The law will be relaxed for those who don't cause accidents. Same as Emergency serrvices who speed and/or go through red traffic lights
Rubbish. Wherever did you get that gem from?
Sorry I did not know I was in the presence of a legal expert.
There is considerable room for someone to be better informed than a 'person who repeats something they think they heard someone (they don't remember who) say on the telly (they don't remember when)' without qualifying as a 'legal expert'.
You frequently talk as if you think you have the right to not be disagreed with.
I am quite happy for you to disagree with me.
A moment's thought suggests that it is impossible to relax the law for drivers who don't cause accidents. It is only possible to relax the law for drivers who haven't caused accidents yet.
Emergency services have sirens to signal that they may override the law and that they take priority. Also, they don't get to override the law for several hours but only in emergencies.
So your statements are on the face of it highly implausible. Now, it may be that how things look on the face of it are deceiving and matters are in fact so. But as you have a track record of stating confidently and repeatedly things that you think you heard somebody (you don't remember who) say on the telly (you don't remember when), which nobody else can substantiate, you need to provide stronger evidence for your assertions before you can expect them to be taken seriously.
The flashing blue light does not allow the drivers of emergency vehicles to be the cause of accidents. For instance they are supposed to treat a red light as a give way sign, not just plough through without slowing.
We have a number of criminal offences where the Police take a decision not to prosecute. Possession of cannabis would be a good example.
I get my information on this subject from experience
How does "vocation" make up for not doing the things you enjoy doing?
From my observations there is a subset of teachers for whom working all hours is what they enjoy. This is fine, so long as they realise not everyone shares their hobby.
The law will be relaxed for those who don't cause accidents. Same as Emergency serrvices who speed and/or go through red traffic lights
Rubbish. Wherever did you get that gem from?
Sorry I did not know I was in the presence of a legal expert.
There is considerable room for someone to be better informed than a 'person who repeats something they think they heard someone (they don't remember who) say on the telly (they don't remember when)' without qualifying as a 'legal expert'.
You frequently talk as if you think you have the right to not be disagreed with.
I am quite happy for you to disagree with me.
A moment's thought suggests that it is impossible to relax the law for drivers who don't cause accidents. It is only possible to relax the law for drivers who haven't caused accidents yet.
Emergency services have sirens to signal that they may override the law and that they take priority. Also, they don't get to override the law for several hours but only in emergencies.
So your statements are on the face of it highly implausible. Now, it may be that how things look on the face of it are deceiving and matters are in fact so. But as you have a track record of stating confidently and repeatedly things that you think you heard somebody (you don't remember who) say on the telly (you don't remember when), which nobody else can substantiate, you need to provide stronger evidence for your assertions before you can expect them to be taken seriously.
The flashing blue light does not allow the drivers of emergency vehicles to be the cause of accidents. For instance they are supposed to treat a red light as a give way sign, not just plough through without slowing.
We have a number of criminal offences where the Police take a decision not to prosecute. Possession of cannabis would be a good example.
I get my information on this subject from experience
It's interesting how the UK is often portrayed as a victim in relation to the EU. I recall a Times headline, "EU threatens to ground British flights". This misses the point that Brexit renders the UK a third country, no longer party to regulations, such as those governing "freedoms of the air".
Of course, a new deal would restore some of these freedoms, but sans that, they are not renewed. It's a weird reversal of agency, like the furious husband who shouts to his wife that she made him hit her.
Having said that, the EU is offering a basic connectivity package, including by air, but wait for the headlines, EU blackmail or EU blockade.
It now seems inevitable - despite Johnson's desperate attempts to involve Frau Merkel and M Macron in the *negotiations* - that we will be on our own, sink or swim, on 1st January.
The headlines will no doubt read something like 'FREE AT LAST!' or 'THE SHACKLES ARE OFF!', as though we'd been released from prison. I fear we will experience a long period in prison, on Death Row, instead...
When do people do the things they actually want to do? I work to get money to do things I like; what would be the point if I had no time to do them?
I am in the fortunate position of enjoying my job, so "the things I want to do" and "the things I get paid to do" are often the same things.
That said, I can't sustain 80 hour weeks for more than a couple of months without losing quite a lot of productivity, and I do have things I'd like to do that I don't get paid for. So in practice I try to keep my normal work-week somewhere between 40 and 50 hours, which I can sustain long-term, and also support my family responsibilities, and occasionally find some time for a non-work fun activity.
