NPR

They do have a genuine problem of there just isn't enough money, but you can't spend so much on wasted PPE contracts and a far too expensive and too often failing track and trace system and expect sympathy.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:31 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:02 pm Another day; another bumblecunt lie to Parliament; & another; big fat nothing from the Speaker to stop his contempt for the House.

Boris Johnson has incorrectly stated his proposals to fix the social care system will mean “nobody has to pay anything” for means-tested care of up to £100,000.

It comes after the prime minister announced a manifesto-busting hike in national insurance contributions from April 2022, in an effort to tackle the NHS backlog and social care crisis.

During prime minister’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly asked whether he had broken his promise made to the British people to guarantee that no-one needing care will have to sell their home.

“What we’re actually doing is lifting the floor, lifting the guaranteed floor by up to £100,000 where nobody has to pay anything across the country,” the prime minister insisted.

However, while the government document stated those with assets below £20,000 from October 2023 will not have to make any contribution for their care from savings, those with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will only receive state support on sliding scale.

I think it's actually much worse than that because unless I've totally misunderstood that's only for addressing care costs. You remain liable for all the hotel costs, so you'll be in care an awfully long time paying the vast whack yourself before you even get close to the care cap.

Basically it'd be more honest to say we've had a pandemic, we're raising taxes as a result, and it's got little to nothing to do with social care.

That's correct, food and accommodation costs are excluded from the cap. The only thing that counts towards the cap are the costs of care needs, as assessed by you local authority. The likelihood is that people will still be paying out in excess of £150k for residential care before they even get close to reaching the cap. Unless someone has a spare £150k in savings, they'll either have to sell their house to meet these costs, or agree that a charge can be placed against the property when they die.

Oh, and past costs won't count towards the cap. Only spending made once the cap is introduced will count, so if you have already spent a few £100k on care costs, tough.

Furthermore, as the total to be raised from this tax increase won't be sufficient to meet the NHS's additional needs, the chances of any of it actually contributing to social care costs in three years time are vanishingly small.

In the meantime, the requirement that all care workers are vaccinated combined with the cut in Universal Credit (which many care workers receive because their pay is so poor) will only increase pressures on care homes as staff leave to get better paid jobs. Even Amazon pay more than the care sector!

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:13 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:31 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:02 pm Another day; another bumblecunt lie to Parliament; & another; big fat nothing from the Speaker to stop his contempt for the House.

I think it's actually much worse than that because unless I've totally misunderstood that's only for addressing care costs. You remain liable for all the hotel costs, so you'll be in care an awfully long time paying the vast whack yourself before you even get close to the care cap.

Basically it'd be more honest to say we've had a pandemic, we're raising taxes as a result, and it's got little to nothing to do with social care.

That's correct, food and accommodation costs are excluded from the cap. The only thing that counts towards the cap are the costs of care needs, as assessed by you local authority. The likelihood is that people will still be paying out in excess of £150k for residential care before they even get close to reaching the cap. Unless someone has a spare £150k in savings, they'll either have to sell their house to meet these costs, or agree that a charge can be placed against the property when they die.

Oh, and past costs won't count towards the cap. Only spending made once the cap is introduced will count, so if you have already spent a few £100k on care costs, tough.

Furthermore, as the total to be raised from this tax increase won't be sufficient to meet the NHS's additional needs, the chances of any of it actually contributing to social care costs in three years time are vanishingly small.

In the meantime, the requirement that all care workers are vaccinated combined with the cut in Universal Credit (which many care workers receive because their pay is so poor) will only increase pressures on care homes as staff leave to get better paid jobs. Even Amazon pay more than the care sector!

I almost didn't want to confirm because that isn't so much incompetence as lying and taking the piss.

Also, there isn't even a plan detailed for social care. They're not event pretending to demonstrate adequacy. I'd expect better from some bored 15 year olds who until a 15 minute discussion in class had never thought about social care

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:16 am

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:13 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:31 am

I think it's actually much worse than that because unless I've totally misunderstood that's only for addressing care costs. You remain liable for all the hotel costs, so you'll be in care an awfully long time paying the vast whack yourself before you even get close to the care cap.

Basically it'd be more honest to say we've had a pandemic, we're raising taxes as a result, and it's got little to nothing to do with social care.

