Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:


Same goes for the animal thing, you have to be a vegan in 2017 if you want to argue to ban fox hunting, if you're not, you're a hypocrite or you hold two contradictory opinions.

No you don't. You could weigh the suffering of animals towards the benefit we get from that suffering and decide that the benefit to society outweighs the suffering of animals in one case and doesn't in another case.

Then you'd be saying that the benefit of the pleasure of eating meat as opposed to eating other foods is in some way objectively more real or important than the benefit of pursuing your chosen sporting leisure activity. To the extent that it's possible to parse between these two activities, it's pretty clear that eating meat is the less valuable of the two, what with usable farming land surface, greenhouse gas emission and health implications of eating lots of meat vs health benefits of doing sport and the fact that there's an historical/cultural aspect to it.

Objectivity doesn't enter into it, we judge that we get more utility than disutility out of eating meat but less utility than disutility from killing animals for fun.

I just read the funniest thing by a Tory supporter on facebook. He claimed the 50% tax rate for highest earners was reduced to 45% in order to create 'an incentive for them to work harder, earn more wages and more productivity which meant more taxes being paid by the rich and wealthy and less tax being paid by the poorest'.

I actually spat my tea out I'm laughing so hard. How could anyone type that with a straight face, let alone believe it!

He is right.

Raise taxes on the wealthy and they go elsewhere, or don't see the point in investing where they pay more tax and you get less money raised as tax.

5% margins dont have that dynamic though.

Now they're complaining that Corbyn's car 'injured' a journalist. If you're going to deliberately crowd a moving vehicle you obvious risk having your feet run over.

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:


Then you'd be saying that the benefit of the pleasure of eating meat as opposed to eating other foods is in some way objectively more real or important than the benefit of pursuing your chosen sporting leisure activity. To the extent that it's possible to parse between these two activities, it's pretty clear that eating meat is the less valuable of the two, what with usable farming land surface, greenhouse gas emission and health implications of eating lots of meat vs health benefits of doing sport and the fact that there's an historical/cultural aspect to it.

That's not really correct. We eat meat because we are as a species omnivores and we have evolved to have a small amount of that material in our diet. Until we can grow meat and protein substitutes (at which point killing animals for meat becomes unnecessary) then eating meat is part of a requirement of our metabolism. However these animals (in the UK) are raised to certain standards with welfare in mind and that their death is quick and painless as possible without stressing the animal. What you don't do when you want a steak is get out the chainsaw and hack off part of the rump and then leave the animal to suffer before dying. The butchering of a fox by a hunt has nothing to do with feeding the population but is basically some people getting a hard on whilst they torture a random animal. The slaughtering of calf by slitting it's throat and letting it's heart beat out the blood whilst it suffocates is just as bad as fox hunting so there are forms of meat manufacture that are also barbaric (and as pointed out before I don't agree with battery farms). It's the same with anything that puts an animal through unnecessary stress and suffering (for example cutting off a sharks fin and then throwing the shark back in the water to drown).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Now they're complaining that Corbyn's car 'injured' a journalist. If you're going to deliberately crowd a moving vehicle you obvious risk having your feet run over.

Unnecessary, nobody needs a fake news story to discredit comrade Corbyn.

Also he is a public figure, and one trapped in a car. Dip Pro police actually do have the right to break the law while defensive driving. Regular police and emergency services can only do so 'at their own risk'. All the police driver has to claim is that trapping Corbyn's car jeapordises his safety and it can legally tread on toes (sic).

Political consequences can still occur, but the road law is automatically on the side of a Dip Pro car that is in potential danger, and as leader of the opposition Corbyn is entitled to Dip Pro.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

There are lots of practices that used to be enacted but no longer because they are inhumane/cruel/barbaric etc.

Such as.

The romans thought rape was acceptable (especially after conquering a city). Slavery and so on. We now understand the suffering out acts can cause and as we are (supposedly) an intelligent species then that understanding should bring an ability to understand the impacts we have on the world around us and the effects it has. It's not really acceptable to say some people should be allowed to continue barbaric acts because they are in a minority, otherwise why not just allow humans sacrifices in satanic rituals?

The hunts can still go out, chase a trail and so on. The only thing they can't do is barbarically butcher a fox at the end of it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Now they're complaining that Corbyn's car 'injured' a journalist. If you're going to deliberately crowd a moving vehicle you obvious risk having your feet run over.

