Yes, I tend to agree, as i have no wish to cause unnecessary pain! But in November/December of 2020 we didn't know how the Indian variant would hit us. And, politically, I don't think it was a real option as the remainers had not accepted that we would leave. Had we extended, they would have seen the opportunity to continue to fight it, more calls for a 2nd referendum, etc, etc. I think the public as a whole wanted an end to the in-fighting so we could move on start the rebuild, and that was shown in the election. But, overall and with hindsight, I think we would have been better to have extended the transition, if that had been possible.
I think you have the timeline confused. We left the EU on 31st January 2020. "Remainers" could not reverse that however much they did or did not accept it. It was very apparent last year, during the transition period, that the pandemic was going to be costly and long lasting. The only reason for not extending was purely political. The fear of the rabid Brexiters, especially the ERG, was why the government didn't do it. It's a shame because I do agree with your original point. There was no way that the country could deal with the pandemic and Brexit at the same time. And the sad fact is we didn't have to.
No, I don't have it confused, I absolutely know when we left. But I disagree with you over your second line. Had the Indian vaiant (that is far more dangerous) not emerged, then we would have been out of this months ago.
Then I'm not clear why you suggested "Remainers" would be calling for further referendums when we had already left. The cases surged in 2020 after schools went back in September. Tier restrictions came in October with local lockdowns in November. Apart from an ill advised easing of restrictions for Christmas (cut back dramatically at the last minute) there was every indication that the pandemic was going to get worse and be long lasting. It was obvious at the time that an extension of the transition period would be sensible to anyone not politically motivated.
It wasn't obvious, the vaccination program had started in 2020 it has proved to be almost totally successful against the pre-Indian variants. The Indian variant didn't arrive in the UK until February this year, and we didn't know how more serious it was until quite a bit later. But, yes, with 20/20 hindsight, I agree with you, we could have extended.
As many people were calling for it at the time, I would suggest hindsight was not a requirement. I, personally, would have erred on the side of caution and extended. The vaccine rollout literally only started in December. It was expected to take months to complete and was never going to be 100% effective. Variants had already happened and more were expected. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the whys and whens. An extension should have happened and it would have saved us some pain this year if it had.
With hindsight, I should not have walked in front of that dayglo yellow bus, but Hard Man Of Brexit Steve Baker would have called me chicken.
Well, there may have been many calling for it at the time, but not on this forum as a quick search on the word extension, extended or extend, doesn't reveal anybody calling for it last year. Feel free to prove me wrong by directing me to your pleading for an extension to the transition last year, and I'll take my hat off to you. As I said, I think it is hindsight and without that it would have been mere speculation and hunches.
You do realise that the politics section from last year doesn't exist any more? It's irrelevant anyway. It was widely discussed in the wider world and even debated in the HoL. Just try googling it if you don't remember: https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...vid-19-strain-and-france-freight-ban-12169059
Even "sit on the fence Starmer" didn't want the extension. And most of those in the article only wanted an extension because they didn't think a deal was possible, and the variant they were concerned about was the Kent variant, that has almost been completely eradicated by the vaccines. Nobody foresaw the Indian variant.
If you just Google something like Covid brexit extension you will literally see hundreds of articles in 2020 with multiple groups, individuals and organisations arguing the case for an extension because of the Covid crisis. The Scottish government even published a paper making just that demand in June: https://www.gov.scot/publications/covid-19-case-extending-brexit-transition-period/ Honestly, to claim that this is a hindsight call just doesn't stand up to the overwhelming evidence that is still there for all to see. It's so obvious now, and was at the time, that the government made the decision not to extend for political reasons and we are now paying a very high cost for that dogma.
Scotland's reasons mostly revolve around non-covid issues that the (arch remainers), saw in brexit. No deals, extra costs, etc. Covid was thrown in as an additional issue brought in to the paper with little or no specific data or context. Instead they concentrated on the deal. They said; Proper democratic and technical scrutiny and implementation of the UK's putative new relationship with the EU is simply not possible in the few months remaining before December this year - the end of the current transition period. Ending the transition period at the end of 2020, even with the type of basic deal the UK government is pursuing, or worse still without a deal with the EU at all, will represent a significant additional downside risk to the trajectory of the economic recovery. They weren't predicting the Indian variant as that didn't have significant effect until February 2021, even in India, nor did they predict the extra fast vaccination availability that would efficiently deal with the other variants coming onstream in December 2020. Why would they, the experts reckoned it was 18 months away? If they got their wish for a delay, I have absolutely no doubt that they, and their fellow remainers would have been campaigning for a reverse of the leaving process if they had a further 2 years. The delay they wanted was political, not because they saw the massive additional problems would be caused by the Indian variant. But, I understand your determination to stick as much blame on the government, your honest position has always been clear in that respect and you have never hidden from that. I prefer to look at the pragmatic situation and consider what we knew at the time - although with 20/20 hindsight I think it may have made the wrong decision. There was a vaccine that, thus far, was likely to deal very well with the known variants, and everybody's efforts were on trying to reach a deal, rather than leave without a deal, plus the government had made a promise to the 2019 electorate that voted them in which they and the opposition felt they should honour. They didn't think it was right to change the course of history on the possibility that a more virulent and resistant strain emerging from the other side of the world. So, as I said right at the beginning, of course there was an element of politics in the decision, brexit is about politics, and politics can't be ignored when going through with it. So fair enough, we look at the situation from different points of view, and will never agree. Let's leave it at that.