That's correct, food and accommodation costs are excluded from the cap. The only thing that counts towards the cap are the costs of care needs, as assessed by you local authority. The likelihood is that people will still be paying out in excess of £150k for residential care before they even get close to reaching the cap. Unless someone has a spare £150k in savings, they'll either have to sell their house to meet these costs, or agree that a charge can be placed against the property when they die.

Oh, and past costs won't count towards the cap. Only spending made once the cap is introduced will count, so if you have already spent a few £100k on care costs, tough.

Furthermore, as the total to be raised from this tax increase won't be sufficient to meet the NHS's additional needs, the chances of any of it actually contributing to social care costs in three years time are vanishingly small.

In the meantime, the requirement that all care workers are vaccinated combined with the cut in Universal Credit (which many care workers receive because their pay is so poor) will only increase pressures on care homes as staff leave to get better paid jobs. Even Amazon pay more than the care sector!

I almost didn't want to confirm because that isn't so much incompetence as lying and taking the piss.

Also, there isn't even a plan detailed for social care. They're not event pretending to demonstrate adequacy. I'd expect better from some bored 15 year olds who until a 15 minute discussion in class had never thought about social care

This is the whole point of this part of the Tory party though. They're so completely tied into the extreme capitalist ideology, where the market is the end and not the means, that they genuinely believe that if the money is available, any problem will be solved by the market. They absolutely do think that if they provide the money, someone else will fix it. That works for some things, but it doesn't work for pretty much anything where you need demand to be met by supply completely at 100%. For a market like this, there are only two actual outcomes of a completely free system; either some of the demand is not met (and that's not acceptable in health care, social care or housing, with a suitable set of caveats) or the demand is met to 100% but it's done by suppliers doing the mechanic-breathing-through-his-teeth thing and muttering 'it's going to cost a lot' which is the exact opposite of what a market is for. The former means inadequate provision, the latter enables price gouging and profiteering. But that section of the Tory party is so wedded to the ideology that they can't accept it's true - they prefer to pretend that there must be some market barrier or regulation that they can still remove that'll make it all shiny.

Edit - this also ties in to what Torq said on the previous page. The reason Boris Johnson has no plan is because he thinks the market will sort it if he provides the money. The reason he gets confused and irritable about any question of that is that he thinks it's blindingly obvious that that is what will happen. And he can't understand anyone who thinks differently; when you're wedded to an ideology you can't accept that there's any logical alternative.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:16 am

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:13 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:31 am

I think it's actually much worse than that because unless I've totally misunderstood that's only for addressing care costs. You remain liable for all the hotel costs, so you'll be in care an awfully long time paying the vast whack yourself before you even get close to the care cap.

Basically it'd be more honest to say we've had a pandemic, we're raising taxes as a result, and it's got little to nothing to do with social care.

That's correct, food and accommodation costs are excluded from the cap. The only thing that counts towards the cap are the costs of care needs, as assessed by you local authority. The likelihood is that people will still be paying out in excess of £150k for residential care before they even get close to reaching the cap. Unless someone has a spare £150k in savings, they'll either have to sell their house to meet these costs, or agree that a charge can be placed against the property when they die.

Oh, and past costs won't count towards the cap. Only spending made once the cap is introduced will count, so if you have already spent a few £100k on care costs, tough.

Furthermore, as the total to be raised from this tax increase won't be sufficient to meet the NHS's additional needs, the chances of any of it actually contributing to social care costs in three years time are vanishingly small.

In the meantime, the requirement that all care workers are vaccinated combined with the cut in Universal Credit (which many care workers receive because their pay is so poor) will only increase pressures on care homes as staff leave to get better paid jobs. Even Amazon pay more than the care sector!

I almost didn't want to confirm because that isn't so much incompetence as lying and taking the piss.

Also, there isn't even a plan detailed for social care. They're not event pretending to demonstrate adequacy. I'd expect better from some bored 15 year olds who until a 15 minute discussion in class had never thought about social care

It’s dreadful. This is meant to be a solution that should last decades (Ha!) so an attempt at a cross-party solution would have been ideal. Unless the assumption is the Tories are going to be in power forever. And a day to debate such an issue is ... well, much too short.