It now seems inevitable - despite Johnson's desperate attempts to involve Frau Merkel and M Macron in the *negotiations* - that we will be on our own, sink or swim, on 1st January.
The headlines will no doubt read something like 'FREE AT LAST!' or 'THE SHACKLES ARE OFF!', as though we'd been released from prison. I fear we will experience a long period in prison, on Death Row, instead...
Well, I am curious how some kind of connections will be maintained. Thus, presumably, there will still be flights to Europe, and lorries will drive there, and the Channel Tunnel will be open. I don't know what the legal basis for this will be, possibly some emergency legislation. I think there are some hauliers' permits available, but not many. The EU are offering a basic connectivity package, but the tabloids see it as an insult. Nationalism is brilliant, innit.
There does seem to me to be potential for hauliers to cut corners, as it were, in order to try to keep up - but that is where increased potential for accidents occurs.
The restricted hours laid down by EU law (and to which this country subscribed) are there for a purpose.
The law will be relaxed for those who don't cause accidents. Same as Emergency serrvices who speed and/or go through red traffic lights
There does seem to me to be potential for hauliers to cut corners, as it were, in order to try to keep up - but that is where increased potential for accidents occurs.
The restricted hours laid down by EU law (and to which this country subscribed) are there for a purpose.
The law will be relaxed for those who don't cause accidents. Same as Emergency serrvices who speed and/or go through red traffic lights
So not being able to see the future, we un-relax the law for those who cause an accident and prosecute them, leaving drivers who didn't cause an accident while driving long hours, unprosecuted? All fine, except for the victims of the accident.
I have a friend who has driven class 1 in Europe, in and outside the EU. I don't like his stories of 24hr non-stop trips with match-sticks under the eyelids. Do folks realise just how heavy 44 cubic m of water, are? And if they are travelling at 60mph, what a big deal that is and how hard it is to stop?
To give you a clue, at work today we scrapped a steel doughnut about 1m dia, 250mm wall thickeness and about 300mm deep. It weighed about 830kg. You're pulled up in traffic and a block of 50 of those things are advancing on you from the rear at 100kph. Do you want the driver to be awake?
The decision to relax the law was not my decision and I do not support it. I don't know why you felt the need to include the last two paragraphs.
I have marked in bold the parts of your posts to which I think you may be referring. From the context, you would appear to be talking about lorries.
If there is no deal, I think the UK can stop foreign trawlers fishing, but equally fish markets abroad might refuse to buy British catches, and British trawlers blockaded. If there is a deal then some kind of quid pro quo, details unknown. Clear as mud.
There does seem to me to be potential for hauliers to cut corners, as it were, in order to try to keep up - but that is where increased potential for accidents occurs.
The restricted hours laid down by EU law (and to which this country subscribed) are there for a purpose.
The law will be relaxed for those who don't cause accidents. Same as Emergency serrvices who speed and/or go through red traffic lights
There does seem to me to be potential for hauliers to cut corners, as it were, in order to try to keep up - but that is where increased potential for accidents occurs.
The restricted hours laid down by EU law (and to which this country subscribed) are there for a purpose.
The law will be relaxed for those who don't cause accidents. Same as Emergency serrvices who speed and/or go through red traffic lights
So not being able to see the future, we un-relax the law for those who cause an accident and prosecute them, leaving drivers who didn't cause an accident while driving long hours, unprosecuted? All fine, except for the victims of the accident.
I have a friend who has driven class 1 in Europe, in and outside the EU. I don't like his stories of 24hr non-stop trips with match-sticks under the eyelids. Do folks realise just how heavy 44 cubic m of water, are? And if they are travelling at 60mph, what a big deal that is and how hard it is to stop?
To give you a clue, at work today we scrapped a steel doughnut about 1m dia, 250mm wall thickeness and about 300mm deep. It weighed about 830kg. You're pulled up in traffic and a block of 50 of those things are advancing on you from the rear at 100kph. Do you want the driver to be awake?
The decision to relax the law was not my decision and I do not support it. I don't know why you felt the need to include the last two paragraphs.
I have marked in bold the parts of your posts to which I think you may be referring. From the context, you would appear to be talking about lorries.
