Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

Shelga wrote: »

So if they agree some bare bones deal that's little better than a no-deal, what does that mean? I've heard it'll stop the worst immediate impacts of no deal on farmers, but beyond that? What might it mean for manufacturing and services?

It's actually quite hard to find a single, easy-to-understand explanation of all of this!

I don't think there's a bare bones deal on the table; EU has been very clear it's an all or nothing deal and bare bones is exactly what UK tries to get (i.e. deals in the areas they care about and then ignore the areas they don't like). At best UK will get an option to keep paying for current status I'd guess.

Here's a small list of issues that happens on WTO terms at day 1:
1) Leaves EURATOM - No country in the world is allowed to send them radioactive materials or isotops (require a handling body that's approved etc.)
2) No airlines that are UK based can land in EU (require an confirmation the UK regulatory scheme is there to verify the planes are safe to land)
3) Any food products have to go through extensive testing at the border (takes minimum 6 months for certification as per EU law for equivalence and that still require certain percentage checks) meaning a lot of "JIT" delivery will fail going into EU (UK can always wave their own standards after all)
4) All cars get a 10%+ increase globally (cars is one of the heavier taxed imports) for not meeting origin requirements (not enough UK parts to hit 55%)
5) Food tariffs go through the roof in general making export not viable for quite a few products
6) Application for visa to be allowed to travel into EU (expects The Sun to have stories about this for people falling foul of it, not having enough time left on the passport etc...)

And those are not the major issues; once again if UK waves through EU trucks (as is likely to avoid food shortages etc.) other countries will raise hell about it. Sure; WTO cases might take 5 to 10 years but they do come around and there will be billions to pay because of it when they do.

briany

Nody wrote: »

And those are not the major issues; once again if UK waves through EU trucks (as is likely to avoid food shortages etc.) other countries will raise hell about it. Sure; WTO cases might take 5 to 10 years but they do come around and there will be billions to pay because of it when they do.

Everybody and their dog knows that waving EU trucks through is an unofficial part of the Brexit plan and an attempt to maintain a semblance of normality in the supermarkets and stop the public at large from turning on the politicians responsible for this shambles. 5-10 years is enough time for huge financial deregulation to be completed and for the money men to retire to their private islands with their millions and billions, far from UK shores, while the UK public, as a whole, cottons on to how badly they have been duped.

Therefore, if there's any way for the WTO to fast track a case against the UK and make them see consequences for their transparent and cynical ploy, it should be made to happen.

Shelga

Nody wrote: »

I don't think there's a bare bones deal on the table; EU has been very clear it's an all or nothing deal and bare bones is exactly what UK tries to get (i.e. deals in the areas they care about and then ignore the areas they don't like). At best UK will get an option to keep paying for current status I'd guess.

Thanks for that. So you don't reckon they'll just be able to agree with the EU that there'll be zero tariffs on cars and agricultural products?

Currently listening to PMQs. Johnson is just so embarrassing. Painful to listen to. Makes literally everything about Brexit, Starmer is just a Remoaner, blah blah blah.

CelticRambler

Nody wrote: »

Here's a small list of issues that happens on WTO terms at day 1:
1) Leaves EURATOM - No country in the world is allowed to send them radioactive materials or isotops (require a handling body that's approved etc.)
2) No airlines that are UK based can land in EU (require an confirmation the UK regulatory scheme is there to verify the planes are safe to land)
3) Any food products have to go through extensive testing at the border (takes minimum 6 months for certification as per EU law for equivalence and that still require certain percentage checks) meaning a lot of "JIT" delivery will fail going into EU (UK can always wave their own standards after all)
4) All cars get a 10%+ increase globally (cars is one of the heavier taxed imports) for not meeting origin requirements (not enough UK parts to hit 55%)
5) Food tariffs go through the roof in general making export not viable for quite a few products
6) Application for visa to be allowed to travel into EU (expects The Sun to have stories about this for people falling foul of it, not having enough time left on the passport etc...)

The EU has already made a unilateral decision to grant concessions in some areas (e.g. those I've highlighted in red) as they help mitigate the effect of Brexit on EU businesses and EU residents. For some, e.g. the visas, they do require reciprocal action on the part of the UK - but seeing as the UK is far from ready for Brexit (these things do creep up on you, after all ... :pac: ) offering reciprocal arrangements should be the least worst option.