I've got to wonder whether this is a traffic accident or a reportable work injury to the HSE. BBC could be in a lot of trouble if they don't provide health and safety advice about not being ran over (to be fair it's probably something all the reporters and camerapeople have training on).

It was a recordist or cameraman from the BBC. Just an unlucky accident.

https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/05/10/the-uk-government-wants-to-embarrass-you-into-not-watching-porn/#.tnw_DGwEFSco

But actually putting age verification into practice is guaranteed to be a disaster, that at will undoubtedly prevent adults from accessing porn, and at worst lead to an Ashley Madison-style privacy catastrophe.

One idea is that users register their age at the Post Office.

" Book of 1st class and a spank license please. "

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was a recordist or cameraman from the BBC. Just an unlucky accident.

Yes, but the BBC still have a duty of care over their staffs health. That means ensuring the correct protective gear for their staff, being given proper training etc. For example being cameraperson in a crush chasing after cars driving into and out of driveways would you assume carry a reasonable risk of feet being run over. Therefore the BBC should really be providing protective gear (and maybe a high vis jacket).

He was wearing British Army issue armoured boots. Due to austerity budget cuts they were sub-spec and failed.

 reds8n wrote:
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/05/10/the-uk-government-wants-to-embarrass-you-into-not-watching-porn/#.tnw_DGwEFSco

But actually putting age verification into practice is guaranteed to be a disaster, that at will undoubtedly prevent adults from accessing porn, and at worst lead to an Ashley Madison-style privacy catastrophe.

One idea is that users register their age at the Post Office.

" Book of 1st class and a spank license please. "

Basically middle England is a prude (but almost certainly partake).

Hmmm, lovely state censorship. Also don't forget as PO are now privately run they will probably sell your details to every company going. Hence your letter box will become full of adverts for penis enlargers, female Viagra and whatever other nonsense automated spambots send out. It could in fact have the opposite effect as everyone's letter boxes gets filled up with such junk and then parents will have to explain to their children what it all means.

Realistically though such censorship could be far worse meaning children use underground sites that could make them far more vulnerable.

In what fething universe is it "controversial" that the PM of the Uk ( or one would suggest anyone anywhere) be extremely cautious when deciding whether or not to kill millions of people ?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#China

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:


Same goes for the animal thing, you have to be a vegan in 2017 if you want to argue to ban fox hunting, if you're not, you're a hypocrite or you hold two contradictory opinions.

No you don't. You could weigh the suffering of animals towards the benefit we get from that suffering and decide that the benefit to society outweighs the suffering of animals in one case and doesn't in another case.

Then you'd be saying that the benefit of the pleasure of eating meat as opposed to eating other foods is in some way objectively more real or important than the benefit of pursuing your chosen sporting leisure activity. To the extent that it's possible to parse between these two activities, it's pretty clear that eating meat is the less valuable of the two, what with usable farming land surface, greenhouse gas emission and health implications of eating lots of meat vs health benefits of doing sport and the fact that there's an historical/cultural aspect to it.

Objectivity doesn't enter into it, we judge that we get more utility than disutility out of eating meat but less utility than disutility from killing animals for fun.

Oh, I see. Then objectivity doesn't enter into it, I judge that you are wrong.

 reds8n wrote:
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/05/10/the-uk-government-wants-to-embarrass-you-into-not-watching-porn/#.tnw_DGwEFSco

But actually putting age verification into practice is guaranteed to be a disaster, that at will undoubtedly prevent adults from accessing porn, and at worst lead to an Ashley Madison-style privacy catastrophe.

One idea is that users register their age at the Post Office.

" Book of 1st class and a spank license please. "

Pf all the things to legislate and worry about with a massive nation changing event happening.
And the sheer cost of the whole plan, data bases, registering systems, forma, staff. ...

Hey.. I'm so so and so. A admin for the government Porn licensing authority....
Yaya fun job titles lol.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:


Then you'd be saying that the benefit of the pleasure of eating meat as opposed to eating other foods is in some way objectively more real or important than the benefit of pursuing your chosen sporting leisure activity. To the extent that it's possible to parse between these two activities, it's pretty clear that eating meat is the less valuable of the two, what with usable farming land surface, greenhouse gas emission and health implications of eating lots of meat vs health benefits of doing sport and the fact that there's an historical/cultural aspect to it.