You appear to have missunderstood. The relaxation in connection with Lorries, as earlier mentioned by you, only refers to driving hours. However if driving for extra hours meant that they caused an accident, they would still be prosecuted. The issue about speed and traffic signals was for Emergency vehicles, the drivers of which are often prosecuted if they cause accidents
Sorry - I didn't realise I was in the presence of a road traffic legal expert.
My original point was, I think, explained thus (and I quote myself):
There does seem to me to be potential for hauliers to cut corners, as it were, in order to try to keep up - but that is where increased potential for accidents occurs.
The restricted hours laid down by EU law (and to which this country subscribed) are there for a purpose.
Or, to put it another way (in case you have misunderstood) relaxing the laws about drivers' hours might well lead to accidents and prosecutions, because the drivers would be tempted/pressurised into exceeding speed limits.
Sorry - I didn't realise I was in the presence of a road traffic legal expert.
My original point was, I think, explained thus (and I quote myself):
There does seem to me to be potential for hauliers to cut corners, as it were, in order to try to keep up - but that is where increased potential for accidents occurs.
The restricted hours laid down by EU law (and to which this country subscribed) are there for a purpose.
Or, to put it another way (in case you have misunderstood) relaxing the laws about drivers' hours might well lead to accidents and prosecutions, because the drivers would be tempted/pressurised into exceeding speed limits.
You will be shocked to learn that I agree with all that. Or it could be that accidents occur because they become tired
When do people do the things they actually want to do? I work to get money to do things I like; what would be the point if I had no time to do them?
How do people live like this? I'd go mad. No doubt some people would conclude I'm lazy, despicable and weak.
I used start work about 7 am and finish in time to catch the 7.05pm train home. Then quite a few more hours either Saturday or Sunday afternoon, often both. Madame was much the same.
Why? To buy our home, live comfortably, and to provide for our retirement. I was self-employed and Madame had her own business, so no employer to give us a pension.
And yes, if they become tired (due to driving for longer than they should), accidents will inevitably happen.
You mentioned pigeons in an earlier thread.
May I suggest don’t respond.
To extend the previous avian analogy, what happens to canaries when deprived of oxygen?
When do people do the things they actually want to do? I work to get money to do things I like; what would be the point if I had no time to do them?
How do people live like this? I'd go mad. No doubt some people would conclude I'm lazy, despicable and weak.
I used start work about 7 am and finish in time to catch the 7.05pm train home. Then quite a few more hours either Saturday or Sunday afternoon, often both. Madame was much the same.
Why? To buy our home, live comfortably, and to provide for our retirement. I was self-employed and Madame had her own business, so no employer to give us a pension.
The question wasn't why. It's how did you cope mentally with a life of just eat, sleep, work, repeat? I don't call that living, comfortably or not. It's just existing.
Starting work at 7am means being up at what? 5.30? 6? That means going to bed around 9pm to get enough sleep. So pretty much as soon as you've finished the washing up. There's no time for actual living.
Either the EU bodies will act in the economic interests of everybody and agree a trade deal. Or they'll act in the interests of discouraging others from leaving by demanding tribute as the price of a deal.
Those are not the only interests involved.
I really wish that UK folk would stop framing everything as being in terms of leaving. The UK has left, at the start of the year. You are now in many respects negotiating from the same position as countries that were never part of the EU in the first place.
Yes, there is a sense of what is being (potentially) lost as a relative position, which rather illustrates the problems with having decided to leave in the first place. But this whole notion of 'tribute' or any kind of 'punishment' is just so fundamentally wrong. The punishment such as it is is entirely self-inflicted.
The position as it currently stands is that you don't have a deal, just like lots of countries don't have a deal. Now I'm sure that many of those countries that don't have a deal with the EU might be interested in making one, and the EU might also be interested.
But the stupid idea that seems to be running around is that because a deal between the EU and the UK would almost certainly be in both sides economic interests, that the EU ought to abandon some of its other principles about how it does things in order to get that deal secured. No, for the same reason that the EU wouldn't abandon some of its other principles in order to secure a deal with countries that have never been in the EU.
There are things in Australia's export laws, which I'm currently involved in rewriting (no secret there, it's all been out for consultation), and in other export-related or trade-related laws that I've been previously involved with, that are quite clearly and specifically there for the sake of trade with the EU. We have stricter rules about any meat that people plan to export to the EU, because that's the way we assure the EU we are meeting their standards. We have documentation we issue for certain exports because it's the documentation the EU wants to see. We have protection of wine names like 'champagne' because that's what the EU wanted in return for Australian wine going to the EU market and providing their own protection to our more prestige regions.