Which, of course, means the Johnson-Cummings administration will probably look for something much more complicated. :rolleyes:

What definitely goes out the window are UK driving licenses (no more renting a car at the airport in Spain or Italy with your basic EU-pink UK-issued licence; no more day-trips in France driving without an international permit) and Pet Passports.

CelticRambler

briany wrote: »

Therefore, if there's any way for the WTO to fast track a case against the UK and make them see consequences for their transparent and cynical ploy, it should be made to happen.

It'd be a lot faster for the EU to impose stringent checks on traffic coming from the UK on the grounds that the UK wasn't carrying out satisfactory checks on their side of the border, with a consequent paralysis of the Kentish road network.

CelticRambler

Shelga wrote: »

Thanks for that. So you don't reckon they'll just be able to agree with the EU that there'll be zero tariffs on cars and agricultural products?

Definitely not. Tariffs are not the EU's priority - standards are (and regulation thereof). And this is what the UK doesn't want to sign up to. No point in the EU agreeing to zero-tariff agricultural produce if the UK uses it to funnel a load of cheap crap into our markets.

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

You should not forget the Faroe Islands trade deal that allows the Faroe fish (caught in British waters) free access to the UK market, but no access the other way - hugely significant, but I cannot remember why.

I don't think the fish is from UK waters. The Faroe Islands have a huge area of EEZ water and in addition much Salmon farming between their islands.

But other than that, I think you are sport on.

Lars

Sam Russell

reslfj wrote: »

I don't think the fish is from UK waters. The Faroe Islands have a huge area of EEZ water and in addition much Salmon farming between their islands.

But other than that, I think you are sport on.

Lars

It includes all fish they catch and they fish in UK waters.

[Edit: I've just remembered why the deal was so important. It was the first one, and is still the most important one!]

Igotadose

When the UK leaves EURATOM, does that mean no more radiation-based therapies?

johnnyskeleton

Shelga wrote: »

Thanks for that. So you don't reckon they'll just be able to agree with the EU that there'll be zero tariffs on cars and agricultural products?

Im open to correction, but WTO doesnt allow industry or product specific trade deals between a nation and a trade block. They can enter a customs union or a free trade area, the latter being an area where there is free trade in substantially all goods and only small limits on goods. So in order to get around the most favoured nation rules they cant have industry specific arrangements, it must be a comprehensive free trade agreement.

Or, of course, they could leave the WTO because it undemocratically imposes its silly rules on a sovereign nation!

CelticRambler wrote: »

It'd be a lot faster for the EU to impose stringent checks on traffic coming from the UK on the grounds that the UK wasn't carrying out satisfactory checks on their side of the border, with a consequent paralysis of the Kentish road network.

The EU will check goods coming in, but theres no reason or basis for them to check goods going out. So if there are no checks or tarrifs on Volkswagen being brought to the UK, then Chevrolet (through the US govt) can demand equal treatment i.e. no checks on their cars going there either

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The EU will check goods coming in, but theres no reason or basis for them to check goods going out. So if there are no checks or tarrifs on Volkswagen being brought to the UK, then Chevrolet (through the US govt) can demand equal treatment i.e. no checks on their cars going there either

Agreed. But that's exactly why the EU could (in principle) carry out a greater number of/more thorough checks of freight arriving from the UK. "You could have agreed reciprocal arrangements, or asked for an extension, but it looks like you're just waving everything through, and you've got history in that regard, so we really need to be careful ..." Voilà: three or four minutes added to the processing time for each truck and now you've got tailbacks as far as the M25, and European hauliers can't be bothered taking loads to the UK ...

Nody

Igotadose wrote: »

When the UK leaves EURATOM, does that mean no more radiation-based therapies?

As it currently stands it's a sort of with the caveat it depends on which type of therapy basically. Some might be possible to stock up on and they can carry on until they are recognized again; others have a very short shelf live of days or a week but the problem is still logistical and classification basically. There's a more detailed answer here from the government back in Nov 2019 but as they call out:

Clinicians raised questions over the logistical timing of these future flights into the UK and onward transport of the radioisotopes to hospitals. If theses radioactive substances do not reach the hospitals early in the morning ready for administration to patients, this will significantly and adversely impact on the amount of radioisotopes that hospitals need to order and budget for.

