord with your definition of "patriotic", the totality of which rather cuts down its anticipated level of circulation along with readership relevance; pity, that...

The Guardian is just a wierdos left wing sh*t rag read by anti monarchist, pro immigration, transgenders and poofs.

If you are able to provide incontrovertible evidence that no Guardian reader supports the monarchy or is concerned about illegal immigration, then please do; as to "transgenders and poofs", can you be so certain than none of them, whose legal rights - including the one to choose which newspaper to read, if any - are identical to anyone else's, ever reads the Daily Express or the Daily Telegraph? I really do not mean to be rude here but you are rather making yourself look a little silly in that last statement.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It's been many, many years since I considered even the remotest possibility of the Guardian being left-wing. It's a cloying parody of what many pseudo-liberal middle-class people think is left-wing. I despise the paper.

Never mind, back to the Morning Star I go. (I find it far funnier than I really ought to, tbh.)

[ahinton]

It's been many, many years since I considered even the remotest possibility of the Guardian being left-wing. It's a cloying parody of what many pseudo-liberal middle-class people think is left-wing. I despise the paper.

Never mind, back to the Morning Star I go. (I find it far funnier than I really ought to, tbh.)

Well, that's because you read a genuinely left-wing paper.

That said, I've never read any one paper to the exclusion or near-exclusion of others, as Thal well knows. I do know some Guardian readers, however and, for what it might or might not be worth, none of them seems to think of the paper as especially left wing either.

Not that any of this matters, of course, in the greater scheme of things. The UK government has failed to implement any kind of Brexit or even complete negotiations towards a mutually agreed one, so one might arguably be forgiven for wondering why - especially when it expected the vote to go the other way in 2016 - it bothered to set all this up in the first place and thereby land UK with squillions in costs and still ongoing.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Nigel Farage - who has never done anything well, to my knowledge - can do nothing about this; he is not even in government and has no jurisdiction over it!

Well, you are showing the limit of your knowledge. He fought for years for a referendum and got on. He fought for the Leave vote and won. He fought to trigger article 50 and won. He removed his candidates from marginal seats to stop the Leave vote being split and the Tories won.

Because you do not agree with anything he says, your judgement is as biased and stupid as i had expected.

Now, he has highlighted the French compliance in the Channel Ferry Service for illegals which is being addressed by the government.

On another positive note, Cummings has no case to answer to the Police. He committed only a minor transgression and it will not be investigated. You have to look very carefully through the BBC website to find this. Your comments that his actions are likely to influence others into breaking lockdown is stupid even by your standards.
Perhaps you have more proof than your grocery trip.

[ahinton]

Well, you are showing the limit of your knowledge. He fought for years for a referendum and got on. He fought for the Leave vote and won. He fought to trigger article 50 and won. He removed his candidates from marginal seats to stop the Leave vote being split and the Tories won.

Mr Farage neither promised nor launched nor conducted the referendum and had no authority to do so; a Tory government did these things and the electorate, of which Mr Farage is merely one member, voted.

The extent to which Mr Farage "fought" for (or against) anything is clear; neither he nor his then party was represented in HoC.

Which GE do you refer to here? I presume 2017. In 2019, the Tories won without help from Mr Farage or any party that he represented but with much help from traditional Labour voters, some in constituencies that have been Labour held for a century or so.

I have no idea how some of them now regard the situation into which they've helped to get us all - that can only be known at the next GE - but it is both clear and, frankly, understandable that their discontent - indeed, dismay - with their party heavily influenced this material change of political allegiance at the time.

Because you do not agree with anything he says, your judgement is as biased and stupid as i had expected.

Although I do not agree with his outpourings, what I wrote is not judgement but fact; in any event, his importance on UK's political scene is minuscule because he's in no position of authority for it to be otherwise.

Your expertise in biased judgements is illustrated by to the extent to which you disagree with most things published in The Guardian or broadcast on BBC, those two allegedly "lefty" media organisations against which you habitually inveigh!...