That's not really correct. We eat meat because we are as a species omnivores and we have evolved to have a small amount of that material in our diet. Until we can grow meat and protein substitutes (at which point killing animals for meat becomes unnecessary) then eating meat is part of a requirement of our metabolism. However these animals (in the UK) are raised to certain standards with welfare in mind and that their death is quick and painless as possible without stressing the animal. What you don't do when you want a steak is get out the chainsaw and hack off part of the rump and then leave the animal to suffer before dying. The butchering of a fox by a hunt has nothing to do with feeding the population but is basically some people getting a hard on whilst they torture a random animal. The slaughtering of calf by slitting it's throat and letting it's heart beat out the blood whilst it suffocates is just as bad as fox hunting so there are forms of meat manufacture that are also barbaric (and as pointed out before I don't agree with battery farms). It's the same with anything that puts an animal through unnecessary stress and suffering (for example cutting off a sharks fin and then throwing the shark back in the water to drown).

I could make a more convincing an argument from evolutionary psychology that combative sports and those which most closely replicate the 'hunt' serve an evolved psychological need than that eating meat serves a dietary one.

No good nutritionist will tell you that meat is a necessary part of the human diet. I'm a weightlifter and a big time meat eater, but I recognise that eating meat is a lifestyle choice, not a need based on my omnivorous nature. We have an appendix, male nipples and a vestigial tail (and generally maladapted spine and hip girdle arrangement), that doesn't mean we should be living as do the primate who still have these traits in their fully functional form. You're welcome to disagree but the science won't back you up on this, there are cheaper, healthier sources of dietary protein than meat and dairy and they are environmentally less damaging to farm. We currently can't grow meat substitutes in an economically viable way, but my proposition about hypocrisy was very specifically temporal in that regard, so I don't know what point you think you're making there.

As far as the relative suffering involved, well now you're clearly doing mental and ethical gymnastics to try to make it right. There's so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start. I'm going to let your rather hysterical tone and the flagrantly evocative and selective language you use when talking about fox hunting, but the detachment and resignation with regards animal farming, speak for itself, I think.

Firstly, the big thing. Meat and dairy farming is a massive industry, in terms of sheer scale the overall suffering inflicted on animals by their use in blood sports would be infinitesimal compared to that inflicted by their farming for food, even if we agreed some preposterous differential in the suffering quotient involved in the two practices of 100 to 1.

The next thing which you seem ethically and morally blind about is that these animals live a life before they die. An animal bred and reared and kept for its meat has as pitiful and pointless an existence as it's possible for a living organism to be said to have, if such terms are meaningful when talking about animals (which I assume you must believe they are). There's absolutely nothing that says an animal used in blood sports can't be wild its whole life until the very day of its death, or at least kept as well as the most loved and treasured purpose trained dog.

As for the death itself, I think it's fair to concede that farmed animals, in general and in the West, are slaughtered as humanely as is economically viable. However I'm not as certain as you that this process is less stressful for the animal than the kind of life or death struggle involved in the climax of a blood sport event, for which animals are evolved. My personal favourite mechanism for making blood sports involving animals more ethical is for there to be a significant possibility of the animal's escape and, where hunting or fighting with humans is involved, for the animal to kill the human. That's ancillary though, I think even if the death was agreed to be brutal and horrifying in the case of sport and totally painless and blissful in the case of the meat industry (you'd have to have spent more time on a killing floor than I have to be able to expound so confidently on this I think) that's as nothing compared to the issues of scale, life value and relative worth in terms of the human experience involved.

I've been on God's Earth for 40 odd years, and in that time, one theme keeps repeating itself time after time:

If you raise taxes, the rich will take their money elsewhere and they won't invest etc etc

We know from things like the Panama papers that the rich are actively avoiding and evading tax regardless of what the tax rate is.

They do not want to pay. Period.

So this horsegak about the rich going abroad and trickle down economics is just that: horsegak!

Yet this myth persists year after year.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/05/10/the-uk-government-wants-to-embarrass-you-into-not-watching-porn/#.tnw_DGwEFSco

But actually putting age verification into practice is guaranteed to be a disaster, that at will undoubtedly prevent adults from accessing porn, and at worst lead to an Ashley Madison-style privacy catastrophe.