Another anticipated unwelcome consequence could be increased air transport costs being passed on to hospitals.

Officials confirmed an increased ‘medicines bill’ was a recognised potential outcome of having to create novel no-deal transport routes, but could not comment on whether funding might be available to help hospitals manage extra costs.

.
Why is this a problem? Well...

The most common radioisotope used in healthcare is Technetium-99m (99mTc). This extremely useful element has a half-life of just six hours, and so is transported to hospitals and radiopharmacies in the form of ‘technetium-99m generators’. These devices contain the decaying parent element, molybdenum-99 (99Mo) which has a half-life of sixty-six hours. As the UK has no research reactors capable of producing 99Mo, the element is imported via an efficient and reliable system.

Speaking to the House of Commons Health Committee in December last year, Dr Jeanette Dickson, Vice-President of the Faculty of Clinical Oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, raised a number of concerns related to radioisotopes and Brexit, which are also of particular relevance to no-deal.

Dr Dickson noted that if imported radioisotopes suffered delays then “the guarantee of supply will not be there and what comes out at the other end will not be, essentially, what we paid for.”

“If you delay that at customs or through border issues, you have paid for 100 but you get 50 doses. You therefore cannot treat patients adequately…and you are incurring a massive cost for the NHS”.

Dr Dickson also cast doubt on the government’s plan to transport radioisotopes into the country by air, pointing to the lack of specialist handlers and airport capacity.

“There are concerns about increasing the number coming in by air,” she told the Health Committee, “Most of the medical radioisotopes come through Coventry Airport, and there is a good bulk of expertise there on how to manage them efficiently and effectively. Does it have the capacity if we increase the amount coming in by air? We do not think so.”

All from this article.

Capt'n Midnight

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Achieved nothing? They have achieved so many things. Such as blue passports and.. eh.. you know, all those other things.

Yeah, about that
Coronavirus: UK passport application backlog reaches 400,000

Asked how long it would take to clear the backlog, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told BBC Breakfast he did not know - "it's not quite my area", adding that the Home Office was working hard to clear it.
...
The Passport Office is advising only people going away before September or those travelling on compassionate grounds should apply now for a passport.

"it's not quite my area", :rolleyes:

I get that covid will slow down things, but September ? when they had since March to plan for this. Brexit in a nutshell.


Even though travel should be way down, there's lots of demand , what is going on over there ?

Capt'n Midnight

UK is still actively diverging from EU on all things data. Hard to know if it's their own choice or there's US influence.

This isn't an EU body. But it's a Brexit "taking back control" by abandoning any influence it has even though it will create lots of issues in the future.

It's withdrawn its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.

much of the UPC’s functioning was built around legal processes developed through the English legal system – something reinforced by the oversized role of the United States in patents worldwide. The UPC should consider rebuilding itself more on the German and French legal systems now the UK is out, some argue.

ambro25

CelticRambler wrote: »

(...)

What definitely goes out the window are UK driving licenses (no more renting a car at the airport in Spain or Italy with your basic EU-pink UK-issued licence; no more day-trips in France driving without an international permit) and Pet Passports.

We are affected by both points.

As the 'new registration' procedure for UK-in-EU just started in most EU27 (1st July here in Lux, application sent week commencing 6 July and nothing heard since), it's still not clear to us, how that will affect UK-in-EU with a UK driving license already registered in the EU27 country of residence (ie Mrs ambro25). Will the UK license be swapped for a national one? Or the recognition cancelled out? Do we need to request an international one from DVLA? <what?>

Same with dog, British + British pet passport, having no end of trouble 'importing' him officially for a new/replacement passport (Lux or French) over issues about the chip/chip data ownership on the UK side. If that doesn't get sorted by 1st Jan, then what? Even if it gets sorted by then, then what/how do we visit UK with him post 1st Jan? Where's the procedures, rules...any info?

ambro25

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK is still actively diverging from EU on all things data. Hard to know if it's their own choice or there's US influence.