Mr Farage's undeniable noisemaking talent exemplifies Sorabji's response to a couplet by Alexander Pope - "insects that are merely noisome like to think that they can also sting"; Mr Farage lacks political clout, so his noise counts for
little.

Now, he has highlighted the French compliance in the Channel Ferry Service for illegals which is being addressed by the government.

So what? Whilst of course there's nothing wrong in principle with his doing that, he lacks influence on any possible outcome; should UK's government's efforts to address it fail, either because the law to do so isn't passed or has no effect is passed, it will be left with no obvious alternative but to consider taking the French authorities to an international court which would be the ultimate arbiter on this, a process that could take years and cost fortunes.

On another positive note, Cummings has no case to answer to the Police. He committed only a minor transgression and it will not be investigated. You have to look very carefully through the BBC website to find this.

If your eyesight is worse than Cummings purportedly feared that his might be, yes; the story has, however, been spread so widely across all news media that one could not possibly miss it. Why? Because it refuses to go away.

Whilst he and Mr Johnson remain in post for now, their respective reputations have undoubtedly been tarnished, possibly irreparably - Cummings by his actions and responses and Johnson by supporting both.

Your comments that his actions are likely to influence others into breaking lockdown is stupid even by your standards.

Perhaps you have more proof than your grocery trip.

There's plenty of evidence of it; I mention my own experience merely as illustration. I don't favour people breaking it, but many who've been conscientious to a fault in adhering to it now feel so aggrieved by what's happened and the ways in which it's been handled (including backhanders to the Durham Police? - who can say?) that they're now adopting the view that if he can do it so can they; an utterly irresponsible attitude, I grant you, but there you go...

When out again this morning, the traffic was even heavier than yesterday; that it's suddenly ramped up is either down at least in part to public response to the Cummings factor or is a very odd coincidence...

Anyway, none of this is about Brexit.

COVID-19, a virus that causes respiratory problems and can cause death, is a medical, not a political, issue; it respects no boundaries and has affected all but one nation in Europe.

The French boat matter would likewise pertain whether or not UK had exited EU or was in a transition period such as it is now or had decided to remain an EU member state; whilst a political issue, its only connection with EU is that France is a member state and UK is in a transition period, so Brexit or no Brexit does not and cannot impact upon or be affected by it.

Why not therefore stick to the thread topic and, if you want to invite discussion of either COVID-19 and its handling in UK and elsewhere or the French boat issue or both, initiate new threads for these?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

OK, the following isn't to do with Brexit either (so apologies) but

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/29/exclusive-durham-chief-constable-pcc-investigation-handling/?fbclid=IwAR3HfjWCrED4jqQEgzuFIHoCUqcRMvWclBP235bOQwQ4zw5B-2s40dLezEM

and

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robert-jenrick-resign-isle-of-dogs-development_uk_5ed005dac5b687804c80727f?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001&fbclid=IwAR1qwLtpTpfe4DdUvJzDbfKTyhLEY1QBeKapHGHWW9WsW1LuD77nMmqucf4&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmFjZWJvb2suY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI72DWSQq20rUCCC6EqQkj9XWFK1E2muSRtYgkJfpKmizrIT-FZ26EZCkQU8HVb8evAJgxfiF3wIMIDfYxh-xW-DN4YW9lWLOMrCVOGUas0APW85XT1mlejuR92m3BgUnJcB6_S4n6NTcxjm2SvyjOIZWMz7ikNae-Onc4zYK9vJ

don't exactly look good for the reputation and trustworthiness of UK's current government - and at least the first of these doesn't obviously come from a "lefty" newspaper...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Another piece (this time on the thread topic!) that clearly does not come from a "lefty" newspaper is
https://www.ft.com/content/63450adc-a025-11ea-b65d-489c67b0d85d?fbclid=IwAR1C3ogFx6tXj_1ysbqsLuLgn4MxEOQgqTdX_2Q4UXFjj5q32sz06TRKe-A

Add to all of this the increasingly obvious fact that the economies of neither UK nor the rest of EU will be recognisable by next year as a consequence of COVID-19 and its legacy and it becames clear that remaining in EU, leaving EU with a deal and leaving EU without one will all look very different to anything that might have been envisaged before COVID-19 asserted its overarching position.