These are the things we decided to do in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. Elements in the UK seem to believe that they're owed a deal and don't have to do anything to get one other than say that economically it would be good. No. You have to make undertakings that ensure your products are going to satisfy EU standards, just as we did. If you fail to get a deal because you don't make such undertakings, it's not a punishment for leaving. It's a failure to come to agreement with a group of countries that, almost incidentally, you happen to have left.
If the Royal Navy fishery protection vessels start arresting French trawlers for fishing in UK waters, the French fishermens's union will organise an immediate blockade of Calais port. The French police will do nothing effective. Chaos at Dover. Will the Navy blast the blockading vessels out of the water, as theBrexiteers will no doubt expect? I doubt it.
The nature of the transition period is that having been dragged out of the EU by a bunch of lunatics the UK has continued for 11 months with very little changed from the position of most people (the changes that have happened are more distant from the everyday experience of most people - no MEPs from the UK, UK appointed Commissioners being replaced by people from other nations etc). That means that for many it's felt as though we haven't left, and there was some hope of a deal to continue with many of those transition arrangements long term.
As @orfeo noted, the UK is outwith the EU and the EU made a concession of an additional 11 months of transition beyond the 2y specified in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. There's no reason that the EU should continue to give the UK special status, no reason why they should prioritise a deal with the UK over deals which have been under negotiation with other nations nor give the UK concessions not given to other nations.
When do people do the things they actually want to do? I work to get money to do things I like; what would be the point if I had no time to do them?
How do people live like this? I'd go mad. No doubt some people would conclude I'm lazy, despicable and weak.
I used start work about 7 am and finish in time to catch the 7.05pm train home. Then quite a few more hours either Saturday or Sunday afternoon, often both. Madame was much the same.
Why? To buy our home, live comfortably, and to provide for our retirement. I was self-employed and Madame had her own business, so no employer to give us a pension.
The question wasn't why. It's how did you cope mentally with a life of just eat, sleep, work, repeat? I don't call that living, comfortably or not. It's just existing.
Starting work at 7am means being up at what? 5.30? 6? That means going to bed around 9pm to get enough sleep. So pretty much as soon as you've finished the washing up. There's no time for actual living.
We did not do badly - eating out at a restaurant once or twice a week (with Dlet when he was still young enough to want to eat with his parents), having concert and theatre subscriptions, visiting friends or entertain them. For both of us, work was intellectually satisfying and enjoyable. One thing I never did was work on the train. If you have limited time, you find ways to fit things in.
If the Royal Navy fishery protection vessels start arresting French trawlers for fishing in UK waters, the French fishermens's union will organise an immediate blockade of Calais port. The French police will do nothing effective. Chaos at Dover. Will the Navy blast the blockading vessels out of the water, as theBrexiteers will no doubt expect? I doubt it.
In my view this is more posturing.
The EU have announced a number of contingency plans in the event of No Deal. These include a little-commented proposal to extend the deadline for a fisheries agreement by one year.
Of course, the UK would have to agree to reciprocal measures, but I think it is likely that as a minimum, they will agree to these.
I suspect Switzerland may turn out to offer some insights into the way ahead. Switzerland has a set of sector-based agreements with the EU, and (amazingly) have managed to secure an arrangement whereby the mechanism for arbitration of any related disputes is not via the CJEU but a joint body.
Ah, but the Swiss are a rational people. When you have a group of rational people on both sides of the table negotiations tend to result in rational conclusions.
If the Royal Navy fishery protection vessels start arresting French trawlers for fishing in UK waters, the French fishermens's union will organise an immediate blockade of Calais port. The French police will do nothing effective. Chaos at Dover. Will the Navy blast the blockading vessels out of the water, as theBrexiteers will no doubt expect? I doubt it.
In my view this is more posturing.
The EU have announced a number of contingency plans in the event of No Deal. These include a little-commented proposal to extend the deadline for a fisheries agreement by one year.
Of course, the UK would have to agree to reciprocal measures, but I think it is likely that as a minimum, they will agree to these.
I suspect Switzerland may turn out to offer some insights into the way ahead. Switzerland has a set of sector-based agreements with the EU, and (amazingly) have managed to secure an arrangement whereby the mechanism for arbitration of any related disputes is not via the CJEU but a joint body.