This isn't an EU body. But it's a Brexit "taking back control" by abandoning any influence it has even though it will create lots of issues in the future.

It's withdrawn its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.

That was long expected, if you can be bothered to search & find my posts about the UPC in the earlier Brexit threads: I'm talking years here (10 whole threads ago!)

The UPC was not EU *but* the appeal process *would* involve the ECJ (minorly, and only to the extent that any point of appeal would involve interpretation of Community law itself).

Anyway...after the German Constitutional Court upheld one of the German challenges to the signature of the UPCA not so long ago, and with the sprinkling of Brexiting UK on top, the UPC was never going to happen any time soon.

As a profession, we've been pushing, lobbying and trying since 1973 for a pan-european patent litigation forum. I guess pushing, lobbying and trying for another decade or three before it comes about, doesn't really matter.

It's not a 'true' Brexit casualty (had Germany yay'd it for good, it would have gone ahead with or without the UK).

But Brexit certainly did not help (the same is true if the UK had yay'd it for good, it would have gone ahead minus Germany).

EDIT: worth noting that, true to Conservative "spaffing public money at the wall" governance at the time and to this day, the UK was the first of the 3 (Paris for 2nd first instance Court, Luxembourg for Appeals) to outfit its UPC Court in full, complete with offices, audience room, desks, computer records system etc. in London. 2 or 3 years ago, as I recall.

Coincidentally I met one of the directors of the Italian software outfit which designed the UK UPC records system here in Luxembourg last year, we were exploring a consult contract about the Appeals records system in Lux. Shelved within weeks of the German constitutional court decision.

ancapailldorcha

Igotadose wrote: »

When the UK leaves EURATOM, does that mean no more radiation-based therapies?

I don't know. At the very least, it represents short term disruption which will harm those in need of said therapies most. I would like to think that the Brexiters will be willing to compromise on this. I think they'll have to because it's a very ugly look to have people dying preventible deaths for ideological reasons. Well, moreso than we're seeing now.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. At the very least, it represents short term disruption which will harm those in need of said therapies most. I would like to think that the Brexiters will be willing to compromise on this. I think they'll have to because it's a very ugly look to have people dying preventible deaths for ideological reasons. Well, moreso than we're seeing now.

Compromise what though? Easy to say compromise but no one ever seems to be able to have an idea on what?

Fish maybe, ECJ, LPF perhaps?

The problem is that Brexit itself was always going to be a compromise, but was never sold as anything but a great bid for freedom with little downside.

Johnson has talked about No Deal so long that it seems that they are boxing themselves into a corner where any compromise will be seen as capitulation.

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. At the very least, it represents short term disruption which will harm those in need of said therapies most. I would like to think that the Brexiters will be willing to compromise on this. I think they'll have to because it's a very ugly look to have people dying preventible deaths for ideological reasons. Well, moreso than we're seeing now.

More likely that the EU would compromise on it though, I would think. People not dying is the sort of human rightsey compassionate view that the EU has lots of, whereas the Brexiteers are somewhat lacking in that department, and some prominent Brexiteers want to remove themselves from the COE and ECHR.

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

More likely that the EU would compromise on it though, I would think. People not dying is the sort of human rightsey compassionate view that the EU has lots of, whereas the Brexiteers are somewhat lacking in that department, and some prominent Brexiteers want to remove themselves from the COE and ECHR.

People won't die due to lack of availability of medical isotopes, it'll be due to either avoidable delays on the Brexit side, or unaffordable costs on the Brexit side. There's nothing there on which the EU can compromise - it's entirely in the hands of the Brexiters.

It'll be a similar situation with regard to the Pet Passports: the UK will have to ask the EU to be "listed" as a third country recognised for its good animal welfare protocols. The EU wouldn't have any problem granting such recognition, especially seeing as the UK - in the past - was arguably the most active member in pushing for increased animal welfare standards; but it's the asking that'll be problematic for the Brexiters. Nothing says #TakeBackControl wasn't such a great idea like going cap-in-hand to the EU and asking "Please Sirs, can we join your club?" :rolleyes:

Leroy42

Exactly. An extension to the transition period was obvious and the right decision for both parties but ideology meant the UK refused to request it even when they knew they were not going to be ready on time.

johnnyskeleton

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I disagree. People maybe dying (due to to Tory stupidity) in a non member hostile competitor state is nowhere near as important as thousands dying across all members due to a global pandemic.