Since leaving EU with a deal looks ever more unlikely and leaving without one would be disastrous both for UK and for the rest of EU (not to say to some other parts of the world, albeit to a lesser extent), the prospect of remaining within EU might well rear itself in these unprecedented circumstances that have been exacerbated by - and come on the back of - UK's four years of failure to negotiate its way out of EU.

I wonder how long it might take for enough Brexiteers to figure that one out. Whilst it might seem somewhat unlikely, it's by no means impossible and, after all, we still have plenty of time, especially should extension of the 31 December 2020 deadline be sought and granted...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yawn. Hinty stuck record.

[ahinton]

Yawn. Hinty stuck record.

Is yours not stuck, then?

Even you can surely see that the economic future for EU and UK looks set to be broadly unrecognisable compared to what it was due to COVID-19 and that this is bound to impact upon the future relationship between EU and EU as well as between EU nations? What the negotiators on both sides face now is accordingly very different to what faced them in the immediate aftermath of the public opinion poll.

"Yawn? Have a kip, then, why don't you?!

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Some random toughts, trown together without any pre- or post-editing.

I must say that I am not all that fearful of at least the Dutch economy being unrecognisable a year from now (or, at least, unrecognisable from what it might have been had Covid-19 not come along). The situation for other countries, in or out the EU, may be well different. For a number of reasons, but let me explain by example, and  compare some economic aspects of The Netherlands and Italy. I choose Italy because that country has been very aggressive towards The Netherlands and some other EU members for refusing to freely hand over some billions to Italy, calling those countries ‘irresponsible’, ‘niggard’ and ‘sickening’.

Let’s compare some figures
National debt: Netherlands: 48,6% (2012: 67,4%);  Italy 135% (2012: 123,3%) https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/results/

Corruption index: Netherlands rank 8 (of 198); Italy rank 51 (of 198) https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi

Shadow economy: Netherlands 7,8% (rank 4 of 158); Italy 23,0% (rank 56 of 158). https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/shadow_economy/

So, after the financial crisis, The Netherlands managed to downsize their debt by almost 20% (almost a quarter of the entire debt); Italy mananged to increase its already hopeless debt even further. Few counties are less corrupt than The Netherlands (and of the top 16, four are not in North/West Europe). Italy’s shadow (i.e. tax evading0 part of its economy is close to one quarter of the total economy, while in The Netherlands it’s about 1/13th (and only 3 countries have smaller shadow economies).

Now Covid-19 has hit the economies at large, creating huge financial problems (businesses getting in trouble or going down, rising unemployment, etc), which the various governments struggle to take in. How well they manage to do so depends on how much ‘elasticity’ any economy has in all its components. Turns out that a country like Italy can hardly loan any money, so has huge troubles getting money to pay for all emergency measures. At that, it can never hope to pay back those loans unless they, draconically, reform their economy. The Dutch can quite easily loan money, for it has 1) room to pay back and 2) has shown to pay back (i.e the falling national debt).

Fact is, that this crisis is not a war. No infrastructure has been damaged. No industry has been destroyed (damaged, yes, in certain places). Unemployment in The Netherlands hasn’t risen dramatically (unlike for ex in the US). So while many things have temporarily slowed down or stopped, people still have money (in fact, most have more money because they have been unable to spend over the past months). So once things get normal again, I do think there will actually be a surge in the Dutch economy.