Tory MP Craig MacKinlay (Thanet) on #C4News thinks that 100 asylum seekers arriving per day, wanting to work, is *an unacceptably huge number*, but also believes that 200 UK citizens dying every day due to Government policy is *too insignficant to worry about*.
#ToryLiesCostLives

100 > 200

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58495948.amp

Breaking international law again.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:15 am https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58495948.amp

Breaking international law again.

This is what Greece does in the Aegean and the EU generally turns a blind eye to it.

An important piece of research for this thread:

The full list of 2021 Ig Nobel award winners:

Biology Prize: Susanne Schötz, for analysing variations in purring, chirping, chattering, trilling, tweedling, murmuring, meowing, moaning, squeaking, hissing, yowling, howling, growling, and other modes of cat-human communication.

Ecology Prize: Leila Satari and colleagues, for using genetic analysis to identify the different species of bacteria that reside in wads of discarded chewing gum stuck on pavements in various countries.

Chemistry Prize: Jörg Wicker and colleagues, for chemically analysing the air inside movie theatres, to test whether the odours produced by an audience reliably indicate the levels of violence, sex, antisocial behaviour, drug use, and bad language in the movie the audience is watching.

Economics Prize: Pavlo Blavatskyy, for discovering that the obesity of a country's politicians may be a good indicator of that country's corruption.

Medicine Prize: Olcay Cem Bulut and colleagues, for demonstrating that sexual orgasms can be as effective as decongestant medicines at improving nasal breathing.

Peace Prize: Ethan Beseris and colleagues, for testing the hypothesis that humans evolved beards to protect themselves from punches to the face.

Physics Prize: Alessandro Corbetta and colleagues, for conducting experiments to learn why pedestrians do not constantly collide with other pedestrians.

Kinetics Prize: Hisashi Murakami and colleagues, for conducting experiments to learn why pedestrians do sometimes collide with other pedestrians.

Entomology Prize: John Mulrennan Jr and colleagues, for their research study "A New Method of Cockroach Control on Submarines".

Transportation Prize: Robin Radcliffe and colleagues, for determining by experiment whether it is safer to transport an airborne rhinoceros upside down.

robmatic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:17 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:15 am https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58495948.amp

Breaking international law again.

This is what Greece does in the Aegean and the EU generally turns a blind eye to it.

Where in the Aegean?

We have the problem the channel is either UK or French waters, if we had international waters it seems legally we could bump boats back, just we cannot do it into another's EEZ without their permission and them being their to escort such boats

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:20 am

robmatic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:17 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:15 am https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58495948.amp

Breaking international law again.

This is what Greece does in the Aegean and the EU generally turns a blind eye to it.

Where in the Aegean?

We have the problem the channel is either UK or French waters, if we had international waters it seems legally we could bump boats back, just we cannot do it into another's EEZ without their permission and them being their to escort such boats

In the straits between Turkey and the Greek islands - not much in the way of international waters there.

robmatic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:40 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:20 am

robmatic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:17 am

This is what Greece does in the Aegean and the EU generally turns a blind eye to it.

Where in the Aegean?

We have the problem the channel is either UK or French waters, if we had international waters it seems legally we could bump boats back, just we cannot do it into another's EEZ without their permission and them being their to escort such boats

In the straits between Turkey and the Greek islands - not much in the way of international waters there.

They cannot be very good at it looking at the numbers who make it through, though there must be a fair amount of high seas overall, if perhaps not on the routes used. It's almost like it's a pointless cartoon response that doesn't meet the actual problem however

robmatic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:17 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:15 am https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58495948.amp

Breaking international law again.

This is what Greece does in the Aegean and the EU generally turns a blind eye to it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ees-at-sea

In at least one case, the EU border agency, Frontex, is accused of covering up evidence of a Greek pushback operation.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:59 am

robmatic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:40 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:20 am

Where in the Aegean?

We have the problem the channel is either UK or French waters, if we had international waters it seems legally we could bump boats back, just we cannot do it into another's EEZ without their permission and them being their to escort such boats

In the straits between Turkey and the Greek islands - not much in the way of international waters there.