All rhetoric aside, the UK are not a hostile competitor state, at least not in the EUs eyes. At worst they are like an annoying little brother.

If there is a big humanitarian crisis in the UK, the EU will offer to send aid if it can. Maybe the UK wouldnt sccept such aid, but thats a separste matter.

EU goal is protecting members from UK stupidity this was more or less accomplished by chipping northern Ireland away and buying time for private sector to adjust. Trade deal was a nice to have, at end of day UK will just let trucks pass negating a need for a deal in short to medium term.

I dont agree with any of that. The EUs goal is peace and cooperation in Europe. Northern Ireland wasnt chipped away but regardless, the motivation behind the EUs NI policy was maintaining peace not insulating memberstates from the UK. The EU hasnt been trying to buy time, they have genuinely tried to reach a comprehensive trade deal with the UK, albeit one that suits them rather than one that suits the UK. The EU has very little control over how long the UKs departure took, it was 100% a UK choice at every stage. A trade deal is more than just nice, and will be done eventually, whether now or in 5 years time. The UK may try to sinply wave trucks through without checks, but this strategy will not last indefinitely.

CelticRambler wrote: »

People won't die due to lack of availability of medical isotopes, it'll be due to either avoidable delays on the Brexit side, or unaffordable costs on the Brexit side. There's nothing there on which the EU can compromise - it's entirely in the hands of the Brexiters.

When it comes to it, if people are dying in the UK, the EU will look for ways to stop that. I agree with you re the additional costs, but the EU will seek to avoid the suggestion that they are withholding medicines at all costs. So if it comes down to it and there is no comprehensive deal and the UK want mini deals, the EU will stand firm on most but not on medicines or medical treatments.

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

When it comes to it, if people are dying in the UK, the EU will look for ways to stop that. I agree with you re the additional costs, but the EU will seek to avoid the suggestion that they are withholding medicines at all costs. So if it comes down to it and there is no comprehensive deal and the UK want mini deals, the EU will stand firm on most but not on medicines or medical treatments.

There again, though, how will we know that people are dying due to lack of access to medicines/isotopes from EU-based suppliers? Can we count on the Johnson-Cummings regime to freely admit that Brexit has made things worse for the NHS, and they need to request humanitarian assistance? Or will we see Johnson (or Gove or Hancock) making a grand statement about how they've struck a deal with the US to fly in the same products at six times the cost as part of a programme to ensure that the NHS offers a world-class service? (please ignore the inconvenient fact that it was world class till we messed everything up. Oh look, a squirrel)

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Compromise what though? Easy to say compromise but no one ever seems to be able to have an idea on what?

Fish maybe, ECJ, LPF perhaps?

The problem is that Brexit itself was always going to be a compromise, but was never sold as anything but a great bid for freedom with little downside.

Johnson has talked about No Deal so long that it seems that they are boxing themselves into a corner where any compromise will be seen as capitulation.

I wasn't referring to anything like that. I was hoping an exception could be made specifically for radioisotopes used for cancer therapy.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

More likely that the EU would compromise on it though, I would think. People not dying is the sort of human rightsey compassionate view that the EU has lots of, whereas the Brexiteers are somewhat lacking in that department, and some prominent Brexiteers want to remove themselves from the COE and ECHR.

I don't know. I wouldn't put it past the Conservatives to use this as some sort of totemic proof that the EU is caving.

I'm still not sure what Johnson's strategy is. He's not stupid enough to think no deal will benefit the country and he wants to be Churchill. No deal means severe austerity just after the pandemic and it'll be all self-inflicted.