Now, a country like Italy can do two things.
One. Reform the economy (break down corruption in all layers, inclusive of the government itself; get the shadow economy into the light and get the taxes therefrom (Italy’s GBP in 2019 was about $2 trillion [https://tradingeconomics.com/italy/gdp] officially, so if that $2trillion is only 77% of the real GPB, that real GPB is something like $2,6trillion. If they levy some taxes at that shadow $600billion, they could buy quite some Covid protection).
Two. Do nothing but start whining and demanding free money. Again. As they always have done. And why not, they got it all the other times! But now even the normally backbone-free Dutch government has grown one to say ‘no’, because we are dealing with our own financial Covid-problems, which will no doubt result in tax increases to deal with that, and they very well know that to increase the Dutch taxes while at the other hand give away billions (of tax money) to several bottomless pits such as Italy will be political suicide. And rightly so.

The latest EU-proposal is to give €1billion to the Suffering South, and loan some €500billion. I do fear they actually believe the burghers of the Nodding North will believe they will ever see that half trillion back.

What all this proves is that there is no European Union. There are many countries, running on various different political, cultural and financial course, bunched together based on the belief that if you push things together hard enough all things will equal out and become the same. They do not. It has been tried in the past, and we just remembered the result of the last attempt ending 75 years ago.

You can divide Europe in several regions, where things are roughly even-handed. Benelux/Germany/Scandinavia. Spain/Portugal/Italy/Greece. Balkan/Hungaria/Bulgaria/Poland. Within these groups, countries will be alike enough to reasonably work together on a comparable basis. But these groups do not work well together because of fundamental differences. No matter how much governments pretend otherwise. No matter how much in denial the “EU Parliament” is about this.

What EU can be, and should be, is a collection of independent yet interdependent countries, where each country seeks to optimise its working relation with each other country, yet remain fully in command of its own future. That would be a true union, rather than the now pretty much moribund unification into one super-state it never was and never can or will be. The current situation is that ‘richer’ (read: more financial responsible) countries keep bleeding for the ‘poorer’ (read: less financial responsible) countries.

 If you have a neighbour that keeps wasting money, and officials state you are under duress to keep paying for that neighbour, and your neighbour never being put under duress to stop wasting, you will not only resent that neighbour, you will resent these officials. And, if possible, send them packing.  That can turn quite nasty.

I do think that is at least part of what many UK ‘leavers’ turned to vote either ‘leave’ in the (ill-conceived, -executed and –followed-up) referendum, and/or vote for that party that at least promised to actually follow up on Brexit. A nation that is no longer in control of the course of its own future is no longer a nation, it’s a province. That may not be a bad thing by definition, depending on what you are now a province of. Considering the state of how EU is currently run, I doubt The Netherlands will be at a winning end of become a province.

That does not mean I want an end to the EU (it would cost dearly to deconstruct, and doing so would also obliterate all things that are going well), or The Netherlands leaving the EU (for the same reasons); I want an end to what the EU is starting to look like: an olicharchy where ideology is more important than reality, where power is more important than democracy, and where keeping that power is more important than transparency, or trust from the populace (there is only one way to keep the power when the majority of the populace does not want you to keep that power..).

If the EU is to survive, it needs to radically restructure and reform. Which might include ejecting such countries as show not to be (willing to be) up to high standards. It should not drive for mediocrity or average, it should drive for each country to try and outdo the country one rung higher. And that can only happen when each country can develop itself; countries going down are going out.

As for UK, EU and Covid. No doubt the UK will suffer severely due to Covid. But it also has reserves, and has not been damaged in the sense it was in, say, a war. Infrastructure is still in order and functioning. So it can bounce back. There is, even if Brexit will be a fact (which it may well not ever become!), a trading going on between UK and the EU and others. The nature of that trade may change, but that trade itself will not. The effects of Covid are bad, as they are everywhere. But I do believe there will also be gaps to fill, new ways of doing trade, old ways trod again. UK will bounce back. As will every country that has itself under control.

[ahinton]

Tremendous pragmatic sense here; you are well aware of the shortcomings of EU as am I but can see why it ought to stay intact as long as it knows, accepts and understands how best to do so and the reasons why it so desperately needs to do so...

Best,

Alistair