One idea is that users register their age at the Post Office.

" Book of 1st class and a spank license please. "

Pf all the things to legislate and worry about with a massive nation changing event happening.
And the sheer cost of the whole plan, data bases, registering systems, forma, staff. ...

Hey.. I'm so so and so. A admin for the government Porn licensing authority....
Yaya fun job titles lol.

You can add lifting the ban on fox hunting to the list of pointless stuff the Tories want to do after June 8th.

So to sum up: you'd better not be a disabled fox from Romania claming benefits after June 8th, because the Tories will be after you...

That's the future of Conservative Britain...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've been on God's Earth for 40 odd years, and in that time, one theme keeps repeating itself time after time:

If you raise taxes, the rich will take their money elsewhere and they won't invest etc etc

We know from things like the Panama papers that the rich are actively avoiding and evading tax regardless of what the tax rate is.

They do not want to pay. Period.

So this horsegak about the rich going abroad and trickle down economics is just that: horsegak!

Yet this myth persists year after year.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/05/10/the-uk-government-wants-to-embarrass-you-into-not-watching-porn/#.tnw_DGwEFSco

But actually putting age verification into practice is guaranteed to be a disaster, that at will undoubtedly prevent adults from accessing porn, and at worst lead to an Ashley Madison-style privacy catastrophe.

One idea is that users register their age at the Post Office.

" Book of 1st class and a spank license please. "

Pf all the things to legislate and worry about with a massive nation changing event happening.
And the sheer cost of the whole plan, data bases, registering systems, forma, staff. ...

Hey.. I'm so so and so. A admin for the government Porn licensing authority....
Yaya fun job titles lol.

You can add lifting the ban on fox hunting to the list of pointless stuff the Tories want to do after June 8th.

So to sum up: you'd better not be a disabled fox from Romania claming benefits after June 8th, because the Tories will be after you...

That's the future of Conservative Britain...

Better yet, add a fox with a spare room in your den, have a 5 cubs and you like watching foxy ladies online lol.

That fox be having a bad day. All it else needs is a name, Jeroemy Crobyn and ots day even worse!

essentially perhaps we're ungovernable .

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

I could make a more convincing an argument from evolutionary psychology that combative sports and those which most closely replicate the 'hunt' serve an evolved psychological need than that eating meat serves a dietary one.

You could try, but you'd still be wrong. Everyone has a dietary need for protein, yet not everyone has a psychological compulsion to hunt. You can get the same psychological effects without watching a dog tear a fox apart. Sports, actual hunting, etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


So this horsegak about the rich going abroad and trickle down economics is just that: horsegak!

I'm convinced it's actually trickle up economics: Give the poor a stack of cash and it'll end up in the savings account of the rich within a few transactions (they'll have to spend it in businesses owned by the rich), but give the rich a stack of cash and it'll end up in the savings account of the rich immediately (because they don't need to spend it).

Herzlos wrote:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

I could make a more convincing an argument from evolutionary psychology that combative sports and those which most closely replicate the 'hunt' serve an evolved psychological need than that eating meat serves a dietary one.

You could try, but you'd still be wrong. Everyone has a dietary need for protein, yet not everyone has a psychological compulsion to hunt. You can get the same psychological effects without watching a dog tear a fox apart. Sports, actual hunting, etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


So this horsegak about the rich going abroad and trickle down economics is just that: horsegak!

I'm convinced it's actually trickle up economics: Give the poor a stack of cash and it'll end up in the savings account of the rich within a few transactions (they'll have to spend it in businesses owned by the rich), but give the rich a stack of cash and it'll end up in the savings account of the rich immediately (because they don't need to spend it).

I like the sound of trickle up economics.

I honestly believe that flying helicopters over Britain and dumping cash on random towns would probably boost the economy more. Critics would say that the poor would spend it on booze and cigarettes, but at least then, the government would get money back from the duty on booze and cigarettes and thus help with the balance sheet.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

essentially perhaps we're ungovernable .

That's just nuts. What a country we are.

If the SNP ran candidates all over the UK, the Tories would probably be on the ropes by now...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Therefore I would like more information about what a Bad Deal is going to look like.

Free trade in goods only, services still subject to some restrictions. Supervision by EU agencies in which the UK will no longer have a say.

A Canada-lite deal, basically.