The Swiss have freedom of movement as well (and recently voted not to end that). I'm sure if we were willing to agree to that it would help lubricate no end of solutions ;-)
The nature of the transition period is that having been dragged out of the EU by a bunch of lunatics the UK has continued for 11 months with very little changed from the position of most people (the changes that have happened are more distant from the everyday experience of most people - no MEPs from the UK, UK appointed Commissioners being replaced by people from other nations etc). That means that for many it's felt as though we haven't left, and there was some hope of a deal to continue with many of those transition arrangements long term.
As @orfeo noted, the UK is outwith the EU and the EU made a concession of an additional 11 months of transition beyond the 2y specified in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. There's no reason that the EU should continue to give the UK special status, no reason why they should prioritise a deal with the UK over deals which have been under negotiation with other nations nor give the UK concessions not given to other nations.
Yes.
I actually had someone on another message board furiously disagree with me when I said many months ago that the UK had already left the EU. It's apparent that many people don't know this because the practical impacts have been cushioned until now.
I ultimately had to point them to the UK government's own website statement on the matter.
I knew that the tabloids would start wetting their pants over gunboats to protect fishing. This will keep them going for weeks, rule Brittania, cod and chips, French keep out. Of course, French trawlers will simply blockade their ports, so no fish will be sold anywhere.
I suspect Switzerland may turn out to offer some insights into the way ahead. Switzerland has a set of sector-based agreements with the EU, and (amazingly) have managed to secure an arrangement whereby the mechanism for arbitration of any related disputes is not via the CJEU but a joint body.
The difference in the case of the UK is a vocal contingent that will seize on any deal whatsoever as an intolerable capitulation.
I had reason to investigate the Swiss arrangements in detail not long ago.
In many ways, the history of Switzerland's relations with the EU since the 1980s offers lots of insights into Brexit.
I was careful not to use the word "solution" in my post. Switzerland is walking a tightrope too, and could yet retreat into autarky if those with a narrow view of sovereignty prevail. What that situation does demonstrate is that a series of sector-based agreements can be entered into with a third country.
"I used start work about 7 am and finish in time to catch the 7.05pm train home. Then quite a few more hours either Saturday or Sunday afternoon, often both".
You had it easy .....
Interesting thoughts from @Eutychus re Switzerland, and how some insights might be gained therefrom - if only our rulers had a ha'porth of common-sense...
One can almost imagine the rabid Brexiteers shouting 'SEND A GUNBOAT!' if Switzerland were somehow to become involved (however marginally) in sovereign English affairs.
"I used start work about 7 am and finish in time to catch the 7.05pm train home. Then quite a few more hours either Saturday or Sunday afternoon, often both".
You had it easy .....
It could have been worse. I tried not to work at home very much after dinner, although that was sometimes necessary. A strict rule was to not work on the train - primarily the privacy of clients, but also a definite break.
I knew that the tabloids would start wetting their pants over gunboats to protect fishing. This will keep them going for weeks, rule Brittania, cod and chips, French keep out. Of course, French trawlers will simply blockade their ports, so no fish will be sold anywhere.
Any guesses about how much those same tabloids will comment on the technology needed to track fishing boats, so that the gunboats can intercept them? That would be a contract that DEFRA recently passed over to a French business, part owned by the French government. Those tabloids rejoicing over "taking back control of our coastal waters" (which we controlled anyway) probably haven't considered the implications of giving control of that French businesses.
If the EU can force Boris to compromise, that will be the end of him politically, and he knows that. So do the EU, and it doesn't bother them in the least. And the consequences of no-deal are likely to cause the end of him politically too.
If the EU can force Boris to compromise, that will be the end of him politically, and he knows that. So do the EU, and it doesn't bother them in the least.
Well why would it bother them? Keeping Boris in a job is hardly going to be something the EU has an interest in. It's of zero strategic value.
Poor Ursula - as though last week's blind date with the guy who looked as if he'd been stuffed into someone else's suit after a stag party wasn't bad enough...
I think it's not unlikely that the UK is for a series of 'temporary deals' with everything up for negotiation every time a general election comes along.
Comments
The flashing blue light does not allow the drivers of emergency vehicles to be the cause of accidents. For instance they are supposed to treat a red light as a give way sign, not just plough through without slowing.