They cannot be very good at it looking at the numbers who make it through, though there must be a fair amount of high seas overall, if perhaps not on the routes used. It's almost like it's a pointless cartoon response that doesn't meet the actual problem however

It's a long coastline and some of the straits are very narrow, less than 10km, so probably quite difficult to stop overall.

The Greeks also have 3.6 million Syrian refugees to deal with.

UK by comparison dealing with ~ 126,000 refugees.

[/url]

10 more years boys, 10 more years

All the stuff about maintaining protection of personal data after Brexit, the stuff about having high standards and even improving on the EU

All bullshit. What a surprise

Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:17 am 10 more years boys, 10 more years

No way it will still be him as PM.
He and the Princess can't afford to live on his salary so he'll be off halfway through his second term to start earning the sort of dosh their lifestyle needs

SaintK wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:16 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:17 am 10 more years boys, 10 more years

No way it will still be him as PM.
He and the Princess can't afford to live on his salary so he'll be off halfway through his second term to start earning the sort of dosh their lifestyle needs

He’ll be so disinterested and fed up with the “meagre” salary that he’ll cut and run to spend the slush funds he’s conned the country out of. I’ve no doubt he has an offshore account with a decent enough slice of PPE and Dido’s Dosh to keep Princess happy when he leaves her for the next one.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:10 am All the stuff about maintaining protection of personal data after Brexit, the stuff about having high standards and even improving on the EU

All bullshit. What a surprise

The thread linked-to is hysterical and hyperbolic. I’m not suggesting there shouldn’t be a suitable framework but DP regulation has run out of control. There’s now a vast burden on all companies and government and a substantial industry in making technically correct but utterly trivial legal complaints about data breaches. Companies and agencies frequently settle because it’s easier than fighting through the courts - particularly with small claims because there’s no costs recovery.

And anyone who’s dealt with the ICO over anything that actually does matter will know that it’s fucking hopeless.

This is one bit of regulation that really needs reform.

On a broader basis, DP regs/GDPR is an EU intervention that I have always been doubtful about. At its core it’s not about privacy at all: it’s about making things more difficult for the US companies and tech giants (who I despise for lots of other reasons) relative to European commercial interests. That’s fine as far as it goes, but we all have to pay for this for no real benefit.

If you regard any commentary which doesn't exactly coincide with your views as: " hysterical and hyperbolic", then you probably won't like the Register's take on this:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/10/ ... k_consult/

Rinkals wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:49 pm If you regard any commentary which doesn't exactly coincide with your views as: " hysterical and hyperbolic", then you probably won't like the Register's take on this:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/10/ ... k_consult/

The Register's article is objectively written and neutral. The article reports government's and others' - Linklaters and ORG - views. This has nothing to do with the character of the ORG member's Twitter thread.

Plim wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:38 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:49 pm If you regard any commentary which doesn't exactly coincide with your views as: " hysterical and hyperbolic", then you probably won't like the Register's take on this:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/10/ ... k_consult/

The Register's article is objectively written and neutral. The article reports government's and others' - Linklaters and ORG - views. This has nothing to do with the character of the ORG member's Twitter thread.

Fundamentally though, in this legislation you see the difference between our government and the EU. The EU legislation was written from the approach of protecting the individual. The UK legislation is written to protect the company.

Plim wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:38 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:49 pm If you regard any commentary which doesn't exactly coincide with your views as: " hysterical and hyperbolic", then you probably won't like the Register's take on this:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/10/ ... k_consult/

The Register's article is objectively written and neutral. The article reports government's and others' - Linklaters and ORG - views. This has nothing to do with the character of the ORG member's Twitter thread.

Well try reading the comments to the article then.

Rinkals wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:12 am

Plim wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:38 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:49 pm If you regard any commentary which doesn't exactly coincide with your views as: " hysterical and hyperbolic", then you probably won't like the Register's take on this:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/10/ ... k_consult/

The Register's article is objectively written and neutral. The article reports government's and others' - Linklaters and ORG - views. This has nothing to do with the character of the ORG member's Twitter thread.

Well try reading the comments to the article then.

The comments aren’t the article. Do you base your views on comments underneath Daily Mail or Guardian articles?

There’s an argument against what the government’s proposing, sure, but there are arguments for reform as well, and arguments about abuse of the system. This isn’t a subject that people generally will froth about unless they’re personally invested in data privacy campaigning. Nor is it a subject that shows moral degeneracy on the part of politicians of any stripe.