I agree with you regarding the EU being more compassionate but this could be a slippery slope for them.

johnnyskeleton

CelticRambler wrote: »

There again, though, how will we know that people are dying due to lack of access to medicines/isotopes from EU-based suppliers? Can we count on the Johnson-Cummings regime to freely admit that Brexit has made things worse for the NHS, and they need to request humanitarian assistance? Or will we see Johnson (or Gove or Hancock) making a grand statement about how they've struck a deal with the US to fly in the same products at six times the cost as part of a programme to ensure that the NHS offers a world-class service? (please ignore the inconvenient fact that it was world class till we messed everything up. Oh look, a squirrel)

I dont disagree with any of that. But my point is that medicines is one of the few areas where the EU will compromise, not out of weaknese but out of compassion

Leroy42

So the latest round of talk have concluded in London, and based on the statements from the Frost and Barnier, it seems that both sides are as far apart as they always were.

Both sides seem very entrenched on their positions and as the phrase goes, seem to be talking past each other.

So where does that leave us? It appears that No Deal is fast becoming the likely outcome, with the only hope being that some very limited deal may be struck to reduce the biggest negative impacts. What of course could be happening, and this was the case with the WA, is that the narrative is created where a deal is no possible, but at the last minute Johnson is seen to visit Macron, Merkel or in the case of WA Varadkar, and 'he' forces a deal.

That enables him to sell it to a grateful nation as a triumph of UK daring do over the bureaucrats and it is rushed through with minutes to spsare without time to properly review. Only in 2021 do the facts actually start to come out.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the latest round of talk have concluded in London, and based on the statements from the Frost and Barnier, it seems that both sides are as far apart as they always were.

Both sides seem very entrenched on their positions and as the phrase goes, seem to be talking past each other.

So where does that leave us? It appears that No Deal is fast becoming the likely outcome, with the only hope being that some very limited deal may be struck to reduce the biggest negative impacts. What of course could be happening, and this was the case with the WA, is that the narrative is created where a deal is no possible, but at the last minute Johnson is seen to visit Macron, Merkel or in the case of WA Varadkar, and 'he' forces a deal.

That enables him to sell it to a grateful nation as a triumph of UK daring do over the bureaucrats and it is rushed through with minutes to spsare without time to properly review. Only in 2021 do the facts actually start to come out.

Or alternatively, BJ agrees to apply at the last minute for a short extension (because of Covid), and the EU reluctantly agrees to grant it, but it must be two years.

BJ says it was Covid what done it, and the Telegraph, Express, Sun, and DM all agree it was a magnificent achievement for BJ. No one mentions 'oven ready' or 'Brexit' or 'taking back control'.

ambro25

Sam Russell wrote: »

Or alternatively, BJ agrees to apply at the last minute for a short extension (because of Covid), and the EU reluctantly agrees to grant it, but it must be two years.

BJ says it was Covid what done it, and the Telegraph, Express, Sun, and DM all agree it was a magnificent achievement for BJ. No one mentions 'oven ready' or 'Brexit' or 'taking back control'.

All commentators currently agree that the legality of an extension at this late stage (post-June deadline) is massively problematic, so I wouldn't go investing much in that alternative.

It can't be completely ruled out, of course (and it would fly in the UK as you suggest...or through sheer apathy caused by Brexit exhaustion). But the EU has significantly less room to fudge legality, particularly in dealings with what is already a 3rd country, all ex-member that it may be.

Currently, all things being equal, the ultras (and that includes Cummings & Co, not just the ERG) are more in charge and more invested in a 'no deal' outcome, than at any time before, and the prize is now well in sight.

So I'd still put more faith in what the UK self-servingly called a 'managed no-deal' (I know, I know) as an outcome, ie relying upon the EU's unilateral mini-deal as last tabled at the previous cliff edge, to save the furniture.

CelticRambler

ambro25 wrote: »

... ie relying upon the EU's unilateral mini-deal as last tabled at the previous cliff edge, to save the furniture.

... so it can be burnt as fuel the following winter? :pac:

ambro25

CelticRambler wrote: »

... so it can be burnt as fuel the following winter? :pac:

...by the British Army, according to the latest initiative from Johnson.

@JenniferMerode just published a masterful Brexit-history-class-in-a-Twitter-thread today, about Business for Britain's 2015 "Change, or Go" Brexit manifesto (of Matthew Elliott fame, who was B for B's chief exec, went on to run Vote Leave, is currently in No.10).

I'm sorry I can't link it here (can't do Twitter on my early gen coal-powered iPad), but it really is worth seeking out.