We have a number of criminal offences where the Police take a decision not to prosecute. Possession of cannabis would be a good example.
I get my information on this subject from experience
From my observations there is a subset of teachers for whom working all hours is what they enjoy. This is fine, so long as they realise not everyone shares their hobby.
The flashing blue light does not allow the drivers of emergency vehicles to be the cause of accidents. For instance they are supposed to treat a red light as a give way sign, not just plough through without slowing.
We have a number of criminal offences where the Police take a decision not to prosecute. Possession of cannabis would be a good example.
I get my information on this subject from experience
[/quote]
Of course, a new deal would restore some of these freedoms, but sans that, they are not renewed. It's a weird reversal of agency, like the furious husband who shouts to his wife that she made him hit her.
Having said that, the EU is offering a basic connectivity package, including by air, but wait for the headlines, EU blackmail or EU blockade.
The headlines will no doubt read something like 'FREE AT LAST!' or 'THE SHACKLES ARE OFF!', as though we'd been released from prison. I fear we will experience a long period in prison, on Death Row, instead...
I am in the fortunate position of enjoying my job, so "the things I want to do" and "the things I get paid to do" are often the same things.
That said, I can't sustain 80 hour weeks for more than a couple of months without losing quite a lot of productivity, and I do have things I'd like to do that I don't get paid for. So in practice I try to keep my normal work-week somewhere between 40 and 50 hours, which I can sustain long-term, and also support my family responsibilities, and occasionally find some time for a non-work fun activity.
Well, I am curious how some kind of connections will be maintained. Thus, presumably, there will still be flights to Europe, and lorries will drive there, and the Channel Tunnel will be open. I don't know what the legal basis for this will be, possibly some emergency legislation. I think there are some hauliers' permits available, but not many. The EU are offering a basic connectivity package, but the tabloids see it as an insult. Nationalism is brilliant, innit.
It's what you said in an earlier post
Could you please provide a link where I said that Lorries would be exempt from speeding laws.
I have marked in bold the parts of your posts to which I think you may be referring. From the context, you would appear to be talking about lorries.
If there is no deal, I think the UK can stop foreign trawlers fishing, but equally fish markets abroad might refuse to buy British catches, and British trawlers blockaded. If there is a deal then some kind of quid pro quo, details unknown. Clear as mud.
Who's going to police the Irish Sea, the North Sea, and the waters around Scotland?
You appear to have missunderstood. The relaxation in connection with Lorries, as earlier mentioned by you, only refers to driving hours. However if driving for extra hours meant that they caused an accident, they would still be prosecuted. The issue about speed and traffic signals was for Emergency vehicles, the drivers of which are often prosecuted if they cause accidents
My original point was, I think, explained thus (and I quote myself):
There does seem to me to be potential for hauliers to cut corners, as it were, in order to try to keep up - but that is where increased potential for accidents occurs.
The restricted hours laid down by EU law (and to which this country subscribed) are there for a purpose.
Or, to put it another way (in case you have misunderstood) relaxing the laws about drivers' hours might well lead to accidents and prosecutions, because the drivers would be tempted/pressurised into exceeding speed limits.
You will be shocked to learn that I agree with all that. Or it could be that accidents occur because they become tired
And yes, if they become tired (due to driving for longer than they should), accidents will inevitably happen.
I used start work about 7 am and finish in time to catch the 7.05pm train home. Then quite a few more hours either Saturday or Sunday afternoon, often both. Madame was much the same.
Why? To buy our home, live comfortably, and to provide for our retirement. I was self-employed and Madame had her own business, so no employer to give us a pension.
You mentioned pigeons in an earlier thread.
May I suggest don’t respond.
To extend the previous avian analogy, what happens to canaries when deprived of oxygen?
Corrected quoting attribution. BroJames Purgatory Host
The question wasn't why. It's how did you cope mentally with a life of just eat, sleep, work, repeat? I don't call that living, comfortably or not. It's just existing.
Starting work at 7am means being up at what? 5.30? 6? That means going to bed around 9pm to get enough sleep. So pretty much as soon as you've finished the washing up. There's no time for actual living.
Those are not the only interests involved.
I really wish that UK folk would stop framing everything as being in terms of leaving. The UK has left, at the start of the year. You are now in many respects negotiating from the same position as countries that were never part of the EU in the first place.