That sounds to me a lot better than No Deal (but not as good as being in the EU) however I suspect the EU agency supervision will be vetoed by the hardcore sovereignty fans.

Ultimately it is a question of whether people value economic factors over political ones.

Pretty much. But of course accepting the first thing Europe puts on the negotiating table would probably be perceived as losing face so not sure how it will end up.

Herzlos wrote:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

I could make a more convincing an argument from evolutionary psychology that combative sports and those which most closely replicate the 'hunt' serve an evolved psychological need than that eating meat serves a dietary one.

You could try, but you'd still be wrong. Everyone has a dietary need for protein, yet not everyone has a psychological compulsion to hunt. You can get the same psychological effects without watching a dog tear a fox apart. Sports, actual hunting, etc

To restate the obvious, since you've apparently decided to wade in without having read the preceding arguments; there are other, better, cheaper and more environmentally sound sources of dietary protein than meat and dairy.

I didn't say everyone has a psychological need to hunt. Are you saying that everyone has a physiological need to eat meat? No, so I won't pretend that you did, even if it would be convenient for me to do so. Read. Understand. Respond. It's a tried and tested method. If you want to have a conversation with yourself don't jump into someone else's.

What I said was that a stronger argument could be made for the psychological benefits of hunt-replicating sports involving the use of animals than for the nutritional benefits of eating meat, even assuming that one wished to avoid the unnecessary suffering of animals.

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Therefore I would like more information about what a Bad Deal is going to look like.

Free trade in goods only, services still subject to some restrictions. Supervision by EU agencies in which the UK will no longer have a say.

A Canada-lite deal, basically.

That sounds to me a lot better than No Deal (but not as good as being in the EU) however I suspect the EU agency supervision will be vetoed by the hardcore sovereignty fans.

Ultimately it is a question of whether people value economic factors over political ones.

Pretty much. But of course accepting the first thing Europe puts on the negotiating table would probably be perceived as losing face so not sure how it will end up.

The first three things on the table are:

1. Status of EU citizens living abroad. This applies as much to the Britons living in Spain as the Polish living in the UK.

2. Status of the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will be a 300 miles long interface between an EU and a non-EU country. Since the independence of Eire, the hardness of the border has varied depending on various factors. It isn't impossible to have a soft border and the 30,000 people who commute to work daily over it would prefer to keep it. In fact many people of both parts of Ireland think that Brexit makes re-unification less unthinkable, due to economic factors. This of course would remove the problem entirely.

3. The so-called £85 billion bill for projects that the UK has already subscribed to. This includes things like the pensions of soon-to-be-ex-EU employees of British nationality.

The Daily Rant has been highly exercised about the monstrous injustice of point 3, but it's actually only 4.5% of the UK's annual GDP, so if paid over a period of several years it would be pretty neglible, assuming people care more about economic than nationalistic factors.

Which brings us back to the key point of the whole thing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
.

3. The so-called £85 billion bill for projects that the UK has already subscribed to. This includes things like the pensions of soon-to-be-ex-EU employees of British nationality.

They don't need to. A mate of mine in Luxembourg told me all British EU employees havr been briefed they can keep their posts if they want to.

It's different if you're there as a representative of the UK in some commission, but career civil servants will keep their jobs.

Those who have been there for enough years for the most part are applying for French/Belgian/Lux citizenship however. Just in case.

As per the Irish border it really depends on how hard Britain wants the border to be, but even then provisions can be made for border areas. For example residents of the Tangiers region can enter Ceuta and Melilla without a Visa.

They still can't take up employment and they still need a visa for the mainland (or any other EU country for that matter) but for isolated territories like islands it's a template to look at.

I think the paying in bill would be easier to swallow if we continue to reap benefits of certain projects at the same time. Us being expected to keep paying in but cut off from such assets isn't reasonable. But as we're being expected to agree to keep paying up front before other discussion, I don't know what we're getting.

We shouldn't keep paying in billions in to prop them up with nothing back at the same time. The attitude that after decades of paying in we have no return on EU assets because it's all gone into some black hole that all belongs to 'the EU' of which we have nothing, is very dubious. Who exactly owns it then? If every country left? A handful of plutocrats in Brussels?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think the paying in bill would be easier to swallow if we continue to reap benefits of certain projects at the same time. Us being expected to keep paying in but cut off from such assets isn't reasonable. But as we're being expected to agree to keep paying up front before other discussion, I don't know what we're getting.