This isn't though an argument against the government's proposals and pro reform, it should be between the manors of reform. Then separately dollars to doughnuts this government will utterly screw up any reforms

"Then separately dollars to doughnuts this government will utterly screw up any reforms"

Yes, that is sadly likely.

ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:35 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:16 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:17 am 10 more years boys, 10 more years

No way it will still be him as PM.
He and the Princess can't afford to live on his salary so he'll be off halfway through his second term to start earning the sort of dosh their lifestyle needs

He’ll be so disinterested and fed up with the “meagre” salary that he’ll cut and run to spend the slush funds he’s conned the country out of. I’ve no doubt he has an offshore account with a decent enough slice of PPE and Dido’s Dosh to keep Princess happy when he leaves her for the next one.

I don’t think this is the case - he is more than capable of making money without resorting to a slush fund. He used to make £250k for his Telegraph column and he can always fart out another book about Churchill

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:36 am

ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:35 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:16 am
No way it will still be him as PM.
He and the Princess can't afford to live on his salary so he'll be off halfway through his second term to start earning the sort of dosh their lifestyle needs

He’ll be so disinterested and fed up with the “meagre” salary that he’ll cut and run to spend the slush funds he’s conned the country out of. I’ve no doubt he has an offshore account with a decent enough slice of PPE and Dido’s Dosh to keep Princess happy when he leaves her for the next one.

I don’t think this is the case - he is more than capable of making money without resorting to a slush fund. He used to make £250k for his Telegraph column and he can always fart out another book about Churchill

The slug already owes his publishers a book on Sakespeare for which he received a £500k advance which he's obviously spaffed already. He has even resorted to contacting Shakespearean scholars asking for "assistance" in writing this long overdue tome.
He'll end up doing the rubber chicken speech rounds in the US which will pay him handsomely.

I have to say from significant direct experience. EU regulations are a shambles.

I’ve had to implement many of them. They’re burdensome, poorly thought out for implementation, and mostly badly written to confuse interpretation. I cite UCITS KIIDs, PRIIPs, MIFID 2, solvency II.

The organisation between consultation and implementation is also a shambles.

SaintK wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:58 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:36 am

ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:35 am

He’ll be so disinterested and fed up with the “meagre” salary that he’ll cut and run to spend the slush funds he’s conned the country out of. I’ve no doubt he has an offshore account with a decent enough slice of PPE and Dido’s Dosh to keep Princess happy when he leaves her for the next one.

I don’t think this is the case - he is more than capable of making money without resorting to a slush fund. He used to make £250k for his Telegraph column and he can always fart out another book about Churchill

The slug already owes his publishers a book on Sakespeare for which he received a £500k advance which he's obviously spaffed already. He has even resorted to contacting Shakespearean scholars asking for "assistance" in writing this long overdue tome.
He'll end up doing the rubber chicken speech rounds in the US which will pay him handsomely.

His finances were/are apparently more than a little chaotic, both as pertains to himself, people he was married to and an unknown number of children.

That said whilst I can well believe he's taken an advance for a book he's never delivered on who the actual gets a half a million advance for a book on Shakespeare? Surely if that's what he got that's just a behind the scenes way of funnelling money to Boris and were that the case you're not going to much care about the book anyway. Or maybe I'm wrong and crappy academic dribblings on the bard by a bad classics student sell in huge numbers

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:08 am I have to say from significant direct experience. EU regulations are a shambles.

I’ve had to implement many of them. They’re burdensome, poorly thought out for implementation, and mostly badly written to confuse interpretation. I cite UCITS KIIDs, PRIIPs, MIFID 2, solvency II.

The organisation between consultation and implementation is also a shambles.

It was a good reason for staying in the EU. We're still going to have to deal with them and now we're far less influential in making them more workable, which was an important role we played. Heh ho.

And too for all the EU does have some burdensome ill-directed regs we might want to keep a little bit quiet until we show we can actually do better. And again, sadly, even if we do better ourselves we're not going to get away from EU regs anyway, good times

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:49 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:08 am I have to say from significant direct experience. EU regulations are a shambles.

I’ve had to implement many of them. They’re burdensome, poorly thought out for implementation, and mostly badly written to confuse interpretation. I cite UCITS KIIDs, PRIIPs, MIFID 2, solvency II.

The organisation between consultation and implementation is also a shambles.

It was a good reason for staying in the EU. We're still going to have to deal with them and now we're far less influential in making them more workable, which was an important role we played. Heh ho.

And too for all the EU does have some burdensome ill-directed regs we might want to keep a little bit quiet until we show we can actually do better. And again, sadly, even if we do better ourselves we're not going to get away from EU regs anyway, good times

No, it was a torturous exercise dealing with the EU bodies. They are an embarrassment.

It is infinitely better to have own regulations which are recognised under equivalence.

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:35 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:49 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:08 am I have to say from significant direct experience. EU regulations are a shambles.

I’ve had to implement many of them. They’re burdensome, poorly thought out for implementation, and mostly badly written to confuse interpretation. I cite UCITS KIIDs, PRIIPs, MIFID 2, solvency II.

The organisation between consultation and implementation is also a shambles.

It was a good reason for staying in the EU. We're still going to have to deal with them and now we're far less influential in making them more workable, which was an important role we played. Heh ho.

And too for all the EU does have some burdensome ill-directed regs we might want to keep a little bit quiet until we show we can actually do better. And again, sadly, even if we do better ourselves we're not going to get away from EU regs anyway, good times

No, it was a torturous exercise dealing with the EU bodies. They are an embarrassment.

It is infinitely better to have own regulations which are recognised under equivalence.

Equivalence, alignement and the like isn't going to prove fun, certainly not always infinitely better, often it'll be worse because we'll simply have less influence to make changes we want. Sometimes yes it'll be better, even if only an a broken clock basis given the clowns in government, but regs aren't going to prove fun just because we're out of the EU, they're inherently boring, detailed, restrictive and yet very important

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:35 pm No, it was a torturous exercise dealing with the EU bodies. They are an embarrassment.

It is infinitely better to have own regulations which are recognised under equivalence.

The UK had absolutely no influence and input to the evolution of financial regulations and regulatory bodies within the EU.

None.

The FCA is the best and most reasonable regulatory body in the world to deal with, and is ready to throw EU regs (which again it had absolutely no say on) in a bonfire. Any minute now.



The UK's financial regulations, attitude toward regulations and the hassle there-in will be more or less lock step with the EU for the foreseeable decade purely because the UK was the most influential driver of financial regulation and the shaping of bodies in the EU, bar none. And it was very, very happy with the status quo.

TheNatalShark wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:58 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:35 pm No, it was a torturous exercise dealing with the EU bodies. They are an embarrassment.

It is infinitely better to have own regulations which are recognised under equivalence.

The UK had absolutely no influence and input to the evolution of financial regulations and regulatory bodies within the EU.

None.

The FCA is the best and most reasonable regulatory body in the world to deal with, and is ready to throw EU regs (which again it had absolutely no say on) in a bonfire. Any minute now.



The UK's financial regulations, attitude toward regulations and the hassle there-in will be more or less lock step with the EU for the foreseeable decade purely because the UK was the most influential driver of financial regulation and the shaping of bodies in the EU, bar none. And it was very, very happy with the status quo.

I’m confused

His first 2 paragraphs are extreme childish hyperbolic sarcasm.

FCA significant involvement is not the same as control. The absurd drawn out EU regulations were and are an abomination.

With things as delicate as regulations they need to be well thought out and designed. Not the chaotic collaborative shambles ESMA assembled.

PRIIPs

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-relea ... regulation

‘Exiting the EU has provided us an opportunity to quickly amend technical standards surrounding key information documents as we know that they are not fully achieving the intended aims. We want to ensure that consumers have what they need through transparent information and furthermore through the reduction of potentially misleading information being displayed.'

Mifid

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 415769a57f

The FCA was one of the main architects of Europe’s Mifid rule book, but it has pledged that a post-Brexit UK will not be a “rule taker” from Brussels — a stance likely to lead to new divergences in financial regulations between Britain and Europe.

“Our proposals aim to reduce burdens on investment firms while having regard to growth and the competitiveness of UK financial services,” the FCA said on Wednesday.