Yes, there is a sense of what is being (potentially) lost as a relative position, which rather illustrates the problems with having decided to leave in the first place. But this whole notion of 'tribute' or any kind of 'punishment' is just so fundamentally wrong. The punishment such as it is is entirely self-inflicted.
The position as it currently stands is that you don't have a deal, just like lots of countries don't have a deal. Now I'm sure that many of those countries that don't have a deal with the EU might be interested in making one, and the EU might also be interested.
But the stupid idea that seems to be running around is that because a deal between the EU and the UK would almost certainly be in both sides economic interests, that the EU ought to abandon some of its other principles about how it does things in order to get that deal secured. No, for the same reason that the EU wouldn't abandon some of its other principles in order to secure a deal with countries that have never been in the EU.
There are things in Australia's export laws, which I'm currently involved in rewriting (no secret there, it's all been out for consultation), and in other export-related or trade-related laws that I've been previously involved with, that are quite clearly and specifically there for the sake of trade with the EU. We have stricter rules about any meat that people plan to export to the EU, because that's the way we assure the EU we are meeting their standards. We have documentation we issue for certain exports because it's the documentation the EU wants to see. We have protection of wine names like 'champagne' because that's what the EU wanted in return for Australian wine going to the EU market and providing their own protection to our more prestige regions.
These are the things we decided to do in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. Elements in the UK seem to believe that they're owed a deal and don't have to do anything to get one other than say that economically it would be good. No. You have to make undertakings that ensure your products are going to satisfy EU standards, just as we did. If you fail to get a deal because you don't make such undertakings, it's not a punishment for leaving. It's a failure to come to agreement with a group of countries that, almost incidentally, you happen to have left.
As @orfeo noted, the UK is outwith the EU and the EU made a concession of an additional 11 months of transition beyond the 2y specified in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. There's no reason that the EU should continue to give the UK special status, no reason why they should prioritise a deal with the UK over deals which have been under negotiation with other nations nor give the UK concessions not given to other nations.
We did not do badly - eating out at a restaurant once or twice a week (with Dlet when he was still young enough to want to eat with his parents), having concert and theatre subscriptions, visiting friends or entertain them. For both of us, work was intellectually satisfying and enjoyable. One thing I never did was work on the train. If you have limited time, you find ways to fit things in.
In my view this is more posturing.
The EU have announced a number of contingency plans in the event of No Deal. These include a little-commented proposal to extend the deadline for a fisheries agreement by one year.
Of course, the UK would have to agree to reciprocal measures, but I think it is likely that as a minimum, they will agree to these.
I suspect Switzerland may turn out to offer some insights into the way ahead. Switzerland has a set of sector-based agreements with the EU, and (amazingly) have managed to secure an arrangement whereby the mechanism for arbitration of any related disputes is not via the CJEU but a joint body.
The Swiss have freedom of movement as well (and recently voted not to end that). I'm sure if we were willing to agree to that it would help lubricate no end of solutions ;-)
Yes.
I actually had someone on another message board furiously disagree with me when I said many months ago that the UK had already left the EU. It's apparent that many people don't know this because the practical impacts have been cushioned until now.
I ultimately had to point them to the UK government's own website statement on the matter.
The difference in the case of the UK is a vocal contingent that will seize on any deal whatsoever as an intolerable capitulation.
In many ways, the history of Switzerland's relations with the EU since the 1980s offers lots of insights into Brexit.
I was careful not to use the word "solution" in my post. Switzerland is walking a tightrope too, and could yet retreat into autarky if those with a narrow view of sovereignty prevail. What that situation does demonstrate is that a series of sector-based agreements can be entered into with a third country.
You had it easy .....
Interesting thoughts from @Eutychus re Switzerland, and how some insights might be gained therefrom - if only our rulers had a ha'porth of common-sense...
One can almost imagine the rabid Brexiteers shouting 'SEND A GUNBOAT!' if Switzerland were somehow to become involved (however marginally) in sovereign English affairs.
It could have been worse. I tried not to work at home very much after dinner, although that was sometimes necessary. A strict rule was to not work on the train - primarily the privacy of clients, but also a definite break.
Well why would it bother them? Keeping Boris in a job is hardly going to be something the EU has an interest in. It's of zero strategic value.
Well, the EU might not be willing to keep on *negotiating* with this sinking island wasteland...other countries might, though.