We shouldn't keep paying in billions in to prop them up with nothing back at the same time. The attitude that after decades of paying in we have no return on EU assets because it's all gone into some black hole that all belongs to 'the EU' of which we have nothing, is very dubious. Who exactly owns it then? If every country left? A handful of plutocrats in Brussels?

That is something for the negotiation.

As far as I understand it, part of the bill will pay for things like pensions for British EU employed staff (whether they keep their jobs or not, they are still due a pension.) Some of the bill is for commitments to cross-EU projects that Britain is leaving of its own choice (Ha!) and cannot expect to remain part of. IN this case, it's all very well to take the view that blah blah quid pro auo but that isn't going to happen and unless you want to cut off your nose to spite you face, you had better accept that the UK needs to butter up the EU to keep some degree of the access to the free market and so on that our economy needs.

Or just say feth 'em, we'll take our chances on living in a shoe box eating gravel for the next 10 years because SOV RIN TEEEEE!!!

 Kilkrazy wrote:


As far as I understand it, part of the bill will pay for things like pensions for British EU employed staff (whether they keep their jobs or not, they are still due a pension.) Some of the bill is for commitments to cross-EU projects that Britain is leaving of its own choice (Ha!) and cannot expect to remain part of. IN this case, it's all very well to take the view that blah blah quid pro auo but that isn't going to happen and unless you want to cut off your nose to spite you face, you had better accept that the UK needs to butter up the EU to keep some degree of the access to the free market and so on that our economy needs.

Something like half the exit bill will eventually go back to the UK with interest. The rescue package to Ireland and the emergency loans to Ukraine the UK signed guarantee for.

OK, maybe the Ukrainian loans aren't 100% secure, but it's pretty safe as far as development aid goes, and you're giving Putin the finger in the process, which is a nice bonus.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Therefore I would like more information about what a Bad Deal is going to look like.

Free trade in goods only, services still subject to some restrictions. Supervision by EU agencies in which the UK will no longer have a say.

A Canada-lite deal, basically.

That sounds to me a lot better than No Deal (but not as good as being in the EU) however I suspect the EU agency supervision will be vetoed by the hardcore sovereignty fans.

Ultimately it is a question of whether people value economic factors over political ones.

Pretty much. But of course accepting the first thing Europe puts on the negotiating table would probably be perceived as losing face so not sure how it will end up.

The first three things on the table are:

1. Status of EU citizens living abroad. This applies as much to the Britons living in Spain as the Polish living in the UK.

2. Status of the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will be a 300 miles long interface between an EU and a non-EU country. Since the independence of Eire, the hardness of the border has varied depending on various factors. It isn't impossible to have a soft border and the 30,000 people who commute to work daily over it would prefer to keep it. In fact many people of both parts of Ireland think that Brexit makes re-unification less unthinkable, due to economic factors. This of course would remove the problem entirely.

3. The so-called £85 billion bill for projects that the UK has already subscribed to. This includes things like the pensions of soon-to-be-ex-EU employees of British nationality.

The Daily Rant has been highly exercised about the monstrous injustice of point 3, but it's actually only 4.5% of the UK's annual GDP, so if paid over a period of several years it would be pretty neglible, assuming people care more about economic than nationalistic factors.

Which brings us back to the key point of the whole thing.

the problem with point three is that we don't know what we are getting for it. If they said that we want an £85bn bill, but in exchange we guarantee the rights of UK citizens, give you a free trade deal, agree to reimburse the UK investment in the EU bank and pay back the UK proportion of EU assets - plus allow the UK to stay in beneficial mutual agreements (like the sciences) then sure - most reasonable people would be happy to pay it (or at least pay something in the ballpark)

This bill is none of these, it's "Pay me £85bn and MAYBE we'll come to agreement on the other things" no country in it's right mind would pay that. Oh - and as for 'it's for pensions', even the EU admits it's actually for things like funding future EU initiatives and the farming policy - and interestingly even EU lawyers admit that legally we don't have to pay a thing - which make you wonder what the EU politicians are playing at.

[...]and interestingly even EU lawyers admit that legally we don't have to pay a thing - which make you wonder what the EU politicians are playing at.

Oh I'm gonna take a wild guess...blackmail?