Hang on, no one is talking about “changing the course of history”. Just a pragmatic, sensible delay to the end of the transition period. I agree it would have been politically very difficult but the very best statesmen and women are capable of rising above party political and short term concerns and seeing what is best for the country in the long run. The main point is - the pandemic is only a limited justification for any difficulties we are having with Brexit now because it was within the government’s hands to take steps to mitigate its impact.
I think, for the reasons I've given, it would be at least risking changing the course of history. But with 20/20 hindsight it may have been a risk worth taking. But it is easy for everybody else to say that a statesman should rise above short term concerns and make change they think is for the good of the nation, it is a pity that everybody else doesn't then support those statesmen that make those changes, but choose to use them to score political points instead.
You are a person extremely critical of views you don’t share, so this is a bit rich. If there was a Labour Government you would criticise its every move. You have a right to and everyone else has the right to criticise the current Government. It’s not going to make a difference to success or failure of poorly thought out plans.
I didn't say you don't have a right to criticise, you most certainly do. As do I. I just mean that it is a shame that senior politicians that make history changing, and life affecting decisions, often on the basis of incomplete evidence and projections and necessarily at pace should have more support instead of less. As I have often said, we get the politicians we deserve. If we treat every decision like an opportunity to have a go and make political capital and score points we can hardly blame the politicians to take that into consideration.
Boris is most definitely not a statesman. He bumbles through, at best. Thatcher falls into the category, just to demonstrate that this is not party political.
OK definitions will vary . My definition will always include those without a job Whereas others will use a complex system of mathematics, always by those who have a job
Imminent threat would be a better explanation. Thatcher is dead and hasn’t been in power for thirty years. Boris has the official boots on. Not a statesman? I disagree. When you look at the alternatives, he appears to be quite the part. With bitchy and reactionary EU leaders openly lying about the vaccine to the absolute detriment of the lives of their citizens, Biden walking around the G9 without a clue where he is, correcting Boris when he didn’t need correcting, and pulling out of Afghanistan only to have his generals say they warned him about doing so, and that f-ed up news conference where Boris answered his questions, but Biden handlers all just started shouting down questions for their man, with weirdo sounding chanting (like the BLM wives ‘hands up don’t shoot’ or the XR ‘ pig squealing’ whenever the police got near them). In current terms, Boris is far more of a statesman than his counterparts, with a reputation for standing up to other countries with civility, and achieving International political objective widely described as impossible. And all without the brain washed singing, unless you count those red capitalist w*****s, from St Albans. People had names for Thatcher that were far from stately, and few on the left would have described her in those terms until the time of her death, just in case she heard them.
So what hope do the unemployed have if the only person fighting their corner is a gob***** on the end of his computer (me ) ? Serious question : are you a Tory pretending to be proper Labour ?
Where have I said I'm labour, proper or otherwise? You have just confused the term full employment with no unemployment. There will always be people "between jobs". There will always be jobs vacancies in areas of the country and people looking for work in other areas. There will always be sectors with shortages while others have more qualified people than jobs available. The unemployed should always receive adequate financial help and training to find work. The fact that the economy is considered by economists to be in "full employment" doesn't change that and neither does a gob***** on a computer.
Yes, I can see that you are confused by your misunderstanding of the economic term "full employment".
That will be a huge relief for those without a job . That their is in fact "full employment" . And from the bottom of the heart from those poor souls who thought they were unemployed . Thank you . You are a big help .
Again you fail to understand the ECONOMIC term "full employment". If you cannot read and understand the article I originally linked from 2015 then it's perhaps advisable not to continue to comment on the subject. You continue sympathy with those currently looking for work, something I share, but it is totally irrelevant to the ECONOMIC term "full employment". Why is that so hard to understand?
Not really on a thread called the B word and definitely not if we have a shortfall of workers, which we don't , because if we did then this would be good news for the working classes because we could negotiate from a position of strength as opposed to dealing with Big Boss saying" if you don't like these new and improved zero contract minimum wage conditions then we have plenty from Lithugaria who will do this job for the lowest wage I can offer" Which part ,said with a straight face, do you not understand ?
You don't think there is a shortfall of workers in the care industry? Have they managed to demand better pay and conditions? It's not always as simple as supply and demand. But yes, in some sectors that are not subject to competition from imports, labour shortages will mean better pay and conditions. Unfortunately that will mean inflation and those, especially the poorest, who don't work in these sectors are going to see their cost of living rise with no pay rise to compensate them. Increasing the minimum wage would be preferable imho. But whatever you say doesn't change the fact that "full employment" is a term used in economics and never means zero unemployment. Sorry.
Right OK . You are selling remaining in the EU on a "full employment" ticket that doesn't actually mean those without a job will have a job and expecting a positive outcome ? Wow !
Just to say here that Davey is right in his understanding of the meaning, and this implication is wide of the mark, even in financial terms. From Investopedia: Note, Davey’s understanding is the true meaning, and the other poster’s use describes what is actually the short hand for “full practical employment”. It isn’t really a problem, if you are simply pointing out that you are using the term in a different way to another person, but it seems a little bit rude, and unfair, to say Davey is confused when his useage represents the true meaning, rather than a usage that in fact has a different meaning to that of the actual phrase itself. Even the disclaimer that the term may have an impossible to achieve meaning is only applicable to certain circumstances, as is made clear from the description. Possibly the best thing to do before exposing ones own confusion on the matter, is to look at the words, and consider what their absolute meaning is, before deciding that full employment does not mean full employment, when unequivocally it does, whilst accepting that there is a flux state of being between jobs. The argument that full employment does not mean full employment is redundant, as that is the meaning of the words. Full employment means, unequivocally, that everyone is employed, unless it is their circumstance (retired, in education, between two jobs, do not want to work, whatever) and not the absence of jobs, that dictate them not being employed.
Full employment is not why I'm "selling" being in the EU. Full employment may happen outside the EU. It is an economic term as I think I've explained. But if you think certain sectors, especially in the supply chain, getting pay rises is going to be good for the poor then you are going to be in for a shock. Inflation is likely to sore. Do you think this, or any, government is going to raise benefits to match inflation, especially when we need to pay back debt? Do you think public sector workers are going to get pay rises above inflation? Do you think care workers, retail staff etc etc are going to get pay rises above inflation? If you claim to be on the side of the poor it's funny that you seem to be more than happy to shaft most of them.
This poster was calling for the use of cheap EU labour to to replace UK unskilled workers just recently. That is not a typical socialist thing to do, in fact the diametric opposite of what you would expect from a socialist; in fact it is one of the most outrageously fascistic suggestions I have read on here. But, that said, I do not believe it is the poster intentionally acting in an extreme right wing manner, more that it is a very poorly thought out argument being made. As you point out, the suggestions being made are at the very least typically described as right wing or Tory, but it has been a peculiar fact that over the last few years, such arguments have been protested against the on this forum by ‘right wingers’ and enthusiastically argued for by the left. Your observation is not new to the forum, and I am glad to hear another voice pointing out one of the forum’s most striking elephants in the room
This is the argument any employer would make. It is not wrong to make it, when you are asking a society to consider the effects of raising workers wages. In the public sector, it means forking out more tax. In the private sector, it means higher prices. In both cases, it means taxing the rich to some extent (they pay more money, they pay more tax). Again, it is not an argument one would expect from the left of politics, unless, as I have been suggesting for some time now, the left have become the corporate wing of politics now. It is interesting to hear such ‘capitalist’ ideas coming from that side, but no longer at all a surprise. That said, I totally agree with the following, and think it is totally appropriate to the recent posts this poster has made, particularly the one advocating the exploitation of cheap European labour to do jobs we shouldn’t expect a Briton to do. NB, I refer to this poster in the third person because they have indicated they are ignoring my posts. I have no problem with that, but I wish to point out the reason I am talking about the poster rather than to them.
Interesting developments on the Northern Ireland Protocol happening this week. It's strongly rumoured from several sources that the EU is going to offer major concessions, including "red and green" lanes for NI and Ireland bound goods to limit the checks required on goods not intended for the SM. They will not bend on ECJ oversight though and the UK have now declared that a red line. Some commentators believe that will result in the UK rejecting the proposals and then triggering Article 16 of the protocol. The EU's response, as detailed in the protocol, is likely to be to introduce tariffs and limits on trade until the issues are resolved and the protocol is implemented. What is interesting though is that it is believed that the member states have gone as far as the are willing to go with the new proposals. If they fail then they will support the EU response up to, and including, the complete suspension of the TCA (unilateral suspension is allowed under that agreement unlike the WA). Hopefully this is just brinkmanship on both sides but, if it goes wrong, we could be looking at a very serious